Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE EFFECTS OF SEPARATING A SACRIFICE

(a) (Abaye): Sometimes, Eifa's answer is correct, for example in Rabah's case.

1. Version #1 -Rashi - (Rabah): 'I swear that I will not eat figs and grapes (on the same day), I swear that I will not eat figs'; he (forgot the oaths and) ate figs, (realized his mistake,) separated a sacrifice (for the latter oath, forgot the first oath and) ate grapes - he is not liable for the first oath, because separating the sacrifice disassociates eating the figs from eating the grapes, we consider that he only violated half of the first oath, he does not bring a sacrifice for it.
2. Version #2 - Tosfos - (Rabah): 'I swear that I will not eat figs, I swear that I will not eat figs and grapes (together; even though he already swore not to eat figs, since he creates a new prohibition on grapes, the oath takes effect)';

i. He (forgot the oaths and) ate figs, (realized his mistake,) separated a sacrifice and (forgot his oath and) ate grapes - he is not liable for the second oath, because separating the sacrifice disassociates eating the figs from eating the grapes, we consider that he only violated half of the second oath, he does not bring a sacrifice for it. (end of Version #2)

3. Here also, if he swore 'I will not eat ten figs, I will not eat nine figs', he ate nine, separated a sacrifice and ate a tenth, separating the sacrifice disassociates the nine figs from the tenth, he is not liable for the first oath.

(a) (Mishnah): The following are vain oaths:

1. An oath that contradicts what people know to be true, e.g. 'This pillar (which all can see is stone) is gold', or 'This is a woman (all can see it is a man)', or vice-versa;
2. He swore to do something impossible, 'If I did not see a camel fly in the air, or a snake like the beam of an olivepress';
3. Witnesses were asked to testify, they swore that they will not;
4. One swore not to fulfill a Mitzvah, e.g. not to dwell in a Sukah, take a Lulav or don Tefilin;
5. These are vain oaths; one who intentionally swears in vain is lashed, if he did so unintentionally, he is exempt.

(b) 'I swear that I will eat this loaf, I swear that I will *not* eat it' - the first is an oath of Bituy, the latter is a vain oath;

1. If he eats the loaf, he transgressed swearing in vain; if he does not eat it, he (even) transgressed Bituy.

(c) (Gemara - Ula): Something is considered known to people if three people know it.
(d) (Mishnah): He swore to do something impossible, 'If I did not see a camel fly'.
(e) Question: 'I saw a camel fly' would be a vain oath - but he did not say that, rather, '*If I did not see* a camel fly', this is not an oath!
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): Indeed, the Mishnah should say 'I saw a camel fly'.
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): This is part of the previous case, he swore (to do something impossible, e.g.) not to eat any food 'If I did not see a camel fly'.

(a) Question (Ravina): Perhaps the man saw a huge bird, nicknamed it 'camel' and swore truthfully according to his understanding (of his words)!
(b) Answer: We judge oaths (objectively) by the words he said, not by his personal intention.
(c) Question #1 (Beraisa): When Beis Din administers an oath, we tell the one who must swear 'You do not swear according to your own intention, rather according to that of Hash-m and Beis Din'.

1. Suggestion: If we did not say this, he could swear according to his intention, e.g. he could nickname some wood chips 'money', and swear 'I gave the money to Ploni'!

(d) Answer: No, (really, we judge oaths objectively according to his words, not by his personal intention);

1. We are concerned for cases such as occurred in front of Rava (a man hid money in a stick, asked his creditor to hold the stick, and swore 'I gave you your money'! This was literally true, but not according to Beis Din's intention.

(e) Question #2 (Beraisa): When Moshe forced Benei Yisrael to swear, he said 'I do not make you swear according to your intentions, rather according to Hash-m's intentions and my intentions.

1. Suggestion: He could not simply ask them to swear to fulfill what Eloka (G-d) said, lest they swear according to their own intention, e.g. they would call an idol Elo'ah and swear by it.

(f) Answer: No, that would be according to the objective meaning of the words, idols are called Elo'ah - "Elohei Kesef".

1. Question: Why didn't he make them swear to keep the Torah?
2. Answer: They could say, we only swore to keep one Torah (written or oral).
3. Likewise: had he made them swear to keep two Toros, they could say, we only swore to keep the Toros (laws of) Chatas and Olah;
4. Had he made them swear to keep the entire Torah, this could be construed to mean idolatry, which is equivalent to the entire Torah;
5. Had he made them swear to keep Mitzvah, this would only mean one Mitzvah; Mitzvos would only mean two Mitzvos;
6. Had he made them swear to keep all the Mitzvos, this could be construed to mean Tzitzis, which is equivalent to the entire Torah;
7. Question: Why didn't he make them swear to keep 613 Mitzvos?

i. Counter-question: Why did he have to make them swear according to Hash-m's and Moshe's intentions, it would have sufficed to say 'according to my intentions'.

8. Answer to both questions: In order that the oath (will be according to the opinion of many others, so it) cannot be annulled.

(g) (Mishnah): 'If I did not see a snake like the beam of an olivepress'.
(h) Question: But a bigger snake was seen in the days of Shevor Malka, it consumed 13 stables (or bundles) of hay.
(i) Answer (Shmuel): He means, it was Taruf (Rashi - grooved; Tosfos ha'Rosh - rectangular) like the beam of an olivepress.
(j) Question: All snakes are like that!
(k) Answer: He means, its back was Taruf.
(l) (Mishnah): 'I swear that I will eat this loaf, I swear that I will *not* eat it'...(if he does not eat it, he transgressed Bituy).
(m) Question: Why is he only liable for Bituy, and not for (the latter,) a vain oath?
(n) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): Indeed, the Mishnah means, he *even* transgressed Bituy.

(a) (Mishnah): Oaths of Bituy apply to men and women, (whether he swore to help) relatives and strangers, people qualified or unqualified to testify, in or outside of Beis Din, when he swears himself;

1. He is lashed if he transgressed intentionally, and brings an Oleh v'Yored if he was Shogeg.

(b) Vain oaths apply to men and women, (whether he swore about) relatives and strangers, people qualified or unqualified to testify, in or outside of Beis Din, when he swears himself;

1. He is lashed if he transgressed intentionally, if he was Shogeg he is exempt.

(c) Another person can put either oath on him: if Reuven said 'I did not eat (or don Tefilin) today', Shimon said 'I impose an oath to this effect on you', and Reuven answered 'Amen', he is liable.
(d) (Gemara - Shmuel): One who answers 'Amen' to an oath is as one who said the oath himself - "V'Amrah ha'Ishah Amen Amen" (if guilty, she will die for this oath).
(e) Support #1 (Rav Papa): Shmuel must be correct, this is the only way to resolve a contradiction between a Mishnah and Beraisa.

1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): The oath of not knowing testimony applies only to men, only to strangers, only to Kosher witnesses, only to people fitting to testify (to exclude kings), in or outside of Beis Din;

i. When he swears himself, he is liable anywhere; if the oath is imposed on him, he is only liable if he denies in Beis Din.

2. Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Meir): The oath of not knowing testimony: Reuven asked witnesses to testify for him; they said 'We swear that we do not know testimony for you';

i. Or: they said 'We do not know testimony for you', Reuven said ''I impose an oath to this effect on you', and they answered 'Amen' - whether in or outside of Beis Din, whether they swore themselves or the oath was imposed on them, they are liable if they deny in Beis Din.

3. Resolution: When they answer 'Amen', they are liable even outside of Beis Din; if they (accepted the oath but) did not say 'Amen', they are only liable in Beis Din.

(f) Support #2 (Ravina): Shmuel must be correct, this is the only way to resolve a contradiction in our Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah): Oaths of Bituy apply...when he swears himself;

i. Inference: It does not apply when the oath was imposed on him.

2. Contradiction (end of the Mishnah): Another person can put either oath on him.
3. Resolution: When they answer 'Amen', they are liable even outside of Beis Din; if they (accepted the oath but) did not say 'Amen', they are only liable in Beis Din.

(g) Question: What is Shmuel's Chidush, the Mishnah teaches this?
(h) Answer: Shmuel teaches that the Mishnah teaches this law.