ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 39
(a) The Beraisa requires Shevu'as ha'Dayanim to be said - in whichever
language the Nishba understands.
(b) Beis-Din told the Nishba before he swore - that when Hashem announced
"Lo Sisa es Shem Hashem Elokecha la'Shav", the whole world trembled.
(c) The Torah writes "ve'Nakeh" by other sins (in Ki Sisa in the thirteen
Midos of Rachamim) - but "Lo Yenakeh" by Shevu'as Shav.
(d) Someone who commits other sins is subject to ...
1. ... personal punishment, whereas someone who sins by making a Shevu'as
Shav - subjects his family and even the entire world to different levels of
punishment (as we shall see).
2. ... Mechilah up to two or three generations, someone who sins by making a
Shevu'as Shav - is punished immediately.
(a) When rhe Pasuk in Zecharyah (with regard to someone who swears falsely)
writes "u'Va'ah el Beis ha'Ganav ve'el Beis ha'Nishba bi'Shemi la'Shaker
ve'Lanah be'Soch Beiso ve'Chilatu, ve'es Eitzav ve'es Avanav", "Ganav"
refers to - Reuven who 'steals the minds of people', by claiming that Shimon
owes him money and causes him to swear that he doesn't.
(b) The significance of 'the stones' is - that even something which is
virtually indestructible ('i.e. fire and water cannot destroy it') will be
destroyed as a result of a Shevu'as Shav.
(c) When the Tana writes that a defendant who declines to swear 'Potrin Oso
Miyad', he means - that Beis-Din make him pay immediately and send him home
(before he has a chance to change his mind).
(d) The Tana quotes the Pasuk "Suru Na me'Al ha'Anashim he'Resha'im
ha'Eileh" - in connection with a litigant who chooses to swear, because it
is preferable to avoid swearing if possible, and rather to pay.
(e) Commenting on the plural use of the Pasuk, we quote Rebbi Shimon ben
Tarfon, who extrapolates from the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh bein
Sheneihem" - that the Mashbi'a is as much part of the Shevu'ah as the
Nishba, meaning that he must avoid causing his disputant to swear, and that,
in the event that he swears falsely, he must share in the blame.
(a) If a litigant chooses to swear, they inform him - that he is swearing
according to the understanding of Hashem and that of Beis-Din (to ensure
that he does not 'fiddle' his oath [like the case of 'Kanya de'Rava' (in
'Shevu'os Shetayim' Basra, as we explained there]).
(b) Moshe Rabeinu too incorporated everyone in the Shevu'ah of Sinai
(according to the Da'as of Hashem and his own Da'as, negating any counter
thoughts that they may have had in their hearts) in the Pasuk "ve'Lo Itchem
Levadchem Anochi Koreis es ha'Alah ha'Zos ... ". From the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'es Asher Einenu Poh Imanu ha'Yom" we learn - that this includes
even future generations whose Neshamos stood at Har Sinai even if they
themselves did not, and even Geirim, whose Mazel' stood there (see Agados
(c) We learn the latter - from the D'rashah 'Kiymu Mah she'Kiblu K'var',
meaning that they applied the Shevu'ah of Har Sinai to the new Mitzvah of
2. ... "Kiymu ve'Kiblu ha'Yehudim" - that the Shevu'ah also extends to
Mitzvos which the Rabbanan would later instigate, such as Mikra Megilah.
(d) The Mishnah in Sotah permits Parshas Sotah, Viduy Ma'aser, K'ri'as
Sh'ma, Tefilah, Birchas ha'Mazon, Shevu'as ha'Eidus - and Shevu'as
ha'Pikadon to be said in any language that one understands.
(a) We cannot attribute the world trembling when "Lo Sisa" was said to the
fact that it ...
1. ... was said at Sinai - because why did it not then tremble when the
other nine Dibros were said?
(b) The reason that the whole world trembled was - because the Torah wrote
by them ''Lo Yenakeh'' and that the Nishba's family and the whole world
stand ot receive punishment for the false Shevu'ah.
2. ... is falls under the category of stringent matters - because the
Beraisa defines all Aseis and Lo Sa'aseh's (including Shevu'os Shav) as
'Kalos', restricting Chamuros to Chayvei Kareis and Misos Beis-Din.
