Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shevuos, 36

1) RESPONDING "NO" TWICE IS LIKE A "SHEVU'AH"

QUESTIONS: Rebbi Elazar states that merely saying "no" can be considered a Shevu'ah, as can saying "yes." The Gemara proves this from what Hashem said after the flood, "And the water will not again become a flood" (Bereishis 9:15), about which the verse in Yeshayah (54:9) states, "For this will be to Me like the waters of Noach; just as I swore that the waters of Noach would never pass over the earth again...." The Gemara concludes that if saying "no" constitutes an oath, then, logically, saying "yes" should also constitute an oath.

Rava explains (see RASHI) that Rebbi Elazar's statement applies only when the person says "no" or "yes" *twice*. This is learned from the fact that Hashem said "no" twice in His oath not to bring another flood. Before the verse mentioned above, Hashem stated, "And all flesh will never again be cut off by the waters of the flood" (the verse half of Bereishis 9:11). We see from there that by saying "no" twice, the statement became an oath, as Yeshayah states.

However, there are three other verses in Parshas Noach in which Hashem uses the word "no" with regard to destroying the world with a flood. In addition to the two statements mentioned above, the verse also says, "And there will be no more flood to destroy the world" (the second half of Bereishis 9:11). In addition, the verse says, "I will not continue to curse the earth because of man" (Bereishis 8:21), and, also in that verse, "I will not continue to smite all life as I have done." According to Rava, a person should have to say "no" *five* times in order for his statement to constitute a Shevu'ah! Why does the Gemara not consider these verses as well?

ANSWERS:

(a) The ROSH says that the Girsa of our Gemara (which quotes the first half of verse 9:11, and verse 9:15) is not the correct Girsa. The Rosh proves that the Girsa of our text of the Gemara is incorrect, because even according to our Girsa, it should be necessary to say "no" *three* times in order to constitute a Shevu'ah, since there are *three* statements of Hashem in the verses quoted by our Gemara which contain the word "no" -- two in Bereishis 9:11 and one in 9:15! He also says that the Girsa of the RIF is incorrect; the Rif quotes the verses of Bereishis 8:21 and 9:15. (According to our Girsa of the Rif, the Rif quotes the second half of verse 9:11, and verse 9:15). Rather, the proper Girsa, asserts the Rosh, is the two statements of "no" in the verse of Bereishis 8:21. The verse in its entirety reads, "Hashem smelled the pleasing aroma [of Noach's Korban], and Hashem said in His heart, 'I will not continue to curse the earth because of man, because the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will not continue to smite all life as I have done."

Hashem's statement in this verse was made immediately after Noach offered Korbanos to Hashem, which pleased Him. Hashem made this statement as a Shevu'ah to assure Noach that the world would never again be destroyed with a flood. The verses later (Bereishis 9:11 and 9:15), in contrast, are merely narrative, in which Hashem relates what the rainbow represents (that there will be no more flood), but it is not a statement of an oath. The Rosh explains that when Hashem commanded Noach to leave the ark and to repopulate the world (Bereishis 8:16-18), Noach refrained from having more children in fear that another flood might destroy them. Hashem therefore made a promise to Noach (8:21) that there would be no more flood. It was this statement, which contains "no" two times, from which Rava learns the law that saying "no" twice constitutes a Shevu'ah, since this statement indeed was Hashem's oath to Noach assuring him that there would never be another flood.

(The Rosh points out that this explains why, when Hashem commanded Noach to leave the ark, He said, "Go out of the ark: you and your wife, your sons and the wives of your sons with you" (8:16), but when Noach carried out this command, the verse says, "Noach went out, and his sons, his wife and the wives of his sons" (8:18). In Hashem's command, Noach and his wife were to go out together, and his sons and their wives were to go out together, which indicates that each couple was to reunite and have children. However, they stayed separate and did not attempt to have children, in fear of another flood. Only after Hashem made His oath not to bring another flood did they agree to reunite, which explains why Hashem commanded them again, after His oath, to have children (9:1).)

Based on this explanation, the Rosh understands that Rava's law is that in order to constitute a Shevu'ah, a person's two statements of "no" must be said consecutively, just as Hashem said His two statements consecutively, at the same time. In contrast, according to Rava, if a person is asked to do something and he says "no," and then he is asked again and he again says "no," his statement is not considered a Shevu'ah.

