Previous daf

1)

(a) Bearing in mind that the Torah has just written "Lehara O Leheitiv", Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Asher Yevatei" - to include things that are neither for one's good nor harmful ('she'Ezrok Tzror la'Yam).
2. ... "*Le'Chol* Asher Yevatei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah" - to include Shevu'os of the past ('she'Achalti').

(b) Rebbi Yishmael - disagrees with Rebbi Akiva's latter D'rashah. He precludes Shevu'os of the past from Shevu'as Bituy.

(c) Rebbi Akiva's problem with Rebbi Yishmael's opinion is - that if he includes the one, he must also include the other.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan explains that Rebbi Yishmael Darshened the Torah like his Rebbi Nechunyah ben Hakaneh, in the form of 'K'lal u'P'rat U'K'lal'; whereas Rebbi Akiva, following *his* Rebbe (Nachum Ish Gam Zu), Darshened it - in the form of "Ribuy, Mi'ut ve'Ribuy'.

(a) Rebbi Akiva Darshened 'Ribuy Mi'ut ve'Ribuy'. "O Nefesh Ki Sishava", Ribah; "Lehara O Leheitiv", Mi'at; "Le'chol Asher Yevatei ha'Adam", Chazar ve'Ribah'. We learn from the Mi'ut - that neither a Shevu'ah to negate a Mitzvah nor a Shevu'ah to change that which is known is considered a Shevu'as Bituy.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael learns from ...

1. ... "Le'chol Asher Yevatei ha'Adam" (which he considers a 'K'lal') - that a Shevu'ah that is neither for a person's good nor harmful is considered a Shevu'as Bituy.
2. ... "Lehara O Leheitiv" (which he considers a 'P'rat') - to preclude a Shevu'ah of the past from Shevu'as Bituy.

(c) Based on "Lehara O Leheitiv", Rebbi Yitzchak connects Shevu'as Bituy to ''Lo Yachel Devaro" (of Nedarim) - to preclude a Shevu'ah of the past (which is Not subject to 'Bal Yachel'), and to therefore include Shevu'os that are neither good nor harmful (rather than the other way round as we initially asked on Rebbi Yishmael).

(d) "Lehara O Leheitiv" does not go so well with the La'av - 'Bal Teshakru' (which implies that it is a lie as soon as it is uttered, which pertains to the past).

(e) Rav Yitzchak bar Avin answers the Kashya 'Eipuch' by quoting the Pasuk "O Nefesh Ki Sishava Levatei bi'Sefasayim". From the fact that "Ki Sishava" precedes "Levatei" - he learns that the Shevu'ah must precede the deed to which it pertains, and explains why Rebbi Yishmael insists on precluding a Shevu'ah of the past from Shevu'as Bituy.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "le'Chol Asher Yevatei *ha'Adam*" - 'P'rat le'A'nus'.

(b) We illustrate this with the story of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi - where initially, each one swore that Rav had taught them something the way he quoted it. After corroborating one of their opinions, Rav allayed the fears of the second one by assuring him that since he was convinced of what he had said, he was guilty of a Shevu'as Sheker (because of the D'rashah "ha'Adam", 'P'rat le'A'nus').

(c) The Tana precludes Meizid from the word "ve'Ne'elam". From the juxtaposition of "ve'Ne'elam" to "bi'Shevu'ah", he learns - 'Al He'elam Shevu'ah Hu Chayav, ve'Eino Chayav al He'elam Cheifetz'.

(a) They laughed at the latter D'rashah in Eretz Yisrael, because they held that forgetting the object incorporates forgetting the Shevu'ah. For example, if the Mashbi'a swore that he would not eat wheat-bread, and he then ate wheat-bread, believing that he had sworn not to eat barley-bread, this incorporates forgetting the Shevu'ah as well as the Cheifetz.

(b) 'Inshi Cheftza' means - 'he forgot the object'.

(c) They had no problem with 'Shevu'ah B'li Cheifetz - where he swore that he would not eat wheat-bread, and he thought that he had sworn that he would.

(d) So Rebbi Elazar ruled - that 'Cheifetz B'li Shevu'ah' is Chayav too.

(a) Rav Yosef disagreed with the B'nei Eretz Yisrael. He maintained - that, if someone swore that he would not eat wheat-bread, and then took a loaf of wheat-bread, believing it to be a barley-loaf, since he remembers the Shevu'ah, and it is the Cheifetz that is hidden from him, it is indeed considered 'He'elam Cheifetz, and not He'elam Shevu'ah.

