Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot Chapter 3

שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל שֶׁאָכַלְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְאָכַל כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בְּאוֹכֵל כָּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב שֶׁזֶּה חַיָיב. אָמַר לָהֶן אֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בִּמְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן שֶׁזֶּה מְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כול׳. נִיחָא שֶׁאוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. שֶׁאָכַלְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁאָכַל וְנִשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל. שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר הוּא. וְאִם סָבוּר שֶׁאָכַל וְנִשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל. רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב. בְּשׁוֹגֵג בְּקָרְבָּנָהּ וּבְמֵזִיד בְּקָרְבָּנָהּ. אֲבָל. סָבוּר הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. מוּתָּר. אֶלָּא בְמֵזִיד בָּהּ וּבְשׁוֹגֵג בְּקָרְבָּנָהּ. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵזִיד בְּחֵלֶב וְשׁוֹגֵג בְּקָרְבָּן מַתְרִין בּוֹ וְלוֹקֶה וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. לֵית יְכִיל. דָּמַר רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. מָצִינוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָיבִין בִּזְדוֹנוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר וּבְהֶעֱלֵימוֹ מִשּׁוֹם בִּיטּוּי. וִיתִיבִינֵיהּ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. מָצִינוּ דָבָר שֶׁחַיָיבִין בִּזְדוֹנוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיּיָּמִין בְּבָרִיא לוֹ שֶׁאָכַל וְנִשְׁבַּע וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל. לֹא בְאוֹמֵר. אֵין זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. תַּמָּן בָּאוֹמֵר. אֵין זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּיוֹדֵעַ בָּהּ שֶׁשְּׁבוּעָה הִיא אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא בְטוֹעֶה מַחְמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל אֲכִילַת תּוֹרָה. אַף רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מוֹדֶה. וְאִם בָּאוּמֵר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶטְעוֹם. אַף רַבָּנִן מוֹדוּ. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין כָּל שֶׁהוּא. כָּל שֶׁהוּא אֲכִילָה. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּאָמַר. כָּל שֶׁהוּא אֲכִילָה. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וַאֲכָלָהּ חָסֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה חַיָיב. עַל דַעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין פָּטוּר. שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זֶה. וַאֲכָלָהּ חָסֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה פָטוּר. עַל דַעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין חַיָיב. אַף בִּשְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי כֵן. שְׁבוּעָה אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנִית לִי אִם אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וַאֲכָלָהּ חָסֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה. עַל דַעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת. שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וַאֲכָלָהּ חָסֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת. עַל דַעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה. אוּף בִּנְכָסִין כֵּן. שְׁבוּעַת נְכָסַיי עָלַי אִם אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וַאֲכָלָהּ חָסֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֲסוּרִין. עַל דַעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין נְכָסִים מוּתָּרִין. שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וַאֲכָלָהּ חָסֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה נְכָסָיו מוּתָּרִין. עַל דַעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין אֲסוּרִין. וַהֲרֵי הַמְגַדֵּף מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. כְּשִׁיטָּתוֹ הֵשִׁיבוּהוּ. כְּשִׁיטָּתָךְ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר. אֵין הַמְגַדֵּף מַעֲשֶׂה. אֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בִמְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן שֶׁזֶּה מְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. רִבִּי בָּא קַרְתִּיגְנָאָה בָעֵי. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן מָר. לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֵין הַמְגַדֵּף מַעֲשֶׂה. וְהָכָא מָר. מְגַדֵּף מַעֲשֶׂה כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תְּרֵין תַּנָיִין אִינּוּן עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. חַד אָמַר. אֵין הַמְגַדֵּף מַעֲשֶׂה. וְחַד אָמַר. הַמְגַדֵּף מַעֲשֶׂה.

MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths. 5:4 ) where a person makes an oath that he shall do or not do certain things, which do not involve others. A breach of such an oath triggers a liability for a variable sacrifice (or if made before witnesses, punishment by flogging.) The liability for a variable sacrifice is subject to the usual conditions for such a sacrifice, prior knowledge, oblivion, and remembrance. which are four kinds: An oath that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat; that I ate, or that I did not eat. An oath that I shall not eat, when he ate the most minute amount, he is liable, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. They said to Rebbi Aqiba, where do we find that one who eats the most minute amount should be liable, that this one be liable? He told them, where do we find that a person talks and has to bring a sacrifice; but this one talks and has to bring a sacrifice! HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. One understands “that I shall eat, or that I shall not eat.” “That I ate, or that I did not eat”? Where do we stand? If it is known that he ate and he swore that he did not eat, it is a false oath. But if he was of the opinion that he ate and swore that he did not eat? Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If he is inadvertent for its sacrifice or intentional for its sacrifice. But “I was of the opinion that this is not an oath” is permitted. But it must be that he was intentional in the deed but in error about the sacrifice. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan7:1 Notes 5,6; Šabbat 11:5 (13b), Ketubot 3:1 Note 30 , Bava Qamma 7:2 Note 29 ; Babli Šabbat 69a . : Intentional about fat and in error about the sacrifice, one warns him, he is flogged and has to bring a sacrifice7:1 Notes 19–70 ). . This is impossible, as Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba: Do we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and in oblivion because of blurting? Should not Rebbi Aqiba retort, we find a situation where one is liable if intentional because of a false oath and he brings a sacrifice. 19:12 ) and still be liable for a sacrifice. This would make R. Ismael’s objection irrelevant. ? But we deal here with the case that he was sure that he ate, and he swore, and it turned out that he had not eaten. Not about him who said that this is not an oath? There, if he says this is not an oath; but here if he knows that this is an oath but he errs because of something else. Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards3:1 29d l. 61). , even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable, for R. Aqiba he fulfilled (or violated) his oath if he ate exactly amount m . But for the rabbis he fulfilled (or violated) his oath if he ate more than m -ε but less than m +ε. This is the basis of the subsequent examples. If he had sworn to eat exactly one loaf, for R. Aqiba he violated his oath by eating a minute quantity less than a whole loaf but for the rabbis he swore truly. . “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden. Does not the blasphemer have to bring a sacrifice1:1 , the anonymous Tanna, supposed to represent the school of R. Aqiba, lists the blasphemer as one who has to bring a purification sacrifice for inadvertent sin but the Sages insist that the blasphemer cannot bring a sacrifice since a sacrifice is restricted to atone for actions. ? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They answered him according to his argument. Following your argument, since you say that the blasphemer does not act, where do we find that somebody talks and brings a sacrifice that this one talks and brings a sacrifice? Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument inverted? There7:13 (Note 282 ) R. Simeon ben Laqish explains that for R. Aqiba the conjurer of magical spells does not act since he simply speaks, but here he attributes the same opinion to the opponents of R. Aqiba. he said, for Rebbi Aqiba the blasphemer does not act. But here he says, the blasphemer is acting in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Two Tannaïm following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. One said, the blasphemer does not act, and the other said, the blasphemer does act.

שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל כול׳. שְׁתִיָיה בִּכְלָל אֲכִילָה וְלֹא אֲכִילָה בִכְלָל שְׁתִיָיה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהוֹן מִיכָּא. עַל כֵּן אָמַרְתִּי לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל נֶפֶשׁ מִכֶּם לֹא תֹאכַל דָּם. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּדָם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ. הָתַנֵּי. דָם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ אֵינוֹ לֹא אוֹכֶל וְלֹא מַשְׁקֶה. (אֶלָּא כֵן נָן קָיָימִין. כָּל שֶׁהוּא. כָּל שֶׁהוּא אֲכִילָה. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. כָּל שֶׁהוּא אֲכִילָה.) וְהָתַנֵּי. הִמְחָה הַדָּם וּגְמָעוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִקְפָּה חֵלֶב וַאֲכָלוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְזַיִת חַיָיב. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל לִיטָּמֵא טוּמְאַת אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא מַשְׁקֶה לִיטָּמֵא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין. חָזַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וּפָתַר מַתְנִיתָה. וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּטוֹעֵם טַעַם יַיִן לְתַבְשִׁיל. וַהֲלֹא הַטַּעַם לִפְגָם. אֶלָּא כֵן נָן קָיָימִין כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְרַחֲמָנָא קְרָיֵיהּ אֲכִילָה. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיסָרִין אָמְרִין. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאִילֵּין גֳּמְרַיָיה וְאוֹרְזָרַיָיה שֶׁהָכֹּל טְפֵילָה לָאֲכִילָה כָּאֲכִילָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהוֹן מִיכָּא. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. אֵין חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרֵי חֲבֵרַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וָמַר דְּבַתְרָהּ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. אֵין חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וְאָכַל שְׁתֵּיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִינְחָס שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהוֹן מִיכָּא. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל אוֹכְלִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין. פָּטוּר. הָא אָכַל אוֹכְלִין רְאוּיִין וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין רְאוּיִין חַיָיב. רִבִּי בָּא שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהוֹן מִיכָּא. אָכַל וְשָׁתָה בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשָׁתָה. וּכְרִבִּי שֶׁאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה. רִבִּי חִינְנָא שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהֹן מִיכָּא. לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי אֶלָּא שָׁתִיתִי. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁאָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְשָׁתָה. אָמַר. שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה. וְאָכַל. שְׁתִיָיה בִּכְלָל אֲכִילָה וְלֹא אֲכִילָה בִכְלָל שְׁתִיָיה.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat, when he ate and drank he is liable only for one. An oath that I shall not eat or drink, when he ate and drank he is liable for two. HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate,” etc. 2:1, Notes 8–23 and Yoma 8:3 (45a); a parallel discussion is in the Babli, 22b–23a . The essence of the argument is that if one mentions eating, the accompanying drink is included, but speaking of drinking no solid food is intended. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. Rebbi Jonah understood all this from: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood . 17:12 . . Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? (But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating.) And was it not stated: If one liquefied the blood and swallowed it, or froze fat and ate it, if there is the volume of an olive he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and explained the Mishnah: You shall spend the money for anything you desire . 14:26 . The argument is about the part of the verse which is not quoted, that the money of Second Tithe may be spent for all kinds of edibles, cattle and sheep, wine and liquor. . Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste? But we hold with everything and the Merciful called it “eating.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about gomraya and orzaraya 2:1, Note 16. For the second word the preferred reading seems to be that of the other two sources, אורזנייה, which may denote cedar resin (J. Levy) or a derivative of אוֹרֶז “rice”. The readings for the first word, גמרייה, גמזוזיניה, גומננייא show that the scribe did not know what to do with it; it may be a derivative of “gum” ( gummi, κόμμι ) (E. G.) used in the preparation of liquors. , since anything that is auxiliary to food is like food. Rebbi Yose understood all this from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate and drank he is liable only for one.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but it is said following this, “an oath that I shall not eat nor drink, when he ate and drank” should he be liable only for one? Rebbi Yose told them, if somebody said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf, and he continued, an oath that I shall not eat this other loaf, when he ate both of them would he not be guilty on two counts? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood all this from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids, he is not liable.” Therefore if he ate edible food and drank drinkable fluid he is liable. Rebbi Abba understood all this from the following8:1 . : “If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only once.” Rebbi Ḥinena understood all this from the following: I did not eat from it in my mourning, 26:14 but I drank? So far if he said, that I shall not eat, but he drank. If he said, that I shall not drink, but he ate? Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking.

שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְאָכַל פַּת חִטִּים וּפַת שְׂעוֹרִים וּפַת כּוּסְמִין אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל פַּת חִטִּים וּפַת שְׂעוֹרִים וּפַת כּוּסְמִין וְאָכַל חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין הַרְבֵּה אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ וְשָׁתָה חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כול׳. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל פַּת. וּכְרָכָהּ בָעֲלֵי קָנִים וָעֲלֵי גְפָנִים וְאָכַל. אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל פַּת וְחַרְצָנִין וְזָגִין. וּכְרָכָהּ בְּחַרְצָנִין וְזָגִין. חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת. וְאִם הָיָה נָזִיר חַיָיב שָׁלֹשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּכוֹלֵל. אֲבָל בָּפוֹרֵט אֵין שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל אִיסּוּרִין. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ בְכוֹלֵל אֵין שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל הָאִיסּוּרִין.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. An oath that I shall eat neither wheat bread, nor barley bread, nor spelt bread; when he ate wheat bred, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable for each single one. An oath that I shall not drink; if he drank many kinds he is liable only for one. An oath that I shall drink neither wine, nor oil, not date syrup, if he drank he is liable for each single one. HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall eat neither,” etc. to Maimonides, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Asurot 14:12. “An oath that I shall not eat bread” and he wrapped it in reed leaves or grape leaves and ate, he is liable only once. “An oath that I shall not eat bread nor grape skin nor grape seeds, and he wrapped it in grape skins and grape seeds, he is liable for each one, and if he was a nazir he is liable for three’s prohibition of anything coming from grapes ( Num . 6:4 ) he is liable for flogging if duly warned, not for a sacrifice. His liability would be three sacrifices and one additional sin. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, in comprehensive form. But in detail, no oaths fall on prohibitions. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even in comprehensive form no oaths fall on prohibitions1:2 (Note 55 ) R. Ze`ira proclaims as undisputed what here and in the Babli is R. Joḥanan’s opinion. Since all future Jewish souls were present at Mount Sinai, he already has sworn to keep the precepts of the Torah. Therefore an oath to break Torah prohibitions is void. R. Joḥanan holds that if an oath is valid since it contains matters not involving Torah prohibitions it is valid in general since an oath is either valid or invalid. R. Simeon ben Laqish (and in the Mishnah, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai) hold that oaths can be partially invalid; the parts infringing on Torah precepts are always void ( Babli 33b ). .

שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְאָכַל אוֹכְלִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִיָּה פָּטוּר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְאָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים חַיָיב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי אִם אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם וְהוּא אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים הֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה כול׳. בְּדָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. כַּמָּה יֹאכַל מִן הַטֶּבֶל וְיהֵא חַיָּב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. כָּל שֶׁהוּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. כַּזָּיִת. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִין בָּאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה כָּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁחַיָיב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְבִרְיָיתָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן. אַף חִיטָּה אַחַת כְּבִירְיָיתָהּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָמָּה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. תְּעַנּוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם. מִמּוּתָּר לָכֶם וְלֹא מֵאָסוּר לָכֶם. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. עַל דַּעַת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר. בְּכוֹלֵל שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל הָאִיסּוּרִין נִיתְנֵי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. כָּל יוֹמוֹי דְרִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל לֹא אַשְׁכַּחְנָן תּוֹתְבָהּ. וּמִן דִּדְמָךְ אַשְׁכַּחְנָן תּוֹתְבָהּ. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בָּאוֹמֵר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל בָּשָׂר כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה וְהַפֶּסַח בְּתוֹכָן. שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל עֲשֶׂרֶת יָמִים הַלָּלוּ וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים בְּתוֹכָן. בְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעָה עַל הָאִיסּוּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְתִשְׁמַע מִינָהּ. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו זֵתִים שֶׁלִּשְׁחוּטָה וְאֶחָד שֶׁלִּנְבֵילָה וְאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל עֲשֶׂרֶת זֵיתִים אֵילּוּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁפָּטוּר עַל הַנְּבֵילָה פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַשְּׁאָר. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא מַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל מִשְּׁחִיטַת פְּלוֹנִי. אֵין בָּהּ חֵלֶב. בְּשׁוֹחֵט צְבָיִים. אֵין בָּהּ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה. בְּעוֹפוֹת. אֵין בָּהֶן דָּם. רִבִּי חִינְנָה בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא מַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל מִפְּלוֹנִי סְתָם. בְּגִין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְאִין כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִיתְנֵי. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. תְּעַנּוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם. מֵאָסוּר לֹו וְלֹא מִמּוּתָּר לוֹ. אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה בְּקָבוּעַ וְזֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו שֶׁהוּא בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד וְתַנֵּי תַנָּא. לֹא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁהֵן חִיּוּב כָּרֵת. שְׁבוּעוֹת אֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי מְעִילָה אֵין בָּהּ כָּרֵת וְתַנֵּי. לֹא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָן. שְׁבוּעוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֶן הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָן. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין אָבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁעָשָׂה כולָּם בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד כְּלוּם חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁעָשָׂה כָל אַחַת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל מַצָּה. אָסוּר לוֹכַל מַצָּה בְלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח. שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל מַצָּה בְלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח. לוֹקֶה וְאוֹכֵל מַצָּה. שֶׁלֹּא אֵשֵׁב בַּצֵּל. אָסוּר לֵישֵׁב בְּצֵל סוּכָּה. שֶׁלֹּא אֵשֵׁב בְּצֵל סוּכָּה. לוֹקֶה וְיוֹשֵׁב בְּצֵל סוּכָּה. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר סְתָם אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ פְּלוֹנִי. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר כּוֹלֵל אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ פוֹרֵט. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר לָבֹא אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ לְשֶׁעָבַר. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר רַבָּנִן אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת אֶלָּא אֲפִילו עָפָר.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids, he is not liable. An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling animals, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable. If he said, a qonam is a substitute for qorbān “sacrifice” which in the context of an oath or a vow means “it shall be forbidden to me as if it were sacrificial meat”, cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim . that my wife may not benefit from me if I had eaten today, if he had eaten carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling animals, his wife is forbidden benefits. HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not drink,” etc. In this case, Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion, as we have stated there3:2 Notes 27–32 . Tevel is produce from which heave and the heave of tithe have not been removed, whose consumption except at harvest time is a deadly sin. : “How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats an ant is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature6:1, Notes 14–18 . .” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does Rebbi Simeon declare not liable? Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: You shall deprive yourselves . 16:29 . , of what is permitted to you, not of what is forbidden to you. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that comprehensive oaths fall on prohibitions, should we not state “an oath that I shall not eat; when he ate”3:4 , that a person may become liable for 5 sacrifices for eating one olive-size bite: an impure person who on the Day of Atonement ate sacrificial fat which was a leftover from a prior day. Eating fat is always forbidden; eating sacrificial fat is illegitimate use of sacra, classified as larceny (requiring restitution and a reparation sacrifice); eating any sacra while impure is punishable by extirpation. The mention of the Day of Atonement shows that the Mishnah is formulated for the Rabbis, not R. Simeon. The question then is, if the statement of R. Joḥanan be true that an oath containing a general prohibition also refers to things biblically prohibited, the Tanna, who obviously is looking for an example showing the maximum of criminal acts that can be committed by one action, should have added that the person who ate the fat had previously made an oath that he would not eat at all, for a total of 6 sacrifices. That no oath is mentioned in the Mishnah seems to prove that R. Joḥanan’s position is rejected by the Mishnah; it cannot be accepted in practice. ? Rebbi Ze`ira said, in the whole lifetime of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal we did not find an answer; after he had died, we found an answer. Where do we stand? If one said, an oath that I shall not eat meat, including Passover; that I shall not eat during these ten days, including the Day of Atonement, then the oath falls on prohibitions. Rebbi Yose said, one may infer from here if in front of him were olive-sized pieces of slaughtered [meat] and one of carcass meat and he said, [an oath] that I shall eat these ten olive-sized pieces, since he is not liable for the carcass meat, he neither is liable for the remainder. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Why did he not say, “an oath that I shall eat of the slaughter of X”? Is there not fat? If he slaughters deer. Is there not the hip sinew? About fowl. Is there not blood. 7:23 ), the hip sinew still is forbidden ( Gen . 32:33 ), and the blood of a fowl is forbidden like the blood of four-legged animals ( Lev . 7:27 ). ? Rebbi Ḥinena asked: Why did he not say, “an oath if I would eat of X” without detail? Because of Rebbi Simeon. But if following Rebbi Simeon, how could we state the Day of Atonement, since Rebbi Simeon stated, you shall deprive yourselves , of what is (forbidden) to you, not of what is (permitted) to you. Only one has a fixed rate sacrifice, the other a variable one counts only the maximum of fixed-rate sacrifices; he could agree that with an oath a liability for a variable rate sacrifice could be added. Nothing can be inferred about the disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. . They objected, is there not impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta which need a variable rate [sacrifice] and did the Tanna not state it mentioned a sacrifice for eating sancta in impurity; this requires a variable value sacrifice. ? We come to state only things carrying a liability to extirpation; there is no extirpation for oaths. They objected, there is no extirpation for larceny and it was stated mentioned a sacrifice for illegally appropriating Temple property for private use. There is no extirpation mentioned for this, only restitution with a fine and a reparation sacrifice ( Lev . 5:14–16 ). Only fixed-rate purification offerings are restricted to atoning for unintentional sins carrying a penalty of at least extirpation, not reparation sacrifices. This finally yields the correct answer. ! We come to state only things which cannot become permitted after being forbidden. Oaths may become permitted after being forbidden. This3:4 where R. Meïr says that if it was on a Sabbath and the person brought the piece of meat between his teeth from a private to a public domain he is liable for an additional sacrifice. implies that there are no categories of work for the day of Atonement7:2), each of which triggers liability for a separate sacrifice. Since the anonymous Tanna placed the case on the Day of Atonement, and any work forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, R. Meїr could simply have added carrying also on the day of Atonement. Since he has to place that Day on a Sabbath, it follows that any and all infringements of the sanctity of the Day of Atonement trigger the same liability of a sacrifice. There never can be more than one for a given Day. The conclusion of the Babli, Keritut 14a , is formulated more narrowly: Transporting from domain to domain is not a separate desecration of the Day of Atonement. , for if anybody violated all of them in one forgetting he is liable only for one [sacrifice] for all of them. But if anybody violated each of them separately, would he not be liable for each single one? In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one said, “an oath that I shall not eat unleavened bread”, he is forbidden to eat unleavened bread in the night of Passover. “That I shall not eat unleavened bread in the night of Passover,” he is flogged and eats unleavened bread. 12:18 ; cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah , pp. 328–329.) An oath not to fulfill this commandment is void; the oath is void and incurs the penalty of void oaths. But an oath never to eat unleavened bread is valid and prevents its maker from fulfilling his duty without breaking the oath. . “That I shall not sit in the shadow”, he is forbidden to sit in the shadow of a booth23:42 . The argument is totally parallel to that of the preceding example. . “That I shall not sit in the shadow of a booth,” he is flogged and sits in the shadow of a booth. Not only unspecified, but even “X”. Not only comprehensive but even in detail. Not only in the future but also in the past. Not only the rabbis but even Rebbi Aqiba. Not only carcass and torn meat but even dust.

אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם מַמָּשׁ. כֵּיצַד אָמַר שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶתֵּן שֶׁנָּתַתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא נָתַתִּי שֶׁאִישַׁן וְשֶׁלֹּא אִישַׁן שֶׁיָּשַׁנְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא יָשַׁנְתִּי. שֶׁאֶזְרוֹק צְרוֹר לַיָּם וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶזְרוֹק שֶׁזָּרַקְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא זָרַקְתִּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אִם כֵּן אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה מְנַיִין. אָמַר לוֹ מֵרִיבּוּי הַכָּתוּב. אָמַר לוֹ אִם רִיבּוּי הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ רִיבּוּי הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ: עִולָּה הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְהוֹרוֹת לוֹ. אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּעַצְמוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁנָּתַן פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְנָה. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לָבֹא אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְשֶׁעָבַר. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הֲרֵי תְפִילִּין אֵין בָּהֶן לָבֹא וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן לְשֶׁעָבַר. אָמַר לוֹ. תְּפִילִּין מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר בָּאוּ. לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב. מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת. יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלְּאִיסּוּר וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלְּהֵיתֵר. לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יְבַטֵּא פְּרָט לְקָטָן. הָאָדָם בִּשְׁבֻעָה פְּרָט לָאָנוּס. וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ פְּרָט לְמֵזִיד. וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ. וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁבוּעָה. אוֹ יָכוֹל וְנֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַחֵפֶץ. בִּשְׁבֻעָה וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ. עַל הֶעֱלֵם שְׁבוּעָה חַיָיב וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם חֵפֶץ. וְתֵן הֶעֱלֵם חֵפֶץ עַל הֶעֱלֵם שְׁבוּעָה וִיהֵא חַיָיב. וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה עַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. וִיהֵא חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר. חַיָיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. תַּמָּן כָּתוּב וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים. וְהָכָא כָתוּב וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת. יָכוֹל הַנִּשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לַאֲחֵרִים יְהֵא חַיָיב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב. מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת. אוֹצִיא נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לָאֲחֵרִים שֶׁיְּהֵא פָטוּר. כְּהוּא דְמִישְׁתָּבַע דְּלָא מִיתַּן לְחַבְרֵיהּ מֵיכוּל. חַמְתֵּיהּ מְפַרְפֵּר וִיהַב לֵיהּ. הֵיךְ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּרִישׁ. אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִשָּׁבַע לְבַטֵּא בִשְׂפָתַיִם כְּלָל. לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב פְּרָט. כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט. וַהֲלֹא אֵין בִּפְרָט אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב פְּרָט. לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יְבַטֵּא כְלָל. פְּרָט וּכְלָל וְהַכֹּל בִּכְלָל וְרִיבָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהֵן לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִשָּׁבַע לְבַטֵּא כְּלָל. לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב פְּרָט לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יְבַטֵּא חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט. מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוּרָשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה מְנַיִין. אָמַר לוֹ. מֵרִיבּוּי הַכָּתוּב. אָמַר לוֹ. אִם רִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ רִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ. לֵית יְכִיל דָּמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. מָצִינוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָן מִשֵׁם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר וּבְהֶעֱלֵימָן מִשֵׁם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. וִיתֵיבִינֵיהּ. מָצִינוּ דָבָר שֶׁחַיָיבִין בִּזְדוֹנוֹ מִשֵׁם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְאִית לָךְ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה וְלֵי נָן כְּתִיבִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לִי דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. לֵית אִינּוּן כְּתִיבִין אִין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. הָא לְשֶׁעָבַר לֵית.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good . 5:4 . The causative refers to the future. . Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse, which seems to be superfluous since the sentence starts: Or a person who would swear blurting out with his lips . The addition indicates that the verse should not be interpreted narrowly. Cf. Note 83 . . He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other. HALAKHAH: He wants to teach himself a pretext. “Whether matters of himself,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that he did not give, since it was not in his power for the future, it is not in his power for the past. Rebbi Yose objected, about phylacteries there is nothing about the future but there is about the past he is liable for a sacrifice (Mishnah 9). ! He told him, phylacteries came from another source. To cause evil or cause good . 5:4 . The causative refers to the future. ; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional; this excludes anything involving a prohibition or anything involving a permission9(6), Babli 27a . . Anything which one will blurt out , excluding a minor. A person in an oath , excluding a person not acting at his own will9(9), Babli 26a . This includes even a person acting by his own will on false information or false remembering. . And it will be forgotten by him , he will be oblivious of the oath. Or could I think that the object was forgotten by him? The verse says, in an oath a nd it was forgotten by him ; he is liable for forgetting the oath; he is not liable for forgetting the object. Could one not add forgetting the object to forgetting the oath so that he should be liable? What is the difference between this and forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary so that he should be liable twice following Rebbi Ismael, who said forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary? There it is written it was forgotten by him, it was forgotten by him twice12(7), Babli 14b ; Mishnah 2:6. . Here it is written it was forgotten by him once. I could think that one who swears to the detriment of others should be liable: the verse says, to cause evil or cause good ; just as doing good is optional so doing bad is optional. I shall exclude one who swears to the detriment of another that he should not be liable. For example, if one swears that he will not provide food for another. He saw him in convulsions and gave to him. How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? . 5:4 . The causative refers to the future. Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips , a general statement. To cause evil or cause good , a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good , a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips , a general statement. To cause evil or cause good , a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail( Introduction 1 ), in the list of the thirteen hermeneutical principles of R. Ismael one finds (5) a general statement followed by a detail, (6) a detail followed by a general statement, (7) a general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement you only argue following the pattern of the detail, (8) a general statement dependent on the detail, (9) a detail dependent on the general statement. Rules 8 and 9 mean that if the general statement can only be understood by the detail or vice versa, rules 5 and 6 do not apply. It then is explained in §7 that if a general statement is followed by a detail, only the detail is intended. §8: If a detail is followed by a general statement, the general statement adds to the detail. Examples are Lev . 1:2 : From animals, from cattle, or from small cattle . This implies that sacrifices are restricted to cattle, sheep, or goats. Ex . 22:9 : A donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal . The rules of caretakers apply to any animal. Then it becomes a problem how to treat a verse which contains general statement, detail, general statement, whether to apply rule 5 (eliminating the final general statement by rule 9), or rule 6 (eliminating the first general statement by rule 8), or rule 7. In the preceding derivation, the arguments have been suppressed that rules 8 and 9 do not apply and, therefore, only rule 7 is relevant. The standard example for an application of rule 7 is Deut . 14:26 , about permitted uses of Second Tithe money at the place of the Sanctuary: You may spend the money for anything you desire (general), for cattle, or small cattle, or wine, or liquor (detail) , or anything you wish (general). The common denominator of the items in the detail describes animal or vegetable food; Second Tithe money can be used for any food derived from animals (generated from semen) or plants (growing from seeds). Since the first part of Lev . 5:4 fits Rule 7, it is clear that the rule applies not only to oaths intended to cause good or evil but to a larger set of oaths which, however, have to conform to the idea underlying “causing good or bad things”. Obviously one of the ideas is that events caused are later in time than the cause. This is R. Ismael’s interpretation of the verse. Babli 26a . . Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse, which seems to be superfluous since the sentence starts: Or a person who would swear blurting out with his lips . The addition indicates that the verse should not be interpreted narrowly. Cf. Note 83 . . He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice. 19:12 ) and still be liable for a sacrifice. This would make R. Ismael’s objection irrelevant. ? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִיטֵּל פָּטוּר. לְקַיֵים אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא קִיֵים פָּטוּר. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא וּמָה אִם הָרְשׁוּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה שֶׁהוּא מוּשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁבוּעַת הָרְשׁוּת שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵין. תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵין שֶׁאִם נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל וְלֹא בִטֵּל פָּטוּר: נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנִי. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. חַיָיב. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא. מָה מַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא בִּשְׁאָר הָאִיסּוּרִין. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל נְבֵילָה. וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ. פָּטוּר. אָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל. אִין תֵּימַר חַיָיב. וִיתִיבִינֵיהּ. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁבוּעַת הָרְשׁוּת שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵֵין וְהֵין כְּלָאו. תֵּימַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵין. אַזְהָרָה לִשְׁבוּעַת הָרְשׁוּת מְנַיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה דְבָרָיו חוּלִין.

MISHNAH: If he swore not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, he is not liable1:2 (Note 55 ) R. Ze`ira proclaims as undisputed what here and in the Babli is R. Joḥanan’s opinion. Since all future Jewish souls were present at Mount Sinai, he already has sworn to keep the precepts of the Torah. Therefore an oath to break Torah prohibitions is void. R. Joḥanan holds that if an oath is valid since it contains matters not involving Torah prohibitions it is valid in general since an oath is either valid or invalid. R. Simeon ben Laqish (and in the Mishnah, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai) hold that oaths can be partially invalid; the parts infringing on Torah precepts are always void ( Babli 33b ). ; to observe a commandment and did not observe it, he is not liable119:107 ); why does breaking this valid oath not imply liability for a sacrifice or criminal prosecution? , though it would have been logical that he should be liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, since he is liable for a permitted purpose, for which he is not sworn to from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he should be liable about a commandment to which he is sworn from Mount Sinai1:2 (Note 55 ) R. Ze`ira proclaims as undisputed what here and in the Babli is R. Joḥanan’s opinion. Since all future Jewish souls were present at Mount Sinai, he already has sworn to keep the precepts of the Torah. Therefore an oath to break Torah prohibitions is void. R. Joḥanan holds that if an oath is valid since it contains matters not involving Torah prohibitions it is valid in general since an oath is either valid or invalid. R. Simeon ben Laqish (and in the Mishnah, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai) hold that oaths can be partially invalid; the parts infringing on Torah precepts are always void ( Babli 33b ). ? They said to him, no. What you say about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes”, can you say that about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”? Since one who swears not to observe a commandment but failed not to observe it, is not liable119:106 ); only oaths to break commandments are intrinsically void. . HALAKHAH: “If he swore not to observe a commandment,” etc. Rebbi Mani said, so is the Mishnah: “He is liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.” What Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said refers to prohibitions in general. “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat,” but he did not eat it. He is not liable. “An oath that I shall eat,” and he ate. If you would say that he is liable, they should have objected to him: No. You declare about an oath for permitted purpose where He made “no” equal to “yes” and “yes” equal to “no”, can you declare this about an oath concerning a commandment, where He did not make “no” equal to “yes”? From where a warning about an oath for a permitted purpose? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he shall not profane his word . 30:3 , the paragraph about profane vows. Babli 21a . , he shall not make his words profane.

שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ כול׳. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זֶה הַיּוֹם. וְעָבַר הַיּוֹם וַאֲכָלָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. פָּטוּר. לֹא טַעֲמָא דְאָהֵן. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשֵּׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל הַתְרָיָיה. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. שְׂרָפָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיכָהּ לַיָּם. אִין תֵּימַר מִשֵּׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל הַתְרָיָיה פָּטוּר. וְאִין תֵּימַר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה. רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בָּעֵי. הָיָה אַסְתֶנֵיס. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לָבֹא אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְשֶׁעָבַר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. שְׁבוּעָה שְׁבוּעָה שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל. מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶינָּה. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶינָּה. וַאֲכָלָהּ. חַיָיב אַחַת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר בָּהּ זוֹ. הָא אִם לֹא הִזְכִּיר בָּהּ זוֹ חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אַבִּימֵי אַחוֹי דְחֵיפָה אָמַר. שַׁמְשִׁית בִּנְדָרִין שַׁמְשִׁית בִּשְׁבּועוֹת. בָּעֵי חֵיפָא מִיבְדְּקִינֵיהּ. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו חָמֵשׁ כִּכָּרִין וְאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שְׁתַּיִם אֵילּוּ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שְׁלְשָׁה אֵילּוּ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. אַרְבָּעָה אֵילּוּ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. חֲמִשָּׁה אֵילּוּ. וְאָכַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִזְכִּיר עָלֶיהָ שְׁבוּעָה עֲשָׂאָהּ כִּנְבֵילָה. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ כְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעוֹת עַל הָאִיסּוּרִין. וְאֵין שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל הָאִיסּוּרִין. חָזַר חֵיפָה וּבְדָקֵיהּ. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו חָמֵשׁ כִּכָּרוֹת וְאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל חָמֵשׁ כִּכָּרִים אֵילּוּ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. אַרְבַּע. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שָׁלשׁ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שְׁנַיִם. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. זוֹ. וְאָכַל כּוּלָּם. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל חָמֵשׁ כִּכָּרִים. וְאָכַל אַרְבַּע. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פָטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְאַחוֹי דְחֵיפָה בָּאַחֲרִיָיתָא וּכְחֵיפָה בְקַדְמִיתָא.

MISHNAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;” he is liable only once. This is the blurted oath where in case it be intentional one is liable for flogging. , and if unintentional for a variable sacrifice. HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf,” etc. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today,” the day passed and then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, he is not liable; not for the same reason. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan, because he cannot be duly warned on Chapter Five). The warning must be delivered shortly before the criminal act, so the accused cannot claim to have forgotten. In this case criminality would be inaction; this is not subject to warning. The Babli, 3b , brings the same example and connects this with the dispute between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish whether a warning can be delivered even if it is conditional because there is no certainty that the contemplated action will be criminal ( Yebamot 11:7 Note 171 , Nazir 8:1 Note 48 , Pesaḥim 5:4 fol. 32c; Babli 3b ). Since R. Joḥanan holds that a conditional warning is acceptable, the Babli is forced to switch the attributions in this case. As a consequence it follows that for the Yerushalmi here, in R. Joḥanan’s opinion this would not be a conditional warning but one which it is impossible to deliver. (In his Notes to Tosaphot s. v. אבל , Babli 4a , R. Akiba Eiger essentially notes that the Babli’s argument cannot be read into the Yerushalmi.) . The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because it is a prohibition without action. What is the difference between them? He burned it or threw it into the sea. If you say, because he cannot be duly warned, he is not liable. If you say, because it is a prohibition without action, there is an action. Rebbi Phineas asked, if he was asthenic? Since it is not in his hand for the future, it is not in his hand for the past. Rebbi Yose asked, “an oath, an oath, an oath, that I shall not eat,” and he ate. What is the rule? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, let us hear from the following: “'An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;' he is liable once.” Because he mentioned this . Therefore, if he did not mention this , he would be liable for each single one. Abime the brother of Ḥefa said, I had studied Nedarim and Ševuot ; Ḥefa wanted to examine him. He had before him five loaves and said, an oath that I would not eat this loaf. He returned and said, these two. He returned and said, these three. He returned and said, these four. He returned and said, these five. Then he ate the first. He said to him, he is liable for each single one. He answered, he is liable only once, for when he mentioned the first he made it like carcass meat; the following make an oath fall on something prohibited and oaths cannot fall on prohibitions. Ḥefa continued to examine him. He had before him five loaves and said, an oath that I would not eat these five loaves. He returned and said, these four. He returned and said, these three. He returned and said, these two. He returned and said, this one, and ate the first one. He said to him, he is liable only once. He answered, he is liable for each single one; if somebody said “an oath if I would eat five loaves” and he ate four, is he not free from liability? Rebbi Yose said, the brother of Ḥefa seems to be reasonable in the later case and Ḥefa in the prior.

שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא חַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר: וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא נִשְׁבַּע לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָאָדָם אָמַר עַל הָעַמּוּד שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁהוּא שֶׁל זָהָב וְעַל הָאִישׁ שֶׁהוּא אִשָּׁה. עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אִישׁ. נִשְׁבַּע עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאִי אֶיפְשָׁר לוֹ לִהְיוֹת. אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי גָמָל שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בָּאֲוִיר לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבָּד. אָמַר לָעֵדִים בּוֹאוּ וְהַעִידוּנִי שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא נְעִידָךְ. נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת סוּכָּה וְשֶׁלֹּא לִיטּוֹל לוּלָב וְשֶׁלֹּא לְהָנִיחַ תְּפִלִּין. זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר: שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא חַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת כול׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי בַדֶּרֶךְ זֶה כְּעוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם. אֶיפשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר בָּהּ כְּעוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין בִּרְאִיָיה אַחַת. וְהָא דִּוֹקְלֵיטִיאָנוּס כַּד נְחַת תַּמָּן נְחַת עִימֵּיהּ ק״כ רִיבְוָון. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין בִּרְאִיָיה אַחַת. אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבָּד. וְהָא חִיוְיָא דְּשָׁבוּר מַלְכָּא בְּלַע גְּמָלִין בְּלַע קְרוֹנִין. כַּד בְּעוּן מִיקְטְלוּנֵיהּ אַייתוֹן פְּחָלִין דִּגְמָלִין וּמָלוֹן יַתְהוֹן תֶּבֶן וִיהָבוּן בְּהוֹן גּוֹמְרִין וּבַלְעוֹן וָמִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. חֲמִית מְשַׁך דְּחִיוִי עִיבִיד עַל תְמַנְיָא מֶסוֹסְטֻלָא. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אֲנָא חֲמִית מְשַׁך דְּחִיוִי סְלִיק קָרוּכִּין דְּמַלְכוּתָא. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בִּמְרוּבַּע. וְאִם בִּמְרוּבַּע נִיתְנֵי אֲפִילוּ קָטָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. כֵּינִי. אֶלָּא דְלֵית אוֹרְחָא דְתַנַּיָיא מִיתְפּוֹס אֶלָּא מִילָּה רוּבָּא. דְּתַנִּינָן. גָּמָל פּוֹרֵחַ בָּאֲוִיר. נִיתְנֵי. עַכְבָּר פּוֹרֵח בָּאֲוִיר. תַּנֵּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵין מְרוּבַּע מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית. הָתִיב רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. גּוּף הַבַּהֶרֶת כִּגְרִיס הַקִּילִקִי מְרוּבַּע. מְקוֹם הַגְּרִיס תֵּשַׁע עֲדָשׁוֹת. מְקוֹם עֲדָשָׁה אַרְבַּע שְׂעָרוֹת. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁלשִׁים וְשֵׁשׁ שְׂעָרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוסנה. כָּל גַּרְמָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרוּבַּע. וְלָמָּה תַנִּיתָהּ מְרוּבַּע. דִּי יְרַבְעֶינָּה הוּא. והכגעה. מָלֵא הוּא קִיטְרִין. וְהָא עֲנִיבָה דְפִילָא. עָגוּל הוּא מִלְּמַטָּה. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. לֹא מַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶלָּא בְבִרְיוּת. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. מְרוּבַּע בְּאוֹכְלִין. אֵין מְרוּבַּע בַּבִּרְיוּת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדִעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת. לוֹקִין מִשֵּׁם שְׁבוּעַת עֵדוּת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא נְעִידָךְ. לוֹקִין מִשֵּׁם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ כול׳. שָׁוְא וְשֶׁקֶר שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרו. מַה שֶׁאֵין אוֹזֶן יְכוֹלָה לִשְׁמוֹעַ ולֹא פֶה לְדַבֵּר. מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת וּבְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרו. לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז גְּדִלִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרו. עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרו. וְלֹא תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה וְכָל בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרו. מַה שֶׁאֵי אֶיפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לְדַבֵּר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר אַחַת דִּבֶּר אֱלֹהִים שְׁתַּיִם זוּ שָׁמָעְנוּ. וְאוֹמֵר הֲלֹוא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם יְי. שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. נִשְׁבַּע לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָאָדָם. שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. נִשְׁבַּע לְהַחֲלִיף. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל הַיָּדוּעַ לִשְׁנַיִם זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. לִשְׁלֹשָׁה זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אֲפִילוּ יָדוּעַ לִשְׁנַיִם וְאֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם מַכִּירוֹ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא הִיא. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. שִׁינָּה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ לַיָּם וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין לוֹקֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר לוֹקֶה. הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר לוֹקֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֲפִילוּ ביטה וּמַרְגָּלִיתָא. וְאָהֵן אֲפִילוּ. אֶלָּא כְגוֹן ביטא וּמַרְגָּלִיתָא. תַּנֵּי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּידְרֵי הֲבַאי מוּתָּרִין כָּךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת הֲבַאי מוּתָּרִין. וְהָתַנֵּי. שְׁבוּעוֹת הֲבַאי אֲסוּרִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פְדָת. כָּאן בְּמַעֲמִידִין כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין מַעֲמִידִין. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימָא. כָּאן וְכָאן בְּמַעֲמִידִין. כָּאן בְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעוֹת עַל נְכָסָיו. שְׁבוּעָה נְכָסַיי עָלַיי. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָא לִלְקוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין מוּתָּרִין כָּךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת זֵירוּזִין מוּתָּרִין. עוּד הוּא בְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעָה עַל נְכָסָיו. שְׁבוּעָת נְכָסַיי עָלַיי. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָא לִלְקוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. אָהֵן דְּמִשְׁתְּבַּע עַל תְּרֵין דְּאִינּוּן תְּרֵין לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. רִבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אָהֵן דַּחֲמֵי מִיטְרָא נְחִית וַאֲמַר. קוּרִי פָּלֻּי בּרֵיכּסוֹן. לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. רִבִּי חוֹנְיָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. כ״ד בּוּלַייוֹת הָיוּ בַדָּרוֹם וְכולָּם חָרְבוּ עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא שֶׁהִיא אֱמֶת. דִּכְתִיב לַשָּׁוְא הִכֵּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם.

MISHNAH: For an intentional vain oath one is liable to be flogged; if in error one is not liable. What is a vain oath? One swears to change what is known to man, about a stone pillar that it is of gold, a man that he is a woman, or a woman that she is a man. One swears about an impossibility, if I did not see a flying camel, if I did not see a snake like the beam of the olive press. If one said to witnesses come and testify for me, an oath that we shall not testify for you. 5:1 . . One swears not to keep commandments: not to make a booth23:42 . The argument is totally parallel to that of the preceding example. , not to take the lulav 3:2 . , not to put on phylacteries3:2 ( נ ), explained there in Notes 37–78 . ; these are vain oaths for which one is liable to be flogged if intentional, and free from prosecution of unintentional. HALAKHAH: “For an intentional vain oath one is liable to be flogged,” etc. There3:2 . , we have stated: “If I did not see on this road [crowds] like those who left Egypt.” 3:2 ( נ ), explained there in Notes 37–78 . Is it impossible that crowds like those who left Egypt went by? But we are dealing with one look. Was it not the case that when Diocletian went there, 1’200’000 [men] went with him? But we must be dealing with one look. “If I did not see a snake like the beam of the olive press.” either is from another textual tradition or is rather corrupt. Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw the hide of a snake made over eight spaces between pillars. Rebbi Samuel ben Jacob said, I saw the hide of a snake covering a state coach“travel coach”. . Samuel said, square. If square one could state even a small one. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, so it is. It is the way of this Tanna to use only big words, as we have stated: “A flying camel.” Could he not have stated, “a flying rat”? 5:7, Notes 122–129. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six Days of Creation. Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit. The place for a grit is nine lentils. The space for a lentil is four hairwidths; in all 36 hairwidths.6:1. Cf. Chapter 1, Note 4 . ” Rebbi (Yosna) said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why was it stated “squared”? That he should square it. And כגעה reads ננעה, in Nedarim כנעה. The latter probably is the correct text, “lice”. ? It is full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila Note 129. Possible Latin pila, among other meanings also “ball, globe” (E. G.). ! It is round below. Some wanted to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said this only about creatures, There is square in foods, there is no square in creatures. “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are flogged because of witnesses’ oath on 26b , in the edition by J. D. Ilan, Jerusalem 1993, col. 97, Note 145 ) declares this unintelligible since it contradicts Mishnah 4:2. . “An oath that we shall not testify for you;” they are flogged because of blurted oath. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf;” etc. Vain and untruth both were said together, which is impossible for the ear to hear and the mouth to say. Its desecrator shall be put to death and on the Sabbath day two sheep . 31:14 , Num . 28:9 . were said together. Do not wear ša`aṭnez , fringes you shall make for yourselves . 22:11–12 . , both were said together. The nakedness of your brother’s wife and her brother-in-law shall come to her 18:16 , Deut. 25:5 . were said together. You shall not move property ; any daughter inheriting real estate 36:8–9 . both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. And so it says, God spoke once, two I heard from this 62:12 . . And it says, is not My word like fire, says the Eternal 23:29 . The reference is to the end of the verse, and like a hammer splintering rock. . 3:2, Notes 60–65 . R. La (Ulla) is quoted in the Babli, 29a . A vain oath, if one swears to change what is known to men; a false oath if he swears to substitute. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: anything known to two persons is a (vain). A vain oath is obviously vain, a false oath is materially false but may not generally be seen as such. oath, to three it is (false). A vain oath is obviously vain, a false oath is materially false but may not generally be seen as such. . Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If it is known to two persons and another one at the end of the world, it is a vain oath. What is the difference between them? If he was untrue before two [persons], threw it into the sea, and they had warned him because of a vain oath; in the opinion of R. Joḥanan he is not flogged, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is flogged. If they had warned him because of a false oath, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is flogged, in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not flogged text, one has to switch “flogged” and “not flogged”. . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi read: Rav. Jehudah, even an egg and a pearl. What means “even”? But, for example, an egg and a pearl. 3:2 Notes 66–69 , Tosephta Nedarim 2:1 , Babli Nedarim 24b . It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted, so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. You may even say in both cases if they insist; here it is about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in matters of flogging, he cannot be flogged. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted, so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in matters of flogging, he cannot be flogged. Ḥizqiah said: he who swears that two are two is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Menahem: Ḥaggai. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who saw rain falling and said Κύριε πόλυ βρέξον is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: For the vain did I hit your sons 2:30 . .

שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוּכְלֶינָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. אֲכָלָהּ עָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. לֹא אֲכָלָהּ עָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי: שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי כול׳. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶינָּה. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶינָּה. אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. דָּבָר שֶׁאִילּוּ בִנְדָרִים אָסוּר וּבִשְׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר לֹא אַתְיָיא אֶלָּא בְמַתְנִיתָה אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּעַצְמוֹ וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. וָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁנָּתַן פְּלוֹנִי לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְנָה. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לָבֹא אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְשֶׁעָבַר. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי עַל תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן. זֶה חוֹמֶר לְשֶׁעָבַר מִשֶּׁלָּבֹא. שֶׁהָאוֹמֵר. לֹא אוֹכַל לֹא אוֹכַל. אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. לֹא אָכַלְתִּי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי. חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין לוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל. מוּטָּב לַעֲבוֹר עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא וְלֹא עַל שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכְלֶנָּה. רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין לוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שֶׁלֹא יֹאכַל. מוּטָּב לַעֲבוֹר עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא לְחוּד וְלֹא עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא וּבִיטּוּי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ הַיּוֹם שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה הַיּוֹם. וַאֲכָלָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. קִיֵים אֶת הָראשׁוֹנָה וּבִיטֵּל לַשְּׁנִיָיה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בִּיטֵּל לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְלֹא קִיֵים לַשְּׁנִיָיה. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ הַיּוֹם שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכְלֶינָּה הַיּוֹם. וַאֲכָלָהּ. רִבִּי יֹוחָנָן אָמַר. בִּיטֵּל אֶת הָראשׁוֹנָה וְקִיֵים לַשְּׁנִיָיה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בִּיטֵּל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שֶׁיְּקַיְימֶינָּה בְּכִכַּר אֲחֶרֶת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ הַיּוֹם שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכְלֶינָּה הַיּוֹם. וַאֲכָלָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. קִיֵים אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. קִיֵים לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וּשְׁנִיָיה אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שֶׁיְּקַיְימֶינָּה בְּכִכַּר אֲחֶרֶת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ הַיּוֹם שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה הַיּוֹם. וַאֲכָלָהּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקֵישׁ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אוּף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מוֹדֶה. שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כִמְזָרֵז עַצְמוֹ מִן הָאִיסּוּרִין.

MISHNAH: “An oath that I shall eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it.” The first one is a blurted oath, the second a vain oath. If he ate it he violated a vain oath, if he did not eat it he violated a blurted oath. HALAKHAH: “A blurted oath,” etc. 3:2, Notes 74–78 , which is not an exact copy. While repeated vows are separate obligations, of repeated identical oaths only the first is valid; the others are vain oaths. There is no notion of a vain vow. “ ‘An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it’, he is liable only once”. Something which would be forbidden for vows and is permitted for oaths. Not on this was it said but on the following: “Whether matters of himself, or matters of others,” as Rebbi Abba said in the name of Samuel: ‘An oath that X gave a mina to Y.’ If it turns out that he had not given, since it is not in his hand for the future it is not in his hand for the past. It was found stated on both cases: This is more stringent for the past than for the future: If he says “I shall not eat, I shall not eat,” he is liable only once. “I did not eat, I did not eat,” he is liable for each single time. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it.” The first one is a blurted oath, the second a vain oath. How does one deal with him? One tells him to eat; it is better to break a vain oath than a blurted one. “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf; an oath that I shall eat it.” The first one is a blurted oath, the second a vain oath. How does one deal with him? One tells him not to eat; it is better to break a vain oath than to break a vain and a blurted one. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept the first oath and invalidated the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one and did not keep the second. “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he invalidated the first oath and kept the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one. One tells him to keep the second with another loaf as not referring to the same loaf as does the first oath. Then while nothing can be done to mitigate the sin of breaking the first oath, the second oath can be changed from a vain oath to a new, valid oath referring to something different, not connected with the first. . “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept both of them. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he kept the first one and one tells him to keep the second with another loaf is interpreted as referring to another loaf; both oaths can be kept without sin. . “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is twice liable. Is he only once liable in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion? Even Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that he only emphasizes the prohibitions.

שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבַנָּשִׁים בָּרְחוֹקִים וּבַקְּרוֹבִים בַּכְּשֵׁרִים וּבַפְּסוּלִין בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים וּבַנָּשִׁים בָּרְחוֹקִים ובַקְּרוֹבִים בַּכְּשֵׁרִים וּבַפְּסוּלִים בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וּמִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פְּטוּרִין. אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ הַמּוּשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים חַיָיב. כֵּיצַד (אָמַר) לֹא אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם וְלֹא הִינַּחְתִּי תְפִילִּין הַיּוֹם. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן. חַיָיב: שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא כול׳. נֶפֶשׁ נֶפֶשׁ. מַה נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת עָשָׂה אֶת הַמּוּשְׁבָּע כְּנִשְׁבָּע. אַף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָדוֹן עָשָׂה הַמּוּשְׁבָּע כְּנִשְׁבָּע. זֶה הַכְּלָל. כָּל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה לוֹקֶה וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. חוּץ מִן הַמֵּימַר וְהַנִּשְׁבַּע וּמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַשֵּׁם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָּאן מֵימַר. מֵּימַר דִּיבּוּר וּמַעֲשֶׂה. נִשְׁבַּע לַשֶּׁקֶר מְנַיִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כִּי לֹא יְנַקֶּה יי. מְנַקִּין הֵן הַדַּיָינִין. קִילֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַשֵּׁם מְנַיִין. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. לְיִרְאָה אֶת הַשֵּׁם וגו׳. נִשְׁבַּע לַשֶּׁקֶר עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מְנַיִין. מִינָּהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע לַשֶּׁקֶר אֵין זֶהּ יָרֵא. קִילֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַשֵּׁם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְנַיִין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּילֵּל אֵין זֶהּ יָרֵא. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. נִשְׁבַּע לַשֶּׁקֶר וְקִילֵּל לַחַבֵירוֹ בַשֵּׁם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

MISHNAH: A blurted oath applies to men and women, relatives and unrelated persons, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth3:7 , disqualified persons in Sanhedrin 3:6 . . For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional [to bring] a variable sacrifice. A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and unrelated persons, to qualified and disqualified ones, in court and out of court, and by his own words3:7 , disqualified persons in Sanhedrin 3:6 . . For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional he is not prosecutable. In both cases, one who is sworn to by another person can be liable. How is this? One said, “I did not eat today, I did not put on phylacteries today.” “I want you to swear to it,” if he said “Amen” he is liable. HALAKHAH: “A vain oath,” etc. A person, a person . Since by a person which was said for an oath of testimony He made the one at whom the oath was directed like one swearing, so also by a person which was said for an oath of deposit He made the one at whom the oath was directed like one swearing. 5:1 starts: But a person who would sin . V. 21 stars: A person who would sin . The topic of v. 1 is a person whom another person makes swear indirectly ( Note 164 ) that he will testify in court on his behalf but who then reneges on his promise, thereby breaking his oath. V. 21 describes a person who commits sacrilege towards the Eternal by lying to his fellow man about a deposit, or a partnership, or robbery. One commits sacrilege by swearing falsely. The parallel language implies that swearing falsely about money matters does not necessarily mean to utter a formal oath. The sin of swearing falsely also has been committed if the injured party says to the accused in the presence of witnesses, “swear to me that you do not owe me” and the person then answers “Amen”. . This is the principle16a , Temurah 3a . In the Babli the formulation of this (undisputed) principle is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean. : One flogs for any prohibition involving an action, but one does not flog if there is no action except for one who substitutes. 27:9 ). Once sanctified, it is forbidden to substitute another animal ( v. 10 ). If somebody would substitute, both the original and the substitute are dedicated. Therefore the oral declaration of substitution is at the same time the real act of sanctification which makes the animal prohibited for all profane use. This argument is not found in the Babli. , or swears, or curses a fellow man by the Name. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This does not include one who substitutes; substituting implies speech and action. 27:9 ). Once sanctified, it is forbidden to substitute another animal ( v. 10 ). If somebody would substitute, both the original and the substitute are dedicated. Therefore the oral declaration of substitution is at the same time the real act of sanctification which makes the animal prohibited for all profane use. This argument is not found in the Babli. . From where one who swears falsely? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: For the Eternal will not cleanse ; but the judges will cleanse him20:7 , Deut . 5:11 . As the Babli explains, if the verse simply had said “he will not be cleansed”, then a vain or false oath would be an unpardonable sin. But since it said, the Eternal will not cleanse , it implies that punishment by the earthly court will remove the sin from the Heavenly ledger. . From where one who cursed his fellow man by the Name? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: To fear the Name . 28:58 . While the language is that of a positive commandment, the context shows that its violation is punishable. , etc. The one who swears falsely in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he swore falsely, he does not fear. The one who cursed his fellow man by the Name in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he cursed, he does not fear. What is the difference between them? If one swore falsely and cursed a fellow man by the Name. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is liable for two [punishments]. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is only liable for one.