POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 25
SHEVUOS 25 (16 Adar I) - dedicated anonymously to merit a Refu'ah Sheleimah
for all who need, in Klal Yisrael.
1) MULTIPLE TRANSGRESSIONS FOR ONE EATING (cont.)
(a) Answer #6 (Ravina): The Tana only lists transgressions
that only apply to food, oaths apply to other things as
2) THE TYPES OF "SHEVU'AS BITUY"
(b) Objection: Hekdesh applies to sticks and stones!
(c) Correction: Rather, the Tana only lists transgressions
that only apply to tangible things;
1. Oaths apply to intangible things, e.g. I will sleep
(or not sleep).
(a) (Mishnah): Oaths of Bituy apply to a person's own things,
and to other people's; they apply to tangible and
3) MUST THE OATH APPLY TO THE FUTURE?
1. If Reuven swore 'I will give (or not give) to
Ploni', 'I gave (or did not give) to Ploni', 'I will
(or will not) sleep', 'I slept (or did not sleep)',
'I will (or will not) throw a rock into the sea', 'I
threw (or did not throw) a rock into the sea'.
(b) R. Yishmael says, one is only liable (a sacrifice) for
oaths regarding the future - "Lehara O Leheitiv".
(c) R. Akiva: If so, he should only be liable for doing good
or evil - what is the source to include neutral things
(e.g. throwing a rock into the sea)?
(d) R. Yishmael: The Torah (says "L'Chol Asher Yivatei" to)
(e) R. Akiva: This also includes oaths about the past!
(f) (Gemara - Beraisa): In some ways, Nedarim are more
stringent than Shevu'os; in some ways, Shevu'os are more
1. A stringency of Nedarim over Shevu'os: Nedarim take
effect on Mitzvos just as on optional matters,
Shevu'os do not;
(g) (Mishnah): If Reuven swore 'I will give (or not give) to
2. A stringency of Shevu'os over Nedarim: Shevu'os take
effect on intangible things just as on tangible
things, Nedarim do not.
(h) Question: What does this mean?
1. If it means Tzedakah to a poor person - "Nason Titen
Lo", the oath (we accepted on Sinai) already
obligates him (so his oath does not takes effect)!
(i) (Mishnah): 'I will (or will not) sleep'.
2. Rather, it means a gift to a rich person.
(j) Question: But R. Yochanan taught, one who swears 'I will
not sleep for three days', we lash him (for a Shav oath)
and he may sleep immediately!
(k) Answer: That is when he specified three days; here, he
did not specify (Rashba - he intends, 'I will not sleep
until I must') R. Chananel, Rosh - he specified one or
(a) (Mishnah): 'I will (or will not) throw a rock into the
(b) (Rav): 'I swear that Ploni threw (or did not throw) a
rock into the sea' - he is liable (for an oath of Bituy
if this is false);
(c) (Shmuel): He is exempt.
1. Rav obligates - since the oath applies in the
positive and negative, it is Bituy;
(d) Suggestion: They argue as the following Tana'im argue.
2. Shmuel exempts - since it does not apply to the
future, it is not Bituy.
1. (Mishnah - R. Yishmael): One is liable only for
oaths of Bituy about the future;
(e) Rejection: Indeed, we must say that Rav holds like R.
i. R. Akiva: If so, he should only be liable for
doing good or evil - what is the source to
include neutral things (e.g. throwing a rock
into the sea)?
2. Rav holds like R. Akiva, Shmuel holds like R.
ii. R. Yishmael: The Torah includes this (by saying
"L'Chol Asher Yivatei").
iii. R. Akiva: This also includes oaths about the
1. R. Yishmael cannot agree to Rav's law, for R.
Yishmael exempts (all) oaths of the past, even those
that could apply to the future, all the more oaths
that could not apply to the future!
(f) Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue as the following Tana'im
2. But R. Akiva could agree to Shmuel's law;
i. We only heard R. Akiva obligate for oaths of
the past that could apply to the future -
perhaps he exempts for oaths that could not
apply to the future!
4) SWEARING ABOUT KNOWING TESTIMONY
1. (Mishnah): If one swore not to fulfill a Mitzvah and
he fulfilled it, he is exempt;
(g) Rejection: Indeed, we must say that Shmuel holds like
2. If he swore to fulfill a Mitzvah and did not fulfill
it, he is exempt.
3. One might have thought to obligate, like R. Yehudah
i. R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if one is liable
for (failing to keep) an oath about something
optional, which he is not forced to do on
account of the oath we accepted on Sinai, all
the more so for an oath to fulfill a Mitzvah,
which he is forced to fulfill on account of the
oath from Sinai!