(b) Abaye asked Rav Yosef that it is considered a He'elam Shevu'ah, because he thinks that he did not make a Shevu'ah on the loaf that he took and ate). To which Rav Yosef replied - that seeing as becoming aware that it was a wheat-loaf would have caused him to desist (and not a reminder of the Shevu'ah), it is considered a He'elam Cheifetz.

(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman what the Din would be if someone forgot both the Cheifetz and the Shevu'ah. When Rav Nachman replied 'Harei He'elam Shevu'ah be'Yado ve'Chayav', he retorted - 'Harei He'elam Cheifetz be'Yado, u'Patur'.

(d) And when Rav Ashi suggested that we should check and see what would have caused him to desist, the knowledge of the Cheifetz or the knowledge of the Shevu'ah, Ravina retorted - 'K'lum Parish mi'Shevu'ah Ela Mishum Cheifetz'?

(e) The outcome of Rava's She'eilah is - 'Ela Lo Sh'na', and he is Patur (see Meleches Betzalel).

6)

(a) Based on the current Beraisa, Rava's problem with Shigegas Bituy Shevu'ah le'she'Avar (according to Rebbi Akiva) is - that if the Mashbi'a remembers at the time when he swears, he is Meizid, and if he does not, he is 'Anus (both of which are Patur from a Korban, as we just learned).

(b) This is not a problem with 'le'Haba' - which speaks when he made the Shevu'ah in his full senses, but forgot the Shevu'ah afterwards.

(c) Rav Nachman answered him by establishing the case like Munbaz with regard to Shigegas Shabbos - that he realized that he was making a false Shevu'ah, but forgot that a false Shevu'ah is subject to a Korban.

(d) Our Beraisa might even hold like the Rabbanan however, who will concede to Munbaz (that He'elam Korban is sufficient) by Shevu'as Bituy, which is different - inasmuch as it is in itself a Chidush, that one is Chayav a Korban on a mere La'av (as if to say, that one Chidush causes the other).

(a) Ravina asked Rava what the Din will be if someone makes a Shevu'ah forbidding a loaf on himself, and in a moment of starvation he forgot the Shevu'ah and ate the loaf, whether he is Chayav a Korban or not. To which Rava replied - that since, if he came to ask for a Heter, the Rav would definitely revoke the Shevu'ah, it is obvious that he is not considered as having contravened his Shevu'ah (even if he did not).

(b) So Ravina amended the She'eilah to a case where he was very hungry and would have eaten the loaf anyway (even though his life was not in danger). To which Rava replied, based on the Mishnah in Hori'os, - that in this case too, he will be Patur, seeing it is not a case of 'Shav mi'Yedi'aso' (meaning that he would have retracted had he remembered the Shevu'ah, a major condition for being Chayav a Korban).

(a) Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "Levatei bi'Sefasayim" - that for a Shevu'ah to be valid, it must be verbalized (and not just decided in one's heart).

(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "le'Chol Asher Yevatei bi'Sefasayim" - that a decision in one's heart is sufficient to render a Shevu'ah effective.

(c) Rav Sheishes reconciles this with the Reisha ''bi'Sefasayim", 've'Lo be'Leiv'. He interprets ...

1. ... the Reisha to mean - that once a person has decided to verbalize a Shevu'ah, then it will not be valid until he does so.
2. ... the Seifa - that if he decided a Shevuah in his heart S'tam, then the Shevu'ah is valid (even though he did not verbalize it).

(d) Shmuel explains the Beraisa differently. According to him, the Reisha means ''bi'Sefasayim", 've'Lo she'Gamar be'Libo Lehotzi Pas Chitin, ve'Hotzi Pas Se'orin'' (meaning that his Shevu'ah must conform with his intentions), and the Seifa - that if he intended to forbid on himself wheat -bread, and then said Pas (S'tam), then his Shevu'ah is indeed valid (with regard to wheat-bread [Tosfos ha'Rosh]).

(a) Following the Pasuk (in connection with a Neder to bring a Korban) "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa", a second Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the donations for the Mishkan) "Kol Nediv Leiv" - that someone who intended in his heart to donate towards the Mishkan, is obligated to do so.

(b) We reconcile this with Shmuel, who requires a Shevu'ah to be verbalized, according to those who hold ...

1. ... Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin' - by considering Kodshim and Terumah (where the Torah also considers one's intentions to be binding) 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad'.
2. ... Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Melamdin' -by applying the principle 'Chulin mi'Kodshim Lo Gamrinan' (since the Torah refers to Terumah as Kodesh too).

(c) If the above Pasuk is written in connection with Kodshim (see Tosfos DH 'Mishum'), the Pasuk by Terumah to which we are referring is - the Pasuk in Korach "ve'*Nechshav* Lachem Terumaschem'.