(c) When the Torah writes "Lo Yenakeh" with regard to other sins ("ve'Nakeh
Lo Yenakeh"), it is o teach us Rebbi Elazar's D'rashah - 'Menakeh Hu
le'Shavim ve'Eino Menakeh le'she'Einan Shavim' ...
(d) ... implying that with regard to Shevu'as Shav, even Shavim do not get
off without punishment [see Agados Maharsha]).
(a) With regard to the Pasuk "Ve'samti Ani es Panai ba'Ish ha'Hu
u've'Mishpachto" - Rebbi Shimon explains in a Beraisa that when there is
sneak or a robber in the family, it generally means that his family are in
the know and cover up for him, and that is that situation to which the Torah
(b) We reconcile the above Beraisa, which distinguishes between Shevu'as
Shav (for which the family get punished too) and other sins (for which they
don't), by quoting Rebbi in a Beraisa - who Darshens "Ve'hichrati Oso" 'Oso
be'Hikareis, ve'Lo Kol ha'Mishpachah be'Hikareis', whereas by Shevu'as Shav,
the family receive the same punishment as the sinner.
(c) We Darshen from the Pasuk (in the Tochachah) "Ve'Chashlu Ish be'Achiv" -
that each Jew is responsible for another Jew's sins, and is therefore
punished together with the sinner.
(d) And we reconcile it with the Beraisa that distinguishes between Shevu'as
Shav, for which the whole world gets punished too, and other sins, for which
they don't - by restricting the Pasuk in the Tochachah to when one is able
to stop the sinner from sinning, whereas by Shevu'as Shav, the world is
punished even when they can't.
(a) The Resha'im in the Nishba la'Shav's family share in his fate, and those
of the world receive a heavy punishment, whereas when it comes to other
sins, the Resha'im ...
1. ... in the sinner's family - receive a heavy punishment.
(b) And whereas the Tzadikim both in the Nishba la'Shav's family and in the
rest of the world receive a light punishment, when it comes to other sins,
the Tzadikim ...
2. ... of the world - receive a light punishment.
1. ... in the sinner's family ...
2. ... and of the world - are not punished at all (see Agados Maharsha).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the minimum claim for which a 'Modeh
be'Miktzas' is Chayav a Shevu'ah is two Kesef. Rav holds 'Kefiras Ta'anah
Sh'tei Kesef', meaning - that the denial must be at least two Kesef over and
above the admission of a P'rutah (in which case the initial claim must be at
least two Kesef plus a P'rutah).
(b) According to Shmuel - the initial claim needs to be only two Kesef, and
the defendant is Chayav Shevu'ah whether he admits to a P'rutah or denies a
(c) Our Mishnah implies like Rav, says Rava, and the Pesukim like Shmuel. He
extrapolates from our Mishnah 'ha'Ta'anah Sh'tei Kesef ve'ha'Hoda'ah Shaveh
P'rutah' (as well as from the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, 'Chamishah P'rutos
Hein, ha'Ona'ah ... ve'ha'Hoda'ah') - that the Tana clearly does not include
the Kefirah (the denial) amongst the list of things that require a P'rutah,
as it ought to have done according to Shmuel.
(a) The Pasuk writes in Mishpatim (in connection with the Shomer Chinam) "Ki
Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Kesef O Keilim Li'shmor". We learn from ...
1. ... "Keilim" - that (like Keilim) the claimant must claim at least two
(b) We reject the Lashon 'Af Keilim Davar Chashuv' - because this D'rashah
applies only to articles that are not Keilim (such as food, as we shall see
2. ... ''Kesef" - that whatever the claimant demands, it must be something
that is Chashuv, in order to exact a Shevu'ah from the defendant.
(c) We already learned that "Ki Hu Zeh" (the continuation of the current
Pasuk) is the source for the Shevu'ah of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'. Rava now
extrapolates from the Pasuk like Shmuel - because the Torah is now saying
that as long as the defendant admits to a P'rutah out of a claim of two
Kesef, he is Chayav a Shevu'ah.
(d) Rav counters this proof - from the fact that we need "Ki Hu Zeh" to
teach us Modeh be'Miktzas (and not to connect the admission to the claim of
(a) Shmuel counters this with the fact that the Torah writes "Hu" and "Zeh",
one to teach us 'Modeh be'Miktzas, the other, that he swears on a claim of
two Kesef, whereas Rav learns from the second D'rashah 'Modeh mi'Miyn
ha'Ta'anah' - by which he means that the defendant only swears if he admits
to part of the same species that is being claimed from him (as we learned in
our Mishnah ['Ta'ano Chitin, ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin Patur]').
