Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE OATHS

(a) (Beraisa): Even Shevu'as ha'Dayanim may be said in any language the defendant understands;
(b) We tell him that the world shook when Hash-m said on Sinai "Lo Tisa Es Shem Hash-m la'Shav".
(c) Regarding all other transgressions, it says "V'Nakeh", regarding swearing falsely it says "Lo Yenake";
(d) Regarding all other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the sinner; regarding swearing falsely, He punishes his family as well - "Al Titen Es Picha Lachati Es Besarecha";

1. "Besarecha" refers to his family.

(e) Regarding all other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the sinner; regarding swearing falsely, He punishes the entire world - "Alo v'Chachesh...(Al Ken Te'eval ha'Aretz v'Umlal Kol Yoshev Bah)".

1. (Gra deletes the following from the text: Suggestion: Perhaps that is only for doing all the transgressions in that verse!
2. Rejection "Mipne Alah Avlah ha'Aretz".)

(f) Regarding all other transgressions, if he has merits, his punishment is suspended for two or three generations; for swearing falsely, he is punished immediately - "Hotzeisi'ah...u'Ba'ah El Beis ha'Ganav v'El Beis ha'Nishba bi'Shmi la'Shaker v'Laneh b'Soch Beiso v'Chilato v'Es Etzav v'Es Avanav";

1. "Hotzeisi'ah (a scroll of punishments awaiting the following people)" - immediately; "U'Ba'ah El Beis ha'Ganav" - this is one who is Gonev Da'as (deceives), he falsely claims money in order to force people to swear;
2. "V'El Beis ha'Nishba bi'Shmi la'Shaker" - one who swears falsely; "...v'Chilato v'Es Etzav v'Es Avanav" - water and fire do not wear away the wood and rocks (of his house), but false oaths do.

(g) If the defendant says 'I will (pay and) not swear' - we immediately make him leave Beis Din, so he cannot retract (Rashi; R. Tam - so he will be ashamed to retract later)
(h) If he says 'I will swear', all present say "Suru Na me'Al Ahalei ha'Anashim ha'Rsha'im ha'Eleh";

1. When we administers the oath, we tell him 'You do not swear according to your own intention, rather according to that of Hash-m and Beis Din'.
2. We find that Moshe forced Benei Yisrael to swear thusly, he said 'I do not make you swear according to your intentions, rather according to Hash-m's intentions and my intentions - "V'Lo Itechem Levadechem";

i. "Asher Yeshno Po ha'Yom" - those who stood on Har Sinai; "Asher Einenu Po Imanu ha'Yom" - future generations and those who will convert later;
ii. This applies to Mitzvos received on Har Sinai (i.e. mid'Oraisa); we learn Mitzvos (mid'Rabanan) that will be given later, such as reading Megilas Ester, from "Kiymu v'Kibelu" - they fulfilled what they already accepted (i.e. whatever Mitzvos Chachamim will enact). (end of Beraisa)

(i) Question: The Beraisa said, *even* Shevu'as ha'Dayanim may be said in any language - what does this mean?
(j) Answer: It is like the other things listed in the following Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah): The following may be said in any language: the Parshah of Sotah, the declaration of (having properly given) Ma'aseros, Krias Shema, prayer, blessing after a meal, Shevu'as ha'Edus, and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon.
2. The Beraisa teaches that also Shevu'as ha'Dayanim may be said in any language.

(k) (Beraisa): We tell him that the world shook when Hash-m said on Sinai "Lo Tisa Es Shem Hash-m la'Shav".
(l) Question: Why is this?

1. If because it was said on Sinai - all ten utterances were said on Sinai!

(m) Answer #1: Rather, because it is stringent.
(n) Objection (Beraisa): Light transgressions - a Mitzvos Ase or Lav, except for "Lo Tisa"; severe transgressions - those punishable by Kares or death (administered by Beis Din), and "Lo Tisa" (it is no more stringent than transgressions of Kares or death)!
(o) Answer #2: Rather, as the Beraisa continues - regarding all other transgressions, it says "V'Nakeh", regarding swearing falsely it says "Lo Yenake".

1. Question: "Lo Yenake" is written by all transgressions (after the 13 Midos of Hash-m)!
2. Answer: That is (if he did not repent) as R. Elazar taught;

i. (Beraisa - R. Elazar) Question: How can it say both "Lo Yenake" and "Yenakeh"?
ii. Answer: Hash-m cleanses one who repents, not one who does not repent.

3. Regarding false oaths, Hash-m does not cleanse (without punishments) even if he repents.

(a) (Beraisa): Regarding all other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the sinner; regarding swearing falsely, He also punishes his family.
(b) Question: There are other transgressions for which Hash-m also punishes his family (such as handing over children to Molech) - "V'Samti Ani Es Panai ba'Ish ha'Hu uv'Mishpachto"!'

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon) Question: Why is his family punished for his sin?
2. Answer (R. Shimon): If there is a tax collector (who takes more than is proper) or robber in a family, they are all guilty of theft, for they cover up for him.

(c) Answer: Regarding other transgressions, the family is not punished as harshly as the sinner (even if they could have protested); regarding false oaths, the family gets the same punishment.

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): Since it says "V'Samti...uv'Mishpachto", one might have thought that the entire family gets Kares - "V'Hichrati Oso" teaches, only the one who handed over his children to Molech gets Kares.

(d) Regarding all other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the sinner; regarding swearing falsely, He punishes the entire world.
(e) Question: Also for other transgressions, Hash-m punishes the entire world!

1. "V'Chashlu Ish b'Achiv" - a man will stumble (be punished for) the sin of his brother, this teaches that every Yisrael is responsible for every Yisrael!

(f) Answer: That is only if they could have protested, and did not.
(g) Question: What is the difference between the wicked (those who could have protested, but did not) of his family and wicked strangers, and between the righteous (those who could not have protested) of his family and righteous strangers?
(h) Answer: Regarding all other transgressions, the sinner gets his punishment, the wicked of his family get a (lighter but) severe punishment, wicked strangers get a light punishment, the righteous are not punished at all;

1. Regarding false oaths, the sinner and the wicked of his family get the same punishment, wicked strangers get a severe punishment, the righteous are punished lightly.

(i) (Beraisa): If the defendant says 'I will (pay and) not swear' - we immediately make him leave Beis Din;

1. If he says 'I will swear', all present say "Suru Na me'Al Ahalei ha'Anashim ha'Rsha'im ha'Eleh".

(j) Question: This implies that both are evil - but only one will (possibly) swear falsely!
(k) Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Tarfon): "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Shneihem" - they are both punished for the oath (one who deposits by a swindler helps cause desecration of Hash-m's name).
(l) (Beraisa): When we administer the oath, we tell him 'You do not swear according to your own intention, rather according to that of Hash-m and Beis Din'.
(m) Question: Why must we say this?
(n) Answer: Lest he swear like the man who swore in front of Rava (he 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 understanding.)

(a) (Mishnah): The claim must be at least two (Ma'os) of Kesef.
(b) (Rav): This means, the defendant must *deny* a claim of two Ma'os.
(c) (Shmuel): The entire claim must be at least two Ma'os, it suffices that he denies at least a Perutah and admits to at least a Perutah.
(d) (Rava): Our Mishnah supports Rav, the verses support Shmuel.
(e) According to Rav, the Mishnah is fine, it teaches the amount of denial (two Ma'os) and admission (a Perutah);

1. According to Shmuel, it omits teaching the amount of denial (a Perutah)!

(f) The verses support Shmuel as follows:

1. "Ki Yiten...Kesef O Kelim" - just as vessels (plural) implies two, also Kesef;
2. Just as Kesef is important, also (a claim of) any (two) important things (our text, Rashi; Tosfos - of important vessels, i.e. each is worth at least a Perutah) can obligate an oath.
3. "Ki Hu Zeh" - the oath comes for such a claim!
4. Rav explains, this teaches that he must partially admit to the claim.
5. Shmuel says, since "Ki" and "Zeh" are both extra, we learn both (the oath comes for such a claim, and that he must partially admit to the claim).
6. Rav says, the two things we learn are that he must partially admit to the claim, and that the admission must be like the claim.

(g) Question (against Rav): Perforce, if he admits to part of a claim of two Ma'os, he denies less than two Ma'os!
(h) Answer: The verse teaches that the denial must be at least two Ma'os.

1. Support: Otherwise, it should only have said "Kelim", we would have known that also Kesef must be two;
2. "Kesef" is extra to teach that the denial itself must be two Ma'os.
3. Rejection (Shmuel): Had it only said "Kelim", we would have thought that a claim of any two things suffices, even if they are not important;

i. "Kesef" is needed to teach that they must be important.

(i) Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): If Reuven claimed two Ma'os of Kesef, and Shimon admitted that he owes a Perutah, Shimon is exempt.

1. Suggestion: He is exempt because the denial is less than two Ma'os!

(j) Answer: No - the claim was not the *value* of two Ma'os, rather specifically two silver Ma'os;

1. He is exempt because the admission was (a Perutah, a copper coin, which is) not like what was claimed (silver coins).

(k) Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed two Ma'os of Kesef and a Perutah, and Shimon admitted that he owes a Perutah - he must (pay the Perutah and) swear;

1. We understand if the claim was the *value* of two Ma'os and a Perutah, for then the admission and denial are similar (both are value);
2. But if the claim was specifically two silver Ma'os and a Perutah, the admission (a Perutah) is unlike the denial (silver Ma'os)!

(l) Answer: Indeed, Rav Nachman cited Shmuel to say that if two different things are claimed and he admits to one of them, he must swear!
(m) Support (for Shmuel - end of the Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a liter of gold, and Shimon admitted that he owes a liter of silver, Shimon is exempt;

1. We understand why he is exempt if the claim was specifically a liter of gold - if so, the admission was unlike the claim.
2. But if the claim was the value of a liter of gold, he admitted to part of the claim (and also denied more than two Ma'os)!
3. Just as the end of the Mishnah must refer to the metal itself (not the value), also the beginning!

(n) Suggestion: This refutes Rav (the Mishnah implies that if the denial was like the claim, he would be liable to swear, even though the denial is less than two Ma'os(!
(o) Rejection: No - Rav explains, almost the entire Mishnah refers to claims of value;

1. The only exception is a liter of gold (because it is not a currency, people do not normally use it as a unit of value.