Previous daf

1)

(a) Only a Shevu'as Shav is subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, but not a Neder.

(b) When the Beraisa then says 'Mivta, Shevu'ah; Isar, Shevu'ah', it means to say - that 'Mivta Kikar Zu Alai' is considered a Shevu'ah. Consequently, if he then eats the loaf, he will have to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, and the same applies to someone who says 'Isar Kikar Zu Alai'.

(c) The problem with the continuation of the Beraisa 'Isur Isar, im Atah Omer Isar, Shevu'ah, Chayav' is - that having said that 'Isar' is a Lashon Shevu'ah, why does the Tana then express doubts whether it is or isn't?

(a) Abaye therefore explains the Beraisa by substituting 'Isar Shevu'ah' for 'Isar Mitfis bi'Shevu'ah' - which means that when the Noder says 'Isar Kikar Zu Alai', it is as if he had made a Shevu'ah on a loaf of bread, and then transferred the Isur on to the loaf in front of him (which is known as 'Matfis bi'Shevu'ah').

(b) The Tana's Chidush is - that 'Matfis bi'Shevu'ah' is considered as if he had made an express Shevu'ah (in which case he will have to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(a) Initially, we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "O Nefesh Ki Sishava Le'vatei bi'Sefasayim" - that Mivta is a Lashon Shevu'ah.
2. ... "Kol Neder ve'Chol Shevu'as Isar" - that Isar is a Lashon Shevu'ah, too.
3. ... "O Asrah Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah" - that Isar is considered Matfis bi'Shevu'ah (as we just explained).

(b) The problem with this is - that if that is so, the Pasuk "le'Chol Asher Yevatei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah" also implies that Mivta is Matfis bi'Shevu'ah, too.

(c) So Abaye ultimately learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Hayo Yihyeh le'Ish u'Nedarehah Alehah, O Mivta Sefasehah" - that Mivta is a Lashon Shevu'ah.

(d) This source is better than the previous one - inasmuch as it mentions Mivta as an alternative to Neder, without mentioning Shevu'ah specifically.

(a) Rava interprets the Beraisa differently. According to him, the original wording 'Mivta Shevu'ah, Isar Shevu'ah' remains intact, and he interpret the continuation 'Isro Isar, Im Atah Omer Isar Shevu'ah ... ' to mean - that the Torah deliberately places Isar in between Neder and Shevu'ah ("ve'Im Beis Iyshah Nadarah, O Asrah Isar al Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah" [Matos]) to teach us that in fact, an 'Isar' can be a Neder and it can be a Shevu'ah, depending on the Lashon that one uses ('Isar she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu' is a Shevu'ah, 'Isar Kikar Zu Alai', a Neder).

(b) And he holds - 'Mitfis bi'Shevu'ah La'av ke'Motzi Shevu'ah mi'Piv Dami' (Matfis bi'Shevu'ah is not considered as if one had actually declared a Shevu'ah).

(c) The basis of the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is not a new one. Their original dispute is - whether 'Matfis Shevu'ah ke'Motzi Shevu'ah mi'Piv Dami' (Abaye), or ' ... La'av ke'Motzi mi'Piv Dami' (Rava).

(a) Two of the cases that the Beraisa gives to describe Isar are 'she'Lo Ochal Basar ve'she'Lo Eshteh Yayin ke'Yom she'Meis Bo Aviv, ke'Yom she'Meis Bo P'loni' (or 'Rabo'). The other two are - 'ke'Yom she'Neherag Gedalyah ben Achikam' and 'ke'Yom she'Ra'ah Yerushalayim be'Churbanah'.

(b) Shmuel qualifies the case - by requiring that he had in fact, made a Neder on those four occasions.

(c) This Beraisa conforms with Abaye's opinion - because if Hatfasah of a Neder is a Neder (see Tosfos DH 'mi'de'Matfis'), Hatfasah of a Shevu'ah is also a Shevu'ah.

(d) It creates a problem with that of Rava however - who holds that Hatfasah of a Shevu'ah is not considered a Shevu'ah, in which case Hatfasah of a Neder should not be considered a Neder either?

6)

(a) Rava amends the Lashon 'Eizehu Isar ha'Amur ba'Torah' to read - 'Eizehu Isar Neder ha'Amur ba'Torah' (with reference to Neder, and not to Matfis be'Neder, as we thought until now).

