ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 28
(a) In the previous Sugya, we cited the Beraisa 'Mi she'Nadar Sh'tei Neziros
u'Manah Rishonah ve'Hifrish Alehah Korban, ve'Achar-Kach Nish'al al
ha'Rishonah, Alsah Lo Sheniyah ba'Rishonah'. This Beraisa creates a problem
for Rava (who requires something substantial to remain of the Shevu'ah,
before one can annul it) - inasmuch as it permits the Neder to be annulled
even though the thirty day period is over, and nothing remains.
(b) We reconcile Rava with the Beraisa ...
1. ... initially - by establishing it by where the Kaparah was not yet been
effected (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).
2. ... after citing another Beraisa which establishes it by 'Kipar' (and
'Hifrish Alehah Korban' really means 'Hikriv' [Ritva]) - by establishing it
where the Nazir had not yet shaved off his hair (according to Rebbi Eliezer,
who considers this crucial to the Mitzvah).
3. ... after citing a third Beraisa which establishes it by 'Gilach' - by
differentiating between our case, where the Shevu'ah has been irreparably
broken, and the case of Nezirus, which is replaced retroactively by the
second Nezirus, when the first one is annulled (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).
(a) Ameimar disagrees with Rava. According to him, his Shevu'ah can be
annulled even after the Nishba contravened the Shevu'ah and ate the loaf. We
say that, assuming he ate it ...
1. ... be'Shogeg - because the Chiyuv Korban still remains.
(b) In the latter case, Ameimar permits it up to the time that he is tied to
the Amud to receive Malkos - because, as we learned in Makos, Shmuel exempts
from Malkos, a sinner who is tied to the Amud and who breaks free and runs
out of Beis-Din, seeing as he has already been disgraced.
2. ... be'Meizid - because the Chiyuv Malkos still remains.
(c) We refute Ameimar's latter statement however - seeing as that is only if
he escaped, but not otherwise.
(d) Consequently, it is possible to annul his Shevu'ah - up to the time that
he receives Malkos (unless he escapes before that).
(a) In a case where someone makes a Shevu'ah not to eat loaf a. if he eats
loaf b., and he ate loaf b. be'Shogeg and loaf a. be'Meizid - Rava exempts
him from Malkos.
(b) Had he eaten loaf a. be'Shogeg - Rava would have exempted him from a
Korban, too (for the same reason, which we will present shortly).
(c) In the reverse case, where he ate loaf b. be'Meizid and loaf a.
be'Shogeg - Rava sentences him to Malkos.
(d) The basis of the difference between the two previous rulings is - the
fact that the Chiyuv of a Shevu'ah which is connected to a condition comes
into effect when the first act takes place (not at the time when the Nishba
declares the Shevu'ah), and (based on the D'rashah "ha'Adam", 'bi'Shevu'ah')
that act must be performed be'Meizid. Note, that if he ate loaf a.
be'Meizid, and loaf b. be'Shogeg, he is Patur too, because he concluded the
Isur be'Shogeg (Tosfos ha'Rosh).
(a) Based on the previous S'vara, Rava rules that in a case where the Nishba
ate both loaves ...
1. ... be'Shogeg - he is Patur (since the first act was performed be'Shogeg,
as we just explained).
(b) Nor will it help to warn him before he eats loaf b., making it a
Hasra'as Vaday - because the warning must be issued immediately prior to the
transgression, and not prior to the condition.
2. ... be'Meizid, first loaf b. (the T'nai), and then loaf a. - he is Chayav
3. ... be'Meizid, first loaf a. and then loaf b., he will Chayav Malkos,
according to Rebbi Yochanan, but Patur according to Resh Lakish (who holds
'Hasra'as Safek Lo Sh'meih Hasra'ah').
(a) When Rava then discusses ...
1. ... 'Tal'an Zu be'Zu', he means - that the Nishba forbade each loaf on
the condition that he ate the other one.
(b) He rules 'Patur' on the first loaf - because he subsequently ate the
T'nai be'Shogeg (which exempts him from Malkos, as we learned earlier); nor
can he be Chayav a Korban for eating the T'nai be'Shogeg, since he ate the
Isur be'Meizid, and he rules 'Patur' on the second load - because since he
forgot about the T'nai when he ate it, the Shevu'ah does not take effect in
the first place (as we also learned earlier).
2. ... a case where he ate each one 'be'Zadon Atzmah ve'Shigegas Chavertah',
he means - that when he ate each loaf, he remembered that he made a Shevu'ah
not to eat it, but he forgot about the T'nai (the condition not to eat the
second loaf if he ate this one).
