Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "SHE'OCHEL"

(a) Answer #1 (Abaye): In our Mishnah, he was not being pressured to eat, 'She'Ochel' means 'I will eat'.

1. In the Beraisa (Tosfos - other Mishnah), he was being pressured to eat, and kept refusing;
2. When he finally swore 'She'Ochel', he meant 'I will not eat' (so they will stop insisting).

(b) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The text (there) should read 'She'i Ochel'.
(c) Question: The Tana already taught 'She'Lo Ochel', why must he also teach 'She'i Ochel'?
(d) Answer: One might have thought, he meant to say 'She'Ochel', and mispronounced it - he teaches, this is not so.

(a) (Beraisa): "Mivta" - this is a Shevu'ah; "Isar" - this is a Shevu'ah;
(b) The prohibition of Isar: if you will say that Isar is a Shevu'ah, he is liable; if not, he is exempt.
(c) Objection: The Tana just said that Isar is a Shevu'ah!
(d) Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #1 (Abaye): The Beraisa means: (if a person says) "Mivta" - this is a Shevu'ah; (if he says) "Isar" - this has the same law as Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah (making something forbidden like something else forbidden by a Shevu'ah);

1. The prohibition of Isar: if you will say that one who is Matfis in a Shevu'ah is like one who says a Shevu'ah, he is liable (if he transgresses the oath); if not, he is exempt.

(e) Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #1 (Abaye): The Beraisa means: (if a person says) "Mivta" - this is a Shevu'ah; "Isar" - this is Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah;

1. Version #2A: The prohibition of Isar: if he was Matfis in a Shevu'ah, he is like one who said a Shevu'ah, and he is liable; if he said 'this is Isar upon me', this is not a Shevu'ah, he is exempt.
2. Version #2B: The prohibition of Isar: if he was Matfis in the language of a Shevu'ah (e.g. I will not eat this, like this (other food forbidden by a Shevu'ah)), he is like one who said a Shevu'ah, and he is liable; if he did not say the language if a Shevu'ah (he only said 'this is like this'), this is not a Shevu'ah, he is exempt.
3. Version #2C: If he was Matfis (a third item) in something he was Matfis in a Shevu'ah: if one who is Matfis in a Shevu'ah is exactly like one who says a Shevu'ah, this is like normal Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah, if Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah is (liable, but is not exactly like saying a Shevu'ah), Hatfasah of the third item is not a Shevu'ah, he is exempt. (End of Version #2)

(f) Rhetorical question: What is the source that "Mivta" is a Shevu'ah?
(g) Answer #1 "...Ki Sishava Levatei";

1. Question: We should say the same about Isar - "V'Chol Shevu'as Isar"!
2. Rhetorical question: What is the source that "Isar" is Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah? "...Isar Al Nafshah bi'Shvu'ah";

i. Question: We should say the same about Mivta - "Asher Yivatei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah"!

(h) Answer #2 (Abaye): No, we learn that "Mivta" is a Shevu'ah from "...U'Ndareha Aleha O Mivta that she forbade on herself".

1. The verse does not mention a Shevu'ah - it must be, she forbade herself through Mivta alone!

(i) Answer #2 (to Objection c - Rava): Really, Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah is not like saying a Shevu'ah;

1. The Beraisa means: "Mivta" - this is a Shevu'ah; "Isar" - this is also a Shevu'ah;
2. Isar is not always a Shevu'ah - the Torah wrote it between Neder and Shevu'ah to teach that it can be either;
3. if it was said in the language of a Shevu'ah (forbidding an action), it is a Shevu'ah; if it was said in the language of a Neder (Alai, forbidding an object to himself), it is a Neder.

(j) Question: Where did the Torah wrote Isar between Neder and Shevu'ah?
(k) Answer: "If in her father's house Nadarah O Asrah Isar Al Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah".
(l) Abaye and Rava explain as they hold elsewhere.