(b) The MAHARSHA argues with the Rosh and defends the Girsa of our Gemara. He says that the verses that the Rosh quotes (in 8:21) cannot be the source that saying "no" two times constitutes a Shevu'ah, because in that verse Hashem did not say His statement aloud to Noach, but rather He said it "in *His heart*." (The OR HA'CHAIM also rejects the Girsa of the Rosh for this reason, and for the reason that the two statements in 8:21 of "Lo Osif l'Kalel" and "Lo Osif Od l'Hakos" address two different details and thus cannot constitute a single Shevu'ah.)

Only later does the Torah say that Hashem spoke to Noach (9:8), saying, "Behold, I establish My covenant with you" (9:9), and, "I will uphold My covenant with you, and all flesh will never again be cut off by the waters of the flood, and there will be no more flood to destroy the world" (9:11). It is in this verse that Hashem makes a "covenant" and uses the word "no" twice. The later verse (9:15) is merely narrative, describing Hashem's remembrance of His Shevu'ah.

(The Maharsha's explanation, however, is still not consistent with our Girsa. According to our Girsa, the two statements that Rava quotes is the first half of Bereishis 9:11 -- "all flesh will never again be cut off by the waters of the flood," and verse 15 -- "and the water will not again become a flood." The Maharsha, though, says that the two statements are both from verse 9:11! Therefore, it seems that the Girsa of the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM, based on old manuscripts, in our Gemara is correct. The Dikdukei Sofrim changes the words "v'Lo Yiheyeh Od ha'Mayim la'Mabul" (which are in Bereishis 9:15) to read instead, "v'Lo Yiheyeh Od Mabul l'Shaches ha'Aretz" (which are the end of Bereishis 9:11). This clearly was the Girsa of the Maharsha.)

(c) How, though, are we to understand the Girsa of the Rif? According to the Girsa of the Rif in our text (and not the Girsa of the Rif according to the Rosh), the two statements in which Hashem says "no" are the second half of 9:11 and 9:15. It seems that the Rif maintains that these two statements constitute the Shevu'ah because they are most similar in syntax. The first verse (9:11) reads, "v'Lo Yiheyeh Od Mabul l'Shaches ha'Aretz" ("And there will be no more flood to destroy the world"), and the second verse (9:15) reads, "v'Lo Yiheyeh Od ha'Mayim la'Mabul l'Shaches Kol Basar" ("And the water will not again become a flood to destroy all flesh"). Both verses emphasize that there will be no more flood that will be destructive (either to mankind or to the land). In contrast, the first part of verse 11 does not say that "there will be no more flood," but rather that "all flesh will never again be cut off by the waters of the flood," using a different phraseology. (See MALBIM to Bereishis 9:11, and TORAH TEMIMAH to Bereishis 9:15.)

It seems that the BACH agrees with the Girsa of the Rif. The BACH amends the Girsa to read *both* the second half of verse 11 *and* verse 15. He apparently understands that the two statements in verse 11 do not prove that two statements of "no" constitute a Shevu'ah. Rather, the second half of verse 11 and verse 15 are the two statements of "no" that constitute the Shevu'ah (like the Rif writes), and the Gemara quotes the first half of verse 11 merely because it is the beginning of the verse.

The OR HA'CHAIM (Bereishis 9:11) adds that according to the Rif, the reason why the first half of verse 11 -- "v'Lo Yikares Kol Basar Od mi'Mei ha'Mabul" -- is not included is because the Rif interprets the verse as follows. Instead of translating the verse as, "And all flesh will never again be cut off by the waters of the flood," the Rif translates it as follows, "And all flesh will never again be cut off [in any manner, whether by fire or by plague] *from the time* of the waters of the flood." According to this understanding, the verse is not mentioning that mankind will never again be destroyed by a flood in particular, and thus this statement is not part of the Shevu'ah regarding the flood.

This is also the approach of the MEROMEI SADEH here, who says that the two statements of "no" that constitute a Shevu'ah are the two statements that explicitly state that there will not be another flood. The Meromei Sadeh explains that this is why our Gemara does not bring proof from the two statements that the Rosh mentions (i.e. Bereishis 8:21, "Lo Osif l'Kalel" and "Lo Osif Od l'Hakos"), because those verses make no mention of a *flood*, but rather that mankind, and the land, will not be destroyed. We know that the Shevu'ah specifically refers to a flood, because the verse in Yeshayah states that Hashem's Shevu'ah was that He would not bring another flood. (See also OR HA'CHAIM (to Bereishis 9:11) and CHASAM SOFER for additional explanations of the Gemara according to our Girsa.)

