Previous daf

1)

(a) We have already discussed the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan (with regard to 'Nishba Lekayem es ha'Mitzvah'). If Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira validates such a Shevu'ah 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Shevu'as ha'Reshus, the Rabbanan consider it invalid - because, unlike Shevu'as ha'Reshus, it is not subject to 'La'av ke'Hein', as we learned above.

(b) Te Beraisa learns this Halachah - from "Lehara O Leheitiv", 'Mah Hara'ah Reshus, Af Hatavah Reshus'.

(c) The same Tana learns that ...

1. ... 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah ve'Lo Bitel Patur' - from the same Pasuk (but in the reverse order [as will be explained shortly]) 'Mah Hatavah Reshus, Af Hara'ah Reshus'.
2. ... 'Nishba Lehara Le'atzmo ve'Lo Heira, Chayav' - from the same source again 'Mah Hatavah Reshus ... '.

(d) The Tana ...

1. ... precludes 'Nishba Lehara la'Acherim' - from 'Mah Hatavah Reshus ... ' (and one has no permission to harm another Jew.
2. ... includes 'Nishba Leheitiv la'Acherim' - from "*O* Leheitiv".

(a) The problem with establishing "Lehara O Leheitiv by a D'var Mitzvah is based on the fact that we either compare Hara'ah to Hatavah or Hatavah to Hara'ah. Assuming the former, the Tana learns that Hatavah cannot entail a Bitul Mitzvah - such as eating on Yom Kipur or eating Chametz on Pesach, but a Kiyum Mitzvah, such as eating Matzah on Seider-night.

(b) And he takes this for granted - because if the Nishba then carried out his Shevu'ah, it would be considered Hara'ah (to his soul) and not Hatavah.

(c) If we now compare Hara'ah to Hatavah, we will likewise establish Hara'ah - not by a Bitul Mitzvah, such as not to eat Matzah on Seder-night, but by a Kiyum Mitzvah, such as not to eat Chametz on Pesach.

(d) The problem with this is - that since we already know Kiyum Mitzvah by Shevu'ah from Hatavah, why does the Torah need to repeat the same Halachah in the form of Hara'ah?

(a) Assuming on the other hand, that we compare Hatavah to Hara'ah, then we will learn that just as Hara'ah cannot speak by a Kiyum Mitzvah (such as not eating Chametz on Pesach), neither will Hatavah speak by a Kiyum Mitzvah (such as eating Matzah on Seder night), only by a Bitul Mitzvah (to eat Chametz on Pesach). We take for granted that the Tana is not speaking about a Kiyum Mitzvah - because that would then be Hatavah and not Hara'ah.

(b) We are trying to prove from the above Kashyos - that Hara'ah and Hatavah must be speaking about a D'var ha'Reshus.

(c) If "Lehara" and "Leheitiv" are referring to a D'var ha'Reshus, we will then compare ..

1. ... Hara'ah to Hatavah - in that just as Hatavah refers to something that causes no bodily harm to the Nishba (otherwise it will be Hara'ah), and that is beneficial, then likewise Hara'ah will refer to something that is good for him, such as not to eat something that is harmful.
2. ... Hatavah to Hara'ah - in that just as Hara'ah refers to desist from eating, not something that is harmful (as that would be Hatavah), but something that is good for the body, so too, does Hatavah refers to a Shevu'ah to eat something that is not beneficial to the body, but that is harmful.

(d) The Kashyos that we asked previously apply here too - because in the first case Hara'ah is superfluous (since it is really Hatavah), and in the second case, Hatavah (which is really Hara'ah).

(a) We finally learn Reshus from the fact that the Torah found it necessary to write "O" to teach us Hatavas Acherim - because if 'Hatavah' and 'Hara'ah' were referring to Kiyum and Bitul Mitzvah respectively (and Bitul Mitzvah would apply to Acherim just like it applies to oneself), then, now that Hara'as Acherim is included, Kal va'Chomer Hatavas Acherim.

(b) The problem with this is - that "O" is needed to teach us that Shevu'as Bituy applies even to one or the other, and that it does not require both.

(c) This is only a problem according to Rebbi Yashiyah, who, concerning the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish Asher Yekalel es Aviv ve'es Imo ... Aviv ve'Imo Kilel", Rebbi Yashiyah explains 'Aviv Kilel, Imo Kilel'. He extrapolate this from the Pasuk - because at the beginning of the Pasuk, the Torah places 'K'lalah' next to "Aviv", and at the end of the Pasuk, next to "Imo".