1. (Abaye): Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah is like saying a Shevu'ah;
2. (Rava): It is not like saying a Shevu'ah.

(m) Question (against Rava - Beraisa): The Isar that the Torah speaks of: 'It is (forbidden) to me to eat meat or drink wine like the day my father died...or the day Gedalyah ben Achikam died...' - this takes effect.

1. (Shmuel): The case is, he had already taken a Neder never to eat meat or drink wine on that day.
2. We understand according to Abaye - the Beraisa explains Hatfasah in a Neder, for this takes effect just like (Tosfos - and is learned from) Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah.

3. But this contradicts Rava (who says that Isar is not through Hatfasah)!

(n) Answer: The Beraisa means: the Neder that the Torah speaks of: 'It is (forbidden) to me to eat meat...like the day my father...or Gedalyah died...' - this takes effect.

1. (Shmuel): The case is, he had already taken a Neder never to eat meat...on that day.
2. Question: Why must that be the case?
3. Answer: "Ish Ki Yidor Neder la'Sh-m" - Hatfasah must be in something Nador (forbidden through a Neder).
4. Question: If so, what is special about the day his father died?
5. Answer: Indeed, there is nothing special about it; the Chidush is the day Gedalyah died.

i. One might have thought, since he is forbidden to eat that day (Tzom Gedalyah) even without his Neder, he is considered as one who is Matfis in a forbidden matter, not a Nador matter - the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.

(o) R. Yochanan also holds like Rava.

1. (Ravin citing R. Yochanan): 'Mivta I will not eat your food' - this is a Shevu'ah; 'Isar I will not eat your food' - this is a Shevu'ah.

(a) (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): If a person swore 'I will eat' or 'I will not eat' (and transgressed), this is (Shevu'as) Sheker, it is forbidden by "V'Lo Sishav'u bi'Shmi la'Shaker".

1. If a person falsely swore 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', this is (Shevu'as) Shav, it is forbidden by "Lo Tisa...la'Shav"
2. One who transgresses Konamos (Nedarim), he transgresses "Lo Yachel Devaro".

(b) Question (Beraisa): Shav and Sheker are the same.

1. Suggestion: This means, just as Shav is in the past (i.e. it is false the moment he says it), also Sheker;
2. This says that 'I ate' is Sheker! (People may believe it; by contrast, Shav is something obviously false.)

(c) Answer: No, they are different (Shav is in the past, Sheker depends on the future).
(d) Question: But the Beraisa says that they are the same!
(e) Answer: It means, they were both taught in one (of the Ten) Utterances.

1. (Beraisa): "Zachor (remember Shabbos)" and "Shamor (guard Shabbos)" were said simultaneously, something only Hash-m could do.

(f) Question: There, we learn from the fact that they were said together;

1. (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Mid'Oraisa, women are commanded in Kidush of Shabbos (even though they are usually exempt from positive Mitzvos that apply only at particular times);

i. We are commanded "Zachor" and "Shamor" - whoever is commanded to guard, must also remember;
ii. Since women are commanded Lishmor (a Lav), they are commanded Lizkor.

2. Summation of question: Here, what do we learn from the fact that they were taught in the same Utterance?

(g) Answer #1: Just as one is lashed for Shav, also for Sheker.
(h) Objection: Just the contrary (it is more obvious that one is lashed for (some oaths of) Sheker, one transgresses through an action)!
(i) Answer #2: Rather, just as one is lashed for Sheker, also for Shav.
(j) Question: This is obvious, both are Lavim!
(k) Answer #1: One might have thought (like Rav Papa) that one is not lashed for Shav.

1. (Rav Papa): "Lo Yenakeh" - this teaches that this sin will not be cleansed (by lashes or other punishments)!
2. The Beraisa teaches, this is not so (as Abaye answered Rav Papa - Hash-m does not cleanse, but Beis Din lashes to cleanse it).