(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shevuos 27

SHEVUOS 27 (18 Adar I) - This Daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Sheina Gitel bas Harav Binyamin (Gordon, nee Byers), by her daughter and son in law, Sid and Sylvia Mosenkis of Queens, N.Y.


(a) We have already discussed the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan (with regard to 'Nishba Lekayem es ha'Mitzvah'). If Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira validates such a Shevu'ah 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Shevu'as ha'Reshus, on what grounds do the Rabbanan consider it invalid?

(b) From which Pasuk does the Beraisa learn this Halachah?

(c) And from where does the same Tana learn that ...

  1. ... 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah ve'Lo Bitel Patur'?
  2. ... 'Nishba Lehara Le'atzmo ve'Lo Heira, Chayav'?
(d) And from where does the Tana ...
  1. ... preclude 'Nishba Lehara la'Acherim'?
  2. ... include 'Nishba Leheitiv la'Acherim'?
(a) The problem with establishing "Lehara O Leheitiv by a D'var Mitzvah is based on the fact that we either compare Hara'ah to Hatavah or Hatavah to Hara'ah. Assuming the former, the Tana learns that Hatavah does not entail a Bitul Mitzvah.
What does he mean by that?

(b) On what basis does he take this for granted?

(c) If we now compare Hara'ah to Hatavah, how will we establish Hara'ah?

(d) What is the problem with that?

(a) Assuming on the other hand, that we compare Hatavah to Hara'ah, then we will learn that just as Hara'ah does not speak by a Kiyum Mitzvah (such as not eating Chametz on Pesach), neither will Hatavah speak by a Kiyum Mitzvah (such as to eat Matzah on Seder night), only by a Bitul Mitzvah (to eat Chametz on Pesach).
Why do we take for granted that the Tana is not speaking about a Kiyum Mitzvah?

(b) What are trying to prove from the above Kashyos?

(c) If "Lehara" and "Leheitiv" are referring to a D'var ha'Reshus, how will we then compare ..

  1. ... Hara'ah to Hatavah?
  2. ... Hatavah to Hara'ah?
(d) How will the Kashyos that we asked previously apply here too?
(a) How do we finally learn Reshus from the fact that the Torah found it necessary to write "O" to teach us Hatavas Acherim?

(b) What problem do we have with this? What else might we Darshen from "O"?

(c) This is only a problem according to Rebbi Yashiyah. Concerning the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish Asher Yekalel es Aviv ve'es Imo ... Aviv ve'Imo Kilel", Rebbi Yashiyah says 'Aviv Kilel, Imo Kilel'.
How does he extrapolate this from the Pasuk?

(d) What do we learn from there regarding 'O', which creates a problem on our Sugya?

(a) There is no problem according to Rebbi Yonasan.
What does Rebbi Yonasan say regarding the Pasuk in Kedoshim? What would the Torah have had to insert had it meant Aviv *and* Imo?

(b) We resolve the problem by establishing Rebbi Yashiyah like Rebbi Akiva (whom we discussed earlier in the Perek).
What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(c) And from where will he preclude Kiyum Mitzvah?

Answers to questions



(a) How does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira counter the Rabbanan's argument (that Kiyum Mitzvah is not 'be'La'av ve'Hein')?

(b) And what do the Rabbanan say to that?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where someone declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, ve'Achlah'? How many Korbanos will he have to bring if he transgresses be'Shogeg?

(b) This is a typical case of Shevu'as Bituy.
What is the punishment for transgressing either a Shevu'as Bituy or a Shevu'as Shav, be'Meizid?

(c) What happens to someone who contravenes either of them be'Shogeg?

(a) What problem do we have with the Tana's Lashon 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah ... '?

(b) What do we answer? What do we extrapolate from the change of expression?

(c) The reasoning behind this distinction is based on a statement of Rava.
What distinction did Rava make between whether one says 'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu' or 'she'Lo Ochlenah'?

(d) How does this now explain the Mishnah's distinction?

(a) We already know that 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah' from the first 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah'. So why does the Tana find it necessary to add a second 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah'?

(b) The ramifications of this statement are based on a ruling of Rava. What did Rava say about someone who made one Shevu'ah after the other, and subsequently had the first Shevu'ah revoked?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about someone who declares two sets of Nezirus, and who, at the end of thirty days, has already designated his Korban, when he decides to have his first Nezirus revoked?

(d) Why will this Beraisa not support Rava? What makes the case of two Nezirus different than two Shevu'os?

(a) What does Rava say about someone who forbade on himself a loaf of bread with a Shevu'ah, and after eating part of it, he wants to have the Shevu'ah revoked? Under what condition is he permitted to do so?

(b) What problem does Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava have with this, assuming that he originally declared ...

  1. ... 'she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu'?
  2. ... 'she'Lo Ochlenah'?
(c) Rav Ashi establishes Rava's ruling either way.
How does he establish it, assuming the Nishba said ...
  1. ... 'she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu'?
  2. ... 'she'Lo Ochlenah'?
Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,