(c) When Rava ...
1. ... discusses a case where he ate each one 'be'Shigegas Atzmah ve'Zadon
Chavertah', he means that the Nishba remembered that what he was eating was
a T'nai for the other loaf, but not that the loaf that he was eating was
(d) If he ate both loaves be'Shogeg, Rava rules Patur (because of "ha'Adam"
'bi'Shevu'ah'), and if he ate both be'Meizid, he is Chayav for the second
one - but Patur for the first one, according to Resh Lakish, since it is a
2. ... rules 'Chayav' - he means that he is Chayav a Korban on the second
loaf, because the Shevu'ah took effect when he ate the first one remembering
that it was a T'nai on the second one. He is Patur from the first loaf
however, because, although he later remembered the T'nai, since he forgot
the Isur when he ate the it, the Shevu'ah did not take effect in the first
(a) The Mishnah in Nedarim lists four types of Neder that do not take
effect, one of them is 'Nidrei Shegagos'. The Tana there rules that if
someone declared something Asur on the assumption that he had eaten or drunk
that day (thinking that he had not), and then remembered that in fact, he
had - he is Patur.
(b) The second case that the Tana includes in Nidrei Shegagos is - if he
declared something Asur in the event that he would eat or drink that day,
and he subsequently forgot the T'nai and ate, he is permitted to eat the
specified food or drink.
(c) Rav Mari proves from here - Rava's ruling that if the Nishba first ate
the T'nai loaf be'Shogeg, he will be Patur should he later eat the loaf of
(d) Rav Mari knows that the Mishnah ...
1. ... which is speaking specifically about Nidrei Shegagos, extends to
Shevu'os Shegagos - because the Beraisa equates them.
2. ... is speaking where the Nishba connected his Neder to a condition,
because, if he was speaking when he simply said 'Konem Alai Achilah', and
forgot and ate - then the word 'Mutar' would make no sense, seeing as he had
already transgressed the Neder.
3. ... means Patur and Mutar, because, if the Tana meant Patur from Malkos,
then - firstly that would be obvious (seeing as he transgressed be'Shogeg),
and secondly - because that would be interpreting 'Mutar' as Patur, when
really, it has very different connotations.
(a) When Eifah (who was learning Shevu'os in Rabah's Yeshivah) in reply to
his brother Avimi's question, answered 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Achalti, Shevu'ah
she'Lo Achalti' replied 'Eino Chayav Ela Achas' (because of the principle
'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah'), the latter commented - that he was
mistaken, since each Shevu'ah, the moment it was uttered, was an
independant Shevu'as Shav).
(b) The principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah' applies - only in the
future ('Konem Alai Kikar Zu, Konem Alai Kikar Zu' [since there, each
Shevu'ah effects the validity of the Shevu'ah, but is not a transgression]).
(c) And when Avimi asked Eifah further what the Din will be if someone
1. ... that he would not eat nine figs, and then that he would not eat ten,
he ruled - that he will be Chayav for each Shevu'ah (because he considered
them to be two separate Shevu'os).
(d) Avimi corrected his brother's ...
2. ... that he would not eat ten figs, and then that he would not eat nine,
he ruled - that he will only be Chayav for the first Shevu'ah (because of
the principle that 'nine is included in ten').
1. ... earlier ruling however - on the grounds that someone who does not eat
nine figs, does certainly not eat ten (in which case the second Shevu'ah is
included in the second one).
2. ... latter ruling, on the grounds that - the first Shevu'ah implied that
he would not eat ten figs but that he would perhaps eat nine (and the second
Shevu'ah, comes to forbid nine figs too).
(a) Abaye quoted a ruling of Rabah. In a case where someone declared that
he would not eat figs and grapes, and then, after declaring that he would
not eat figs, he ate figs and after then designating a Korban for having
transgressed the second Shevu'ah, he went and ate grapes, Rabah ruled - that
he was Patur from a Korban for eating the grapes.
(b) The grapes did not combine with the figs to obligate him to bring a
Korban on the first Shevu'ah, too - because he had already designated a
Korban when he ate them.
(c) Nor was he Chayav anyway for eating the grapes alone - since that
constituted 'Chatzi-Shi'ur' (meaning half the designated Shi'ur), for which
one is not Chayav.
(d) Abaye partially corroborated Eifah's latter ruling from there - because
likewise in that case, he would be Patur for eating the tenth fig only after
he had designated a Korban for eating the first nine.