4. Rav holds like R. Yehudah ben Beseira, Shmuel holds
ii. Chachamim: No - he is liable for an oath about
something optional, because such an oath could
be made in the positive or negative;
iii. He is exempt for an oath to fulfill a Mitzvah,
because such an oath can only be made in the
positive, not in the negative!
1. R. Yehudah ben Beseira obligates an oath even if it
does not apply to the negative, all the more so if
(it applies to the negative but) not to the future!
(h) Question (against Shmuel - Rav Hamnuna - Mishnah): Reuven
said 'I did not eat today', or 'I did not don Tefilin
today'; Shimon said 'I impose an oath on you', and Reuven
answered 'Amen' - he is liable (if he lied).
2. But Chachamim could agree to Rav's law.
i. Chachamim say that one is liable only for an
oath thatcould be made in the positive or
negative, as we explicitly learn from "Lehara O
ii. Perhaps they do not require that it can be in
the future, since we only learn oaths of the
past by expounding extra words.
1. We understand why he is liable for 'I did not eat' -
he could take this oath in the future (I will eat);
(i) Answer (Rav Hamnuna): There are different liabilities for
the two oaths.
2. But why is he liable for 'I did don Tefilin' - he
could not swear 'I will not don Tefilin', the oath
of Sinai obligates him to don Tefilin!
1. For 'I did not eat', he is (even) liable to bring a
sacrifice (if he did not intend to swear falsely);
(j) Question (against Shmuel - Rava - Mishnah): The case of
Shevu'as Shav: he swore to negate what people know to be
true, e.g. about a stone pillar that it is of gold.
2. For 'I did not don Tefilin', he is liable to lashes
(if he was warned not to swear falsely and did so
1. (Ula): He is liable only if three people know that
this is false.
(k) Answer (Rava): (Ula): If people know, the oath is Shav;
2. Inference: If people do not know, this is Bituy,
even though it does not apply to the future (to say
'it will be of gold')!
1. If people do not know, this is a false oath (but he
is not liable for Bituy).
(a) (Abaye): Rav admits that if one swore falsely 'I know
testimony for you', he is exempt, because the negative
version of this (I do not know testimony for you) is not
Bituy, rather Shevu'as ha'Edus.
1. Rav and Shmuel argue regarding 'I knew testimony for
you' and 'I did not know testimony for you' (in
situations where the testimony is no longer needed),
and about 'I testified for you' and 'I did not
testify for you'. (Rav obligates, Shmuel exempts;
(b) According to Shmuel, 'I do not know testimony for you'
would not be considered Bituy, since it does not apply to
the future; therefore, we understand why the Torah had to
write the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Edus, to obligate a
sacrifice for this.
i. These oaths apply to the positive and negative,
but not to the future - it is not in his
control to know testimony or not, and if he
knows, he is commanded to testify.)
(c) Question: According to Rav, it is Bituy even though it
does not apply to the future - why did the Torah have to
write the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Edus to obligate a
(d) Answer #1 (Rabanan): To obligate him a second sacrifice.
(e) Rejection (Abaye - Beraisa): "L'Achas me'Eleh" - he only
brings one sacrifice.
1. Question: How does Abaye answer?
(f) Answer #2: Like the following Beraisa.
1. (Beraisa): Regarding the other transgressions for
which one brings an Oleh v'Yored, it says
'v'Ne'elam', but not regarding Shevu'as ha'Edus -
this teaches that one brings a sacrifice for
Shevu'as ha'Edus even if he intentionally
(g) Suggestion (Rabanan): Perhaps he brings one sacrifice if
he sinned intentionally, and two if he sinned
(h) Rejection (Abaye): I already taught you, "L'Achas
me'Eleh" - he only brings one sacrifice;
1. This teaches when he sinned unintentionally - if
intentionally, he cannot bring a sacrifice for
Bituy, no verse is needed to exclude bringing two
(i) (Rava): "L'Achas me'Eleh" is not needed for Shevu'as
ha'Edus (rather, it teaches about one who swore not to
eat and ate three types of food);
1. Whenever the Torah gives new laws to a particular
case which was part of a general rule (e.g. 'I do
not know testimony for you', which (should have
been) a Shevu'ah of Bituy, was given the name and
special laws of Shevu'as ha'Edus), the laws of the
general rule no longer apply.
(j) Inference: Abaye holds that it is also considered Bituy.
(k) Question: But Abaye said that Rav admits that 'I know
testimony for you' is exempt (from Bituy) because 'I do
not know testimony for you' is not Bituy!
(l) Answer #1: Abaye retracted from saying that Rav admits.
(m) Answer #2: One of these two teachings was actually said
by Rav Papa (and mistakenly attributed to Abaye).