36b

QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses a case in which five people claim from a trustee an item that they deposited with him. If he swears falsely that he does not have their item, saying, "I swear that I do not have your item," he is required to bring only one Korban for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon. If he swears falsely by addressing each claimant personally, saying, "I swear that I do not have your item, nor your item, nor your item...," then he must bring five separate Korbanos. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that he is obligated to bring multiple Korbanos only when he ends his statement with the phrasing of "b'Shevu'ah," thereby making each part of his statement a separate Shevu'ah. Rebbi Shimon maintains that he must say "Shevu'ah" in each statement that he says, to each individual claimant, in order to be obligated to bring multiple Korbanos.

The Toras Kohanim teaches the same Halachah, but in a different case. The Toras Kohanim discusses a case of a person who makes multiple Shevu'os ha'Edus that he does not know testimony. There, too, the Tana Kama, Rebbi Eliezer, and Rebbi Shimon argue when the person is obligated to bring multiple Korbanos, just as they argue in our Mishnah. When the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shevu'os 9:17) records the Halachah, he states the Halachah with regard to Shevu'as ha'Edus and says that the same applies to a case of a Shevu'as ha'Pikadon. Why does the Mishnah not discuss this Halachah earlier, when it discusses the laws of Shevu'as ha'Edus? Why was this case left until the discussion of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, if it applies just the same for Shevu'as ha'Edus?

ANSWERS:

(a) The TIFERES YISRAEL answers that the case here is different than the case of Shevu'as ha'Edus. In the case here, a single item that was owned jointly by five people was deposited with the trustee. All five owners are submitting a claim against the trustee, but their claims are being brought by a single representative from among them. The Mishnah is teaching that even though only one person is actually making the claim, the trustee can be obligated to bring a Korban for each denial that he makes. In contrast, in the case of one who denies knowing testimony, the Halachah (see 35a) is that the denial must be said in front of the plaintiff himself. When only one of the owners (of the object which requires testimony) confronts the potential witness and the witness swears that he does not know testimony, he is obligated to bring only one Korban, since the other owners did not make him swear (see 35a). If, on the other hand, the representative owner has a Harsha'ah from all of the other owners to represent them, then the Harsha'ah gives him the status of the exclusive owner with regard to making a witness swear (see 33b), and thus the witness would not be obligated to bring multiple Korbanos. The Halachah was taught in this Mishnah in order to teach that when one of the owners represents the others in the case of a deposited item, the trustee's Shevu'ah to each of the claimants is valid and can obligate him to bring multiple Korbanos, which is not so in the case of Shevu'as ha'Edus.

(b) Alternatively, the Tiferes Yisrael explains that the Mishnah chose to teach this Halachah here, with regard to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, because it is a more likely occurrence that five people claim their deposited item from one trustee. A Shevu'ah concerning a deposited item can be made even outside of Beis Din, and thus it is more likely that the five owners might approach the trustee outside of Beis Din. In contrast, the denial of knowledge of testimony must be done in Beis Din, and it is unusual for five people to come to Beis Din to make a witness testify.

(c) The MEROMEI SADEH answers that this Halachah is taught with regard to the denial of a deposit, because the source for the Halachah of bringing multiple Korbanos for a Shevu'ah comes from the verses of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, and not Shevu'as ha'Edus. The Gemara earlier (32a) quotes the verse, "l'Achas" (Vayikra 5:4), which teaches that one is obligated to bring a separate Korban for each and every false Shevu'ah ("Al Kol Achas v'Achas"). The Meromei Sadeh explains that this means that a person can be obligated to bring multiple Korbanos by swearing falsely to multiple parties. This is learned from the Parshah regarding the Shevu'ah that one makes in order to deny having a deposited item, which says, "v'Chichesh ba'Amiso" -- "[If a person sins...] and lies to his neighbor about an object that was delivered to him to guard..." (Vayikra 5:21). From this verse we learn that the words of the Gemara (32a), "for each and every one," refer to each person to whom the trustee denies having his object. With regard to Shevu'as ha'Edus, though, there is no verse that alludes to what "each and every one" might refer. Therefore, we learn this Halachah from the verse regarding a deposited item and apply it to the case of denial of testimony. Since the source for the Halachah of bringing multiple Korbanos is in the verse that discusses Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, the Mishnah expresses this Halachah with regard to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon.