Previous daf

1)

(a) The Pasuk in writes "Vayovei Oso be'Alah" - in connection with the oath that Nevuchadnetzar made Tzidkiyahu make not to rebel against him.

(b) Rebbi Avahu proves from the Pasuk (in connection with the same episode) "ve'Gam ba'Melech Nevuchadnetzar Marad Asher Hishbi'o b'Elokim" - that Alah is synonymous with Shevua'h.

(c) When the Tana of the Beraisa says about 'Arur', 'Bo Niduy, Bo Shevu'ah, Bo Kelalah', he means - that 'Arur' can mean any of these three, depending upon the context in which it is said.

(a) The Tana proves from the Pasuk (in connection with the inhabitants of Meroz, who refused to participate in the battle against Sisro) "Oru Meroz, Amar Mal'ach Hashem Oru Arur Yoshvehah" that 'Arur' is a Lashon of Niduy, from a statement of Ula, who said that, as a result of the above - Barak placed them in Cherem (which is synonymous with Cherem) accompanied by the customary blowing of (four hundred) Shofros.

(b) And the Tana proves from the Pasuk "ve'Eileh Ya'amdu al ha'Kelalah be'Har Eival", followed by "Arur ha'Ish Asher Ya'aseh Pesel" - that 'Arur' incorporates Kelalah.

(c) We refute the Beraisa's original proof that 'Arur' contains Shevu'ah from the Pasuk (in connection with whoever would rebuild Yericho) "Vayashba Yehoshua ba'Eis ha'Hi Leimor Arur ha'Ish ... " - on the grounds that Arur and Shevu'ah may well be two distinct things, both of which Yehoshua placed on them should they contravene his oath.

(a) We finally prove that 'Arur' is synonymous with Kelalah from the Pasuk (in connection with the oath that Shaul made forbidding Yisrael to eat that day before the battle was won) "Vayo'el Shaul es ha'Am Leimor Arur ha'Ish ... " followed by "vi'Yehonasan Lo Shama be'Hashbi'a Aviv es ha'Am ... ". Initially, we object to this proof - on the same grounds as we objected to the previous one ('ve'Dilma Tarti Avid Lehu, Ashbe'inhu ve'Laytinhu').

(b) We refute the objection however - on the grounds that in that case, the Pasuk ought to have added a 'Vav', to read "vi'Yehonasan Lo Shama *u'*ve'Hashbi'a Aviv es ha'Am ... ".

(c) In fact, we conclude, we could have given the same answer to the Kashya on the first proof (that, if 'Arur' and Shevu'ah are two things the Pasuk ought to have then written "Vayashba Yehoshua ba'Eis ha'Hi Leimor *ve'*Arur ha'Ish ... ".

(a) In similar style to the previous Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in connection with a Sotah) "Ve'amrah ha'Ishah Amen Amen" - that 'Amen' constitutes a Shevu'ah.
2. ... (in connection with the acceptance of the 'K'lalos' at Har Eival) "Arur Asher Lo Yakim ... Ve'amar Kol ha'Am Amen ve'Amen" - that it also constitutes acceptance.
3. ... (in connection with the false prophecy of Chananyah ben Azur, who prophesied that the vessels that had already been taken to Bavel would be returned) "Amen Kein Ya'aseh Hashem, Yakem Hashem es Devarecha" - that it constitutes corroborating a prayer, too.

(b) Rebbi Elazar says that both 'La'av' and 'Hein' - following the appropriate statement, constitute a Shevu'ah.

(c) If Rebbi Elazar knows that 'La'av' is a Shevu'ah, because the Torah writes (in No'ach) "ve'Lo Yih'yeh Od ha'Mayim le'Mabul, and in Yeshayah "Ki Mei No'ach Zos Li Asher Nishba'ti", he know that 'Hein' is a Shevu'ah too - from a S'vara) because if 'No' corroborates a negative statement, it stands to reason that 'Yes' does the same for a positive one.

(d) Rava qualify Rebbi Elazar's Halachah, by restricting it to where one says 'No' or 'Yes' twice (like the Pasuk in No'ach, which also states "ve'Lo Yikareis Kol Basar Od mi'Mei ha'Mabul" (besides the above-mentioned Pasuk), but if he were to say it only once, it would have no such connotations.

(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk has already written "ve'Nokev Sheim Hashem Mos Yumas", Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ish Ish Ki Yekalel Elokav ve'Nasa Chet'o" - that one is Chayav for the Kinuyin too.

(b) According to the Rabbanan - however, the Kinuyin are only subject to a La'av (but not Misah).

(c) The Chachamim in our Mishnah, who are synonymous with Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi, sentence someone who curses his father or mother to death, only if he curses them with the Name of Hashem. Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi restricts the Pasuk "be'Nokvo Sheim Yumas" (which is otherwise superfluous) - to someone who curses his father or mother.

(a) Rebbi Yanai learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Rak Hishamer Lecha u'Shemor *Nafsh'cha* Me'od" - that someone who curses himself transgresses a La'av.
2. ... "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" - that he transgresses a La'av if he curses someone else.

(b) The earlier D'rashah is based on the principle (of Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila'a) - 'Kol Makom she'Ne'emar Hishamer, Pen ve'Al Eino Ela Lo Sa'aseh'.

(c) And when Rebbi Yanai adds 've'Divrei ha'Kol', he means - that when Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi Darshens "be'Nokvo Sheim Yumas" on someone who curses his father and mother, he meant to preclude someone who curses himself, seeing as he only transgresses a La'av (see Maharsha).

(a) When, in response to Rav Kahana, who quoted the Mishnah ('Yakcha Hashem, Yakchem Elokim, Zu Hi Alah ... ') as it is written, he retorted 'Kaneih!', he meant - that he should change it from the second person to the third, from 'Yakcha Hashem' to 'Yakeihu Hashem', and from 'Yakchem Elokim to 'Yakhem Elokim' (to avoid inviting punishment on oneself).

(b) Rav Kahana said the same in response to a certain Talmid-Chacham who quoted the Pasuk ("Gam Al Yitatzcha la'Netzach ... ") as it is written. We need to cite the second case to teach us - that the concept of 'Kaneih' extends to the written Torah as well. Note, that Rav Kahana did not apply it to the Chumash (see for example, Parshas Bechukosai and Ki Savo), implying that the Leining must be read exactly as the words are written.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Al Yakcha vi'Yevarech'cha ve'Yeitiv Lecha Rebbi Meir Mechayev ... '. The problem with this is - that Rebbi Meir is known to hold 'mi'Chelal La'av *I* Atah Shome'a Hein', and vice-versa.

(b) We answer 'Eipuch'. Rebbi Yitzchak learned the Mishnah the way it is written.

(c) Faced with this dilemma - Rav Yosef preferred to leave theMishnah as it is. To resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Meir, he pointed out that Rebbi Meir holds 'Mi'chelal La'av *I* Atah Shome'a Hein' specifically by Mamon, whereas our Mishnah refers to Isur (issues not connected with Mamon).

(d) We have a problem with this from Sotah, however. Initially (considering that we hardly need a Pasuk to bless a Sotah), we try to Darshen from the Pasuk "Hinaki" - that if she is innocent, she will go free, but if she is guilty, she will not ('mi'Chelal Hein Atah Shome'a La'av').

(a) To accommodate Rebbi Meir, who holds ' ... I Atah Shome'a Hein', Rebbi Tanchum bar Chanila'i Darshens from the fact that the Pasuk writes "Hinaki" without a 'Vav', that if she is guilty, she will experience "Chinaki" (seeing as a 'Hey' and 'Ches' are interchangeable), turning it from an inference into a D'rashah.

(b) The problem now is - that Sotah is a case of Isur, yet we take for granted that Rebbi Meir still holds 'Mi'chelal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein'.

(c) So we revert to Rebbi Yitzchak's answer. Ravina however, queries this from a Mishnah in Sanhedrin. The Pasuk writes in Shemini "Yayin ve'Sheichar Al Teisht ve'Lo Samusu". The Mishnah in Sanhedrin learns that a Kohen is Chayav Misah if he enters the Beis Hamikdash ...

1. ... after having drunk wine - from the inference.
2. ... with long hair - from the Din of wine.

(d) Seeing as nobody argues with this Mishnah, it is clear that Rav Yosef was right to differentiate between Mamon and Isur, according to Rebbi Meir. And as for the Sugya in Sotah, Rebbi Meir there holds 'mi'Chelal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein' - because Sotah involves Mamon too, seeing as she will lose her Kesuvah should she be proven guilty.

(e) It is nevertheless necessary to invert our Mishnah, so that Rebbi Meir holds Patur, and the Rabbanan, Chayav - because otherwise (if Rebbi Meir were to hold Chayav), we would have to establish the case by Isur which does include Mamon.

10)

(a) Our Mishnah learns 'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon Noheges ba'Anashim u've'Nashim ... ', as we already discussed in the previous Perek. Rebbi Meir holds - that he is only Chayav in Beis-Din (like Shevu'as ha'Eidus).

(b) The Rabbanan obligate him even Chutz le'Beis-Din as well, because in spite of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Shevu'as ha'Eidus (from which they learn other things), they hold - 'Don Minah ve'Ukeih be'Asrah' (as we explained there), whereas Rebbi Meir holds 'Don Minah u'Minah'.

(c) 've'Chayav al *Z'don Shevu'ah'* - means that he not only knows that he sinned, but he also knows that he is Chayav a Korban for having transgressing.

(d) In fact, he is Chayav even if he is Meizid on either the Shevu'ah or just on the Pikadon (but Shogeg on the Shevu'ah). Despite the fact that Shevu'as Bituy is only Chayav for Shogeg, Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is Chayav for Meizid as well - because the Torah does not write "ve'Ne'elam" with regard to it (like it does by Shevu'as Bituy).

(e) The Nishba is nevertheless Patur if he is Shogeg in both - because, based on the Pasuk "ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah", he is considered an A'nus, as we learned earlier.

(a) The Nishba is Chayav - an Asham to the value of at least two Sela'im (as the Torah writes explicitly).

(b) The pattern of claim and denial is basically identical with that of Shevu'as ha'Eidus. If the claimant made him swear five times, he is Chayav to bring five Ashamos - because, as Rebbi Shimon explains, after each Shevu'ah, he would be Chayav if he admitted (a proof that it is Mamon).

(a) If five people claim a Pikadon from Reuven, assuming he answers ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lachem be'Yadi' - he will have to bring only one Korban.
2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lecha be'Yadi, ve'Lo Lecha ve'Lo Lecha ... ' - he will be obligated to bring five Korbanos.

(b) Rebbi Elazar requires him to mention 'Shevu'ah' at the end, Rebbi Shimon - to each one's claim.

(c) By the same token, if Reuven claims from Shimon...

1. ... a Pikadon, a loan, something that he stole and a lost article - he will be Chayav one Korban if he replies 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lecha be'Yadi', but four if he answers 'Ein Lecha be'Yadi Pikadon, Sesumes-Yad, Gezel va'Aveidah'.
2. ... wheat, barley and spelt - he will be Chayav one Korban if he replies 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lecha beYadi', but three if he replies 'Ein Lecha be'Yadi Chitin, e'Se'orin ve'Kusmin'.

(a) If Reuven claims that Shimon raped or seduced his daughter, and he denies it with a Shevu'ah, Rebbi Shimon exempts him from a Korban - since he is claiming K'nas, which is not considered Mamon, because if he were to admit to the claim, he would be Patur.

(b) The Rabbanan obligate him - because he would be Chayav to pay Boshes and P'gam (embarrassment and depreciation) if he admitted.

(c) Even though if Shimon swears that he did not steal Reuven's ox, he is Chayav, he is nevertheless Patur if he admits that he stole it, but denies having Shechted or sold it - because for Shechting or selling the ox that he stole, he has to pay four or five times the value of the ox, and 'Daled ve'Hey' is considered K'nas. (d) If under oath ...

1. ... Shimon denies having wounded Reuven - he is Chayav a Korban.
2. ... a master denies having blinded his Eved or knocking out his tooth - he is Patur, because an Eved going free for an eye or a tooth is a K'nas.