(d) We learn from there - that, according to Rebbi Yashiyah, when the Torah writes a 'Vav' and not "O", it means 'and' and not 'either or' (otherwise, he would not need "Aviv ve'Imo Kilel" to separate them).

(a) There is no problem according to Rebbi Yonasan however, who explains that as long as the Torah does not insert the word 'Yachdav', the 'Vav' can also mean 'or'.

(b) We resolve the problem by establishing Rebbi Yashiyah like Rebbi Akiva (whom we discussed earlier in the Perek) - who Darshens 'Ribuyi, Mi'uti and Ribu'i'. What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(c) And from where does Rebbi Akiva preclude Kiyum Mitzvah?

6)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira counters the Rabbanan's argument (that Kiyum Mitzvah is not 'be'La'av ve'Hein') - by comparing this case to that of 'Hatavas Acherim', which the Beraisa (in the previous Sugya) included, despite the fact that there is no 'Hara'as Acherim'.

(b) To which the Rabbanan reply - that even though there is no Hara'as Acherim, the case of "Lehara" is nevertheless applicable where the Nishba says 'Lo Eitiv'.

(a) In a case where someone declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, ve'Achlah', our Mishnah rules - 'Eino Chayav Ela Achas' (one Korban, if he transgressed be'Shogeg).

(b) This is a typical case of Shevu'as Bituy. The punishment for transgressing either a Shevu'as Bituy or a Shevu'as Shav be'Meizid is - Malkos.

(c) Someone who contravenes a Shevu'as Bituy be'Shogeg - must bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored; a Shevu'as Shav - receives no official punishment.

(a) The problem with the Tana's Lashon 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah ... ' is - why he changed from 'she'Lo Ochal' to 'she'Lo Ochlenah'.

(b) We answer that there is indeed a difference between the two expressions (as we shall see), as a result of which we extrapolate from the Mishnah - that had he inverted the order ('Lo Ochlenah Kikar Zu, Lo Achal'), he would have been Chayav two Chata'os.

(c) The reasoning behind this distinction is based on a statement of Rava, who ruled - that 'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu' implies a k'Zayis, whereas 'she'Lo Ochlenah' implies the entire loaf.

(d) This will explain the Mishnah's distinction - inasmuch as 'she'Lo Ochlenah' is included in she'Lo Ochal' (since if each k'Zayis is already forbidden, how much more so the entire loaf); whereas 'she'Lo Ochal' is not included in 'she'Lo Ochlenah' (since the prohibition to eat a k'Zayis is not included in that of eating the entire loaf).

(a) We already know that 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah' from the first 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah'. Nevertheless, the Tana finds it necessary to add a second 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah' to teach us - that even though the Nishba is not Chayav, the Shevu'ah is effective.

(b) The ramifications of this statement are based on a ruling of Rava, who said that if someone made one Shevu'ah after the other, and subsequently had the first Shevu'ah revoked - the second one (which was hanging in abeyance) then comes into effect.

(c) The Beraisa states that, in a case where someone declares two sets of Nezirus, and who, at the end of thirty days, has already designated his Korban, when he decides to have his first Nezirus revoked - the Nezirus that he observed counts as his second Nezirus, and he may bring the animal that he designated as its Korban.

(d) This Beraisa is not however, a support for Rava - because whereas there, the second Nezirus would have taken effect (after the termination of the first) even if the first one had not been revoked, in our case, the second Shevu'ah would not have taken effect, had he not revoked the first.

(a) If someone forbade a loaf of bread on himself with a Shevu'ah, and after eating part of it, he wants to have the Shevu'ah revoked, Rava rules - that he is permitted to do so - provided at least one k'Zayis of it remains.

(b) The problem Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava has with this, assuming that he originally declared ...

1. ... 'she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu' is - why did he not irrevocably transgress with each k'Zayis that he ate?
2. ... 'she'Lo Ochlenah' is - that even if a Kol Shehu remains, there seems to be no reason why it cannot it annulled.

(c) Rav Ashi establishes Rava's ruling either way. Assuming the Nishba said ...

1. ... 'she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu', he explains - since ('Migu') the nullification of the last k'Zayis is effective, it also incorporates the rest of the loaf.
2. ... 'she'Lo Ochlenah', he says - that less than a k'Zayis is not sufficiently Chashuv to become nullified.