Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) OATHS OF EXAGGERATION

(a) Answer (Rav Ashi): A person swears as we understand; we do not call ants 'as those that left Mitzrayim'.
(b) Question: Is it really true that a person does not swear according to his own interpretation?

1. (Beraisa): When we make him swear, we tell him - 'We are not making you swear on a condition in your heart, rather, on our understanding and the understanding of Beis Din'.
2. Question: What do we exclude by saying this?
3. Suggestion: That he should not use 'coins' as a nickname for wood chips (and swear that he gave the coins to his creditor).

i. Since we had to say that he swears on our understanding, we see, a person normally swears on his own understanding!

4. Rejection: No - rather, to exclude Rava's case of the reed.

i. Reuven claimed that he paid his debt to Shimon; Rava told him to swear. Reuven concealed coins in a reed, and was using it as a cane. Before swearing, he asked Shimon to take the reed. Reuven held a Sefer Torah and swore that he paid Shimon.
ii. Upon hearing the oath, Shimon broke the reed in anger; the coins fell out, and it was seen that the oath was true.

(c) Reiteration of question: A different source shows that a person swears on his own understanding!

1. (Beraisa): When Moshe Rabeinu made Yisrael swear at Arvos Moav, he told them that they are not swearing on their understanding, rather on Moshe's and Hash-m's understanding.

i. Suggestion: Moshe had to say this, so they should not nickname idolatry as 'G-d' (and have this in mind when swearing to serve G-d), because a person swears on his own understanding.
ii. Rejection: No, idolatry really is called 'god' - "Against all the gods of Mitzrayim..."

2. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep Mitzvos?
3. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean (only) the Mitzvos of appointing a king.
4. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep all the Mitzvos?
5. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, which measures up to all the Mitzvos.
6. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep Torah?
7. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only 1 Torah (written or oral).
8. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep Toros?
9. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only Toros (the laws) of flour-offerings, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.
10. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep Toros and Mitzvos?
11. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only Toros of flour (and sin...) offerings, and the Mitzvos of appointing a king.
12. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep the entire Torah?
13. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean (observing the prohibitions of) idolatry.

i. (Beraisa): Idolatry is severe - anyone who denies idolatry is as one that confirms the entire Torah.

14. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep the prohibitions of idolatry and the entire Torah; or, to keep 613 Mitzvos?
15. Answer: It was easier to make them swear on the understanding of Moshe and Hash-m.

(a) (Mishnah): If I did not see a snake like an olive-press ...
(b) Question: Why can't this be true?

1. In the days of Shvor Malka, there was a snake that ate 13 storehouses of straw!
2. Answer (Shmuel): The intention was, a snake that is Taruf (Ran - creviced; Rosh - wide, not round) as an olive press.
3. Objection: All snakes are like this!
4. Answer: The Mishnah refers to its back, which is never Taruf.
5. Question: Let the Mishnah say, if I did not see a snake whose back was Taruf!
6. Answer: In passing, the Mishnah teaches that the back of an olive press should be Taruf.

i. This is relevant to one who sells an olive press - its back must be Taruf.

3) MISTAKEN VOWS

(a) (Mishnah): Mistaken vows - 'If I ate or drank (I forbid ...)', and he later remembered that he had done so;
(b) 'If I will eat or drink (I forbid ...)', and he later forgot that he said this and ate or drank;
(c) 'I forbid my wife to get benefit from me, for she stole my wallet or hit my son', and he later learned that she did not;
(d) He saw people eating his figs, and said 'They are forbidden to them as a sacrifice'; he found that his father and brothers were among the people;

1. Beis Shamai says, only his father and brothers are permitted; Beis Hillel says, the vow is totally void.

(e) (Gemara - Beraisa): Just as mistaken vows are permitted, also mistaken oaths.

1. Question: What is a case of a mistaken oath?
2. Answer: As the case of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.

i. They argued over what Rav had said; each swore that he was right.
ii. Each swore to what he truly believed.

(f) (Mishnah): He saw people eating ...
(g) (Mishnah): We suggest to a person that he overlooked that his vow will include Shabbos and Yom Tov.

1. At first, Chachamim said that those days are permitted and other days are forbidden; later, R. Akiva taught that a vow that was partially permitted is totally permitted.

(h) (Rabah): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree, if he says, 'Had I known that father was among them, I would have said, they are all forbidden except for father' - they are all forbidden except for his father;
(i) They argue when he says, 'Had I known that father was among them, I would have said, Ploni and Ploni are forbidden, and father is permitted'.