(b) The Chidush of the Beraisa stems from the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yidor li'Nedor Neder la'Hashem" from which we learn - that a Neder only takes affect if one connects it to something that is forbidden through a Neder (but not that is intrinsically forbidden [such as Neveilah]).

(c) The Chidush lies, not in the case of 'ke'Yom she'Meis Bo Aviv' (which is obviously a Davar ha'Nadur), but in 'ke'Yom she'Neherag Bo Gedalyah ben Achikam' - which, the Tana is coming to teach us, takes effect, even though it is forbidden to eat on that day anyway, because a Neder is effective on a Mitzvah (i.e. the Mitzvah to fast on Tzom Gedalyah).

(d) We reject the Lashon that attributes the Neder taking effect to the fact that the prohibition is only mi'de'Rabbanan - because the Neder would take effect, even if fasting on Tzom Gedalyah would be a Mitzvah min ha'Torah, for the reason that we just explained.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Rava, because when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted him as saying - 'Mivta Lo Ochal Lach, Isar Lo Ochal Lach, Shevu'ah'.

(b) The basic difference between the Lashon 'Sheker' and that of 'Shav' is - that the former implies breaking one's word, whereas the latter implies deviating from the truth, with no practical consequences.

(c) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he therefore (quoting Rebbi Yochanan) referred to ...

1. ... Shevu'as Sheker as - a Shevu'ah in the future ('Ochal, ve'Lo Achal'), whose Azharah is - the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Lo Sishav'u vi'Shemi la'Shaker".
2. ... Shevu'as Shav as - a Shevu'ah in the past ('Achalti, ve'Lo Achal'), whose Azharah is - the Pasuk in Yisro "Lo Sisa es Shem Hashem Elokecha la'Shav".

(d) The significance of this distinction is - that one only receives Malkos, if the witnesses who warned the sinner quoted the appropriate Pasuk.

(e) And Rav Dimi learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yachel Devaro" - the Azharah for Konamos (Nedarim [though Ravin will dispute this later in the Sugya]).

(a) We ask on Rav Dimi from the Beraisa 'Shav ve'Sheker Echad Hein'. If both really refer to the past - 'Shav' would refer to a case where everybody knew the Shevu'ah to be false, whereas 'Sheker' would refer to things that the public did not know about.

(b) We conclude that in fact, Shav refers to the past and Sheker, to the future (like Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explained), and when the Tana says 'Echad Hein', he means - that Hashem said ''Shav" and "Sheker" simultaneously.

(c) And we support this answer with a Beraisa, which says the same (that Hashem 'performed the impossible') - about "Zachor and "Shamor" (see Agados Maharsha [see also Rabeinu Chananel]).

(a) We query the comparison between "Zachor" and "Shamor" on the one hand, and 'Shevu'as Sheker' and 'Shevu'as Shav' on the other - on the grounds that the former at least, teaches us something, but what is there to learn from the latter?

(b) We learn from the fact that 'Shamor ve'Zachor be'Dibur Echad Ne'emru' (which is treated like a 'Hekesh') - that just as women are Chayav to keep ''Shamor" (the prohibition of working on Shabbos) so too, are they Chayav to keep "Zachor" (the Mitzvah of reciting Kidush when Shabbos enters).

(c) We reject the answer that here too, we learn Shevu'as Sheker from Shevu'as Shav regarding Malkos - because if anything, it is Shevu'as Sheker that ought to be subject to Malkos (since it incorporates a case where an act is performed ['Lo Ochal, ve'Achal']), whereas Shevu'as Shav (in the past), is purely a La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.

(d) So it is Shevu'as Shav that we learn from the 'Hekesh' is subject to Malkos, like Shevu'as Sheker.

(a) We learn Malkos by Shevu'as Shav, from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hashem ... " - by inference, since the Pasuk implies that Hashem will not let the person who swore off the hook, but Beis-Din will, if he is warned by two witnesses (and receives Malkos).

(b) This D'rashah is not obvious - because if not for the Hekesh (see Tosfos 'ka Mashma Lan'), we would have interpreted the Pasuk like Rav Papa, who suggested to Abaye that "Lo Yenakeh Hashem" means that the sinner is unpardonable.