The Gemara then asks, according to both Girsa'os, what is an example of a
Shevu'as Havai. Abaye suggests that a Shevu'as Havai is when one says, "[I
hereby make a] Shevu'ah that I saw on this road the amount of people that
left Mitzrayim." Rava rejects Abaye's example, saying that it is obvious and
"Lamah Li l'Meimar" -- why does the Beraisa need to teach that such a
Shevu'ah is Asur (or Mutar, according to the other Girsa)? Rava instead says
that the case of a Shevu'as Havai to which the Beraisa is referring is when
one says, "All of the fruit in the world shall be Asur to me with a Shevu'ah
if I did not see on this road the amount of people that left Mitzrayim."
That is, he makes a contingency Shevu'ah that will only take effect if he
did not see what he claims to have seen.
Rava's example of a Shevu'as Havai apparently is not as obvious as Abaye's
example, since the Gemara does not ask the same question on Rava's example
that Rava asked on Abaye's example. But why is Rava's example of a Shevu'as
Havai any less obvious than Abaye's? If it is obvious that a Shevu'ah "that
I saw on this road the amount of people that left Mitzrayim" is Asur because
a person does not exaggerate when he utters a Shevu'ah like he exaggerates
when he makes a Neder (and since he certainly did not see "k'Olei
Mitzrayim," his Shevu'ah was made in vain, a Shevu'as Shav, and was Asur),
then it is equally obvious in Rava's case of a Shevu'as Havai that the
Shevu'ah will take effect to prohibit the fruit! Likewise, according to the
other Girsa, if it is obvious that Abaye's case of a Shevu'as Havai is Mutar
because a person exaggerates when he makes a Shevu'ah just like he
exaggerates when he makes a Neder, then it is equally obvious that in Rava's
case the Shevu'ah will *not* take effect and the fruit will *not* be Asur
because the person was merely exaggerating!
However, according to the Girsa in the Beraisa that Shevu'os Havai are
Mutar, there is a more general question. How is the Beraisa to be reconciled
with the Mishnah in Shevuos (29a) that says that such a Shevu'ah is a
Shevu'as Shav and is Asur? (Rava and Abaye argue there as well regarding the
nature of the Shevu'ah like they argue here.)
(a) According to those who have the Girsa that Shevu'os Havai are Mutar,
there are three basic approaches in the Rishonim to explain Rava's question
on Abaye's case and to explain why Rava's case is not as obvious as Abaye's.
First, the ROSH explains that although a person exaggerates when making a
Neder, he does not exaggerate when making a Shevu'ah. Hence, in Rava's case,
when a person makes a Shevu'ah prohibiting all of the fruit in the world to
him if he "did not see on this road the amount of people that left
Mitzrayim," we might have thought that the Shevu'ah takes effect and the
fruit becomes Asur, and we do not attribute the Shevu'ah to exaggeration. We
might have thought that the Rabanan were stringent to make the fruit Asur
because of the severity of saying a Shevu'ah with the name of Hashem.
The RASHBA adds that because of the severity of making a Shevu'ah with the
name of Hashem, when one makes a contingency Shevu'ah prohibiting fruit, a
person does not exaggerate (and not merely that the Rabanan are stringent,
but the person himself does not intend to exaggerate). Therefore, Rava
teaches that such a Shevu'ah does *not* take effect and we *do* attribute
his words to exaggeration.
Why, though, does the same not apply to Abaye's case? In Abaye's case, too,
we might have thought that when a person says, "Shevu'ah that I saw on this
road the amount of people that left Mitzrayim," the Shevu'ah should be
considered a Shevu'as Shav and be Asur because a person does not exaggerate!
The answer is that when Abaye says that this Shevu'as Havai is Mutar, he
does not mean that it is *permitted* to make such a Shevu'ah; rather, he
means that there is no punishment of Malkus for making such a Shevu'ah
("Mutaros" in the Beraisa means "Peturos"). (RASHBA and RITVA; their
reasoning is presumably that it is not Mutar l'Chatchilah to make a Shevu'ah
with the expression of an exaggeration.)
Rava asks that it is obvious that one does not get Malkus, because even if
the Rabanan were stringent when one makes a contingency Shevu'ah to make
fruit prohibited, they would not have gone so far as to say that one gets
Malkus for merely making a Shevu'ah that one saw "the amount of people that
left Mitzrayim." (Similarly, according to the Rashba who says that one uses
exact wording and does not exaggerate, Rava argues that one will not use
exact wording and not exaggerate when doing so will cause him to get
Malkus.)
Regarding the Mishnah in Shevuos that says that a Shevu'as Havai is Asur,
the Mishnah there is referring to a person who, after making his Shevu'ah,
affirms his words and insists that he meant his words to be understood
literally. We then hold him to his word, and thus his Shevu'ah is a Shevu'as
Shav (this is similar to what the Ran earlier (21a) cites from the
Yerushalmi).
(b) Second, the RITVA explains that when Rava says that Shevu'os Havai are
Mutar, he is referring to the *fruit* that one made contingent on the facts
of what he say being true. It is certainly *Asur*, though, to make such a
Shevu'ah, because it is a Shevu'as Shav, like the Mishnah in Shevuos (29a)
says. Why, though, is it a Shevu'as Shav if he was merely exaggerating?