(b) The Pasuk will continue to support Shmuel even then however - because,
when all's said and done, the claim was two Kesef and the admission a
P'rutah (and no mention is made of an independent Kefirah.
(c) Consequently, we change Rav's source to "Kesef", which is superfluous -
because we already know that there is no Shevu'ah on less than two Kesef
(d) And Shmuel learns from "Kesef" - Davar Chashuv (see Tosfos).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Sh'tei Kesef Yesh Li be'Yadcha. Ein Lach
be'Yadi Ela P'rutah, Patur'. Initially - we establish the Mishnah by
'Shaveh' (objects to the value of Sh'tei Kesef and a P'rutah, and not the
actual coins themselves), a Kashya on Shmuel, since the reason that the
Mishnah exempts him from a Shevu'ah can only be because there was no Kefirah
of two Kesef.
(b) To refute the Kashya, Shmuel therefore establishes the Mishnah - by
coins that are worth two Kesef and a P'rutah, and the reason that he is
Patur is because it is a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin' (as
we explained in the Mishnah).
(c) Based on what we just said, we then ask on Shmuel from the Seifa, where
Reuven claims from Shimon two Kesef and a P'rutah, Shimon admits to a
P'rutah, and the Tana rules Chayav. This would be no problem if the Mishnah
was speaking in a case of Shaveh - because then it would be a classical case
of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'. Now however, that Shmuel has established our Mishnah
by the actual coins, why is he Chayav? Why is it not a case of 'Ta'ano
Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin, which is Patur?
(d) This Kashya is no problem however, on Shmuel of all people- - because
Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel has already ruled in such a case - 'Ta'ano Chitin
u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Echad Meihen, Chayav'.
(a) We support this answer from the Seifa 'Litra Zahav Yesh Li be'Yadcha.
Ein Lach be'Yadi Ela Litra Kesef, Patur' - which is fine as long as the Tana
is speaking about pieces of gold and silver. But if it was referring to
'Shaveh', why will the defendant be Patur, since it is a regular case of
(b) In that case, this poses a Kashya on Rav (who establishes the Mishnah by
Shaveh), who will answer - by establishing the Seifa by gold and silver,
even though the rest of the Mishnah, according to him, speaks about
'Shaveh', because the fact that the claimant asked for a weight, makes it
evident that this section is not.
(a) We attempt to prove Rav right from the Seifa 'Dinar Zahav Li be'Yadcha;
Ein Lecha be'Yadi Ela Dinar Kesef ... u'Perutah, Chayav ... ' - which will
make sense if Reuven is claiming from Shimon Shaveh Dinar Zahav, and Shimon
admits to Shaveh Dinar Kesef; but if they are referring to actual coins,
Shimon ought to be Patur from a Shevu'ah, because it is 'Ta'ano Chitin
ve'Hodeh Lo Se'orin'.
(b) Rebbi Elazar establishes the Seifa according to Shmuel - in a case where
Reuven claimed a minted coin of gold and Shimon admitted to the minted coin
but claimed that it had been a silver one (which is considered Miyn Hoda'ah,
since they were concerned with the coin and not with the weight (see Tosfos
(c) The Chidush is - that a P'rutah (which is made of copper, as opposed to
a Dinar, which is made of silver [as are the other coins mentioned in the
(a) The conclusion of the Mishnah 'she'ha'Kol Miyn Matbe'a Achas' seems to
support Rebbi Elazar's interpretation of the Mishnah. Rav - will amend the
Lashon to she'ha'Kol Din Matbe'a Achas', meaning that even the admission of
the smallest coin in the list (a mere Perutah) will obligate the defendant
to swear (see Tosfos DH 'she'ha'Kol').
(b) This does not mean that Rebbi Elazar will establish the entire Mishnah
by Davka (and not 'be'Shaveh') like Shmuel. He only establishes the Seifa
like him because the Lashon 'she'ha'Kol Miyn Matbe'a Achas' bears out his
explanation. The rest of the Mishnah he may well explain like Rav.