The Ritva says that any Shevu'ah which is not binding, which does not take
effect to prohibit or obligate, is a Shevu'as Shav, and here -- since the
fruit remains Mutar (since we say that he was exaggerating when he said that
he saw "the amount of people that left Mitzrayim") -- the Shevu'ah did not
effect anything and therefore it is a Shevu'as Shav. (The Ritva seems to be
saying that a Shevu'ah cannot be used to prove that one saw something (other
than when giving testimony in Beis Din), because such a Shevu'ah has no
practical effects. Hence, even if he does not exaggerate and says what he
actually saw, the Shevu'ah would be a Shevu'as Shav.) Alternatively, it
could be that the Ritva means that only when the Shevu'ah is expressed with
an exaggeration and does not serve to prove exactly what he saw does it
serve no purpose and is a Shevu'as Shav. However, if one makes a Shevu'ah to
prove what he saw exactly without exaggerating, then even though the fruit
does not become Asur, the Shevu'ah served its purpose in proving what he
saw. When he exaggerates, though, the Shevu'ah cannot prove what he says
that he saw, because he really did not see what he says that he saw! (See
also NIMUKEI YOSEF.)
(c) Third, the RAN explains that there is a difference between making a
Shevu'ah "that I saw the amount of people that left Mitzrayim" and making a
Shevu'ah "that I saw a snake like the beam of an olive press." When one says
that he saw "the amount of people that left Mitzrayim," he is referring to a
number and is clearly exaggerating. He saw a lot of people, and he is merely
embellishing what he saw. In contrast, saying that he saw "a snake like the
beam of an olive press" is not an exaggeration but is pure nonsense.
Accordingly, Abaye explains that a Shevu'as Havai is Mutar because it is an
exaggeration. Hence, only a Shevu'ah that he saw "the amount of people that
left Mitzrayim" is Mutar. But when one says that he saw "a snake like the
beam of an olive press," it is *Asur*, just like the Mishnah in Shevuos
says, because it is clear that he is not exaggerating but that he is saying
nonsensical words.
Rava asks that is obvious that such a case of a Shevu'as Havai
(exaggeration) is Mutar. Rather, he explains that one makes a contingency
Shevu'ah, prohibiting fruit if he did not see what he claims to have seen.
The case of Shevu'as Havai that is Mutar is when one claims to have seen "a
snake like the beam of an olive press," and when he says that the Shevu'ah
is Mutar, he means that the *fruit* is Mutar, even though the Shevu'ah is a
Shevu'as Shav. We might have thought that the person wants to make the fruit
Asur so that his Shevu'ah not become a Shevu'as Shav, and therefore the
Beraisa must teach (according to Rava) that the fruit is not Asur, and the
Shevu'ah remains a Shevu'as Shav.
(d) The ROSH explains the Gemara according to the Girsa that appears in our
Gemara that Shevu'os Havai are *Asur*. The Rosh says that the reason a
Shevu'ah is more stringent and thus the Rabanan prohibited the fruit in the
case of a Shevu'as Havai is because of the severity of making a Shevu'ah
with the Name of Hashem. This is similar to the way the Rosh explains
according to the other Girsa (in (a) above). When Abaye says that the
Beraisa is referring to a case where one swears that he saw "the amount of
people that left Mitzrayim" when it says that a Shevu'as Havai is Asur, Rava
asks that it is obvious that such a case is Asur, because one does not
exaggerate while making a Shevu'ah since it involves the Name of Hashem.
Rava explains instead that the Beraisa is teaching that if one makes the
status of fruits dependent on whether he truly saw "the amount of people
that left Mitzrayim," the fruit becomes Asur (mid'Rabanan).
The ME'IRI and TOSFOS YESHANIM explain similarly, but they imply that the
stringency of making a Shevu'ah with Hashem's Name is a Halachah d'Oraisa.
They might mean what the SEMAG says -- that when a person makes a Shevu'ah,
he swears "Al Da'as Acherim," according to the way other people understand
his words. This is in contrast to the way he makes a Neder, which he makes
according to the way he alone understands the words. This difference is
because of the severity of making a Shevu'ah with the Name of Hashem.
According to this Girsa, the Beraisa is consistent with the Mishnah in
Shevuos (29a) that says that such a Shevu'ah is a Shevu'as Shav. Why is it a
Shevu'as Shav, when we could just make the Shevu'ah take effect and make
fruit Asur to him? It is a Shevu'as Shav because it is impossible to live
without eating the fruit in the world, and thus it is like making a Shevu'ah
not to sleep for three days, as Rabeinu Tam explains in Shevuos, in which
case Beis Din gives him Malkus immediately and it is permitted for him to
sleep.
When the Beraisa here says that Shevu'os Havai are Asur, it really means
that the fruit should be Asur because of the Shevu'ah, but since he cannot
survive with such an Isur, he is given Malkus right away for making a
Shevu'as Shav (and the fruit is Mutar).