Shevuot 20aשבועות כ׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shevuot 20a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
20aכ׳ א

מסרבין בו לאכול

importuning [mesarevin] him to eat.

מתניתין בשאין מסרבין בו לאכול ברייתא במסרבין בו לאכול וקאמר לא אכילנא ולא אכילנא דכי קא משתבע הכי קאמר שבועה שלא אוכל

The Gemara explains: The mishna here is referring to a case where others are not importuning him to eat; therefore, his oath should be understood literally, as obligating himself to eat. The external mishna, in tractate Nedarim, is referring to a case where others are importuning him to eat and he is saying: I will not eat, I will not eat. Under those circumstances, when he takes an oath, this is what he is saying: On my oath I will not eat.

רב אשי אמר תני שבועה שאי אוכל לך אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא לישניה דאיתקילא ליה קמ"ל:

Rav Ashi, offering a different resolution of the contradiction, says: Teach, i.e., revise the mishna in tractate Nedarim to say in the middle oath: On my oath I will not [she’i] eat of yours, i.e., using a different formulation for: On my oath I will not eat of yours. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating what is effectively the same oath twice? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there is a concern that the oath was a slip of his tongue and he meant to take an oath that he will eat and instead said: I will not eat, the mishna teaches us that one need not be concerned that this is what occurred.

ת"ר מבטא שבועה איסר שבועה איסור איסר אם אתה אומר איסר שבועה חייב ואם לאו פטור אם אתה אומר איסר שבועה והא אמרת איסר שבועה הוא

§ The Sages taught: “The clear utterance of her lips, with which she has bound her soul” (Numbers 30:7), is referring to an oath, and: “A bond with which she has bound her soul” (Numbers 30:5), is also referring to an oath. With regard to the prohibition invoked by the word “bond,” if you say a bond is an oath, he is liable, but if not, he is exempt. The Gemara seeks to explicate this baraita: If you say a bond is an oath? But you already said that a bond is an oath.

אמר אביי ה"ק מבטא שבועה איסר מיתפיס בשבועה איסור איסר אם אתה אומר מיתפיס בשבועה כמוציא שבועה מפיו דמי חייב ואם לאו פטור

Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: “Clear utterance” is an oath, whereas “bond” is the association of some object or action with a matter that has already been prohibited by an oath. What is the prohibition invoked by the word “bond”? If you say that creating an association with an oath is like explicitly expressing an oath with his own mouth then he is liable to bring an offering for unwittingly violating the oath and to receive lashes for doing so intentionally. But if it is not like stating an oath explicitly, he is exempt.

וממאי דמבטא שבועה דכתיב (ויקרא ה, ד) או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים איסר נמי דכתיב (במדבר ל, יד) כל נדר וכל שבועת איסר

The Gemara analyzes Abaye’s explanation: From where may one derive that “clear utterance” is an oath? One derives it from the verse written with regard to an oath on an utterance, as it is written: “Or if anyone take an oath to clearly utter with his lips” (Leviticus 5:4). The Gemara asks: Isn’t “bond” also referring to an oath, as it is written: “Every vow, and every oath of a bond to afflict the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may make it void” (Numbers 30:14)?

אלא ממאי דאיסר מיתפס בשבועה הוא דכתיב (במדבר ל, יא) או אסרה אסר על נפשה בשבועה

Rather, from where may one derive that a bond is the association of some object or action with another matter that has been prohibited by an oath? One may derive it from the verse, as it is written: “Or bound her soul by a bond with an oath” (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that the bond is associated with a preexisting oath.

מבטא נמי הכתיב (ויקרא ה, ד) לכל אשר יבטא האדם בשבועה

The Gemara asks: Isn’t the term “clear utterance” also associated with an oath in a verse, as it is written: “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath” (Leviticus 5:4)?

אלא אמר אביי מבטא שבועה מהכא (במדבר ל, ז) ואם היו תהיה לאיש ונדריה עליה או מבטא שפתיה אשר אסרה על נפשה ואילו שבועה לא קאמר במאי אסרה עצמה במבטא

Rather, Abaye said: The fact that “clear utterance” means an oath is derived from here: “And if she be married to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the clear utterance of her lips, with which she has bound her soul” (Numbers 30:7). While in that verse, it does not state: Oath. With what does she impose a prohibition upon herself? She does so with “clear utterance,” indicating that “clear utterance” is referring to an oath.

רבא אמר לעולם אימא לך מיתפיס בשבועה לאו כמוציא שבועה מפיו דמי והכי קאמר מבטא שבועה איסר נמי שבועה אסריה דאיסר הטילו הכתוב בין נדר לשבועה הוציאו בלשון נדר נדר בלשון שבועה שבועה

Rava said: Actually, I will say to you that association with an oath is not like expressing an oath with one’s own mouth, and this is what the baraita is saying: “Clear utterance” is an oath. “Bond” can also be an oath, but it is ambiguous. The verse placed the wording of the prohibition of a bond between that of a vow and that of an oath. Therefore, if one expressed a bond with the language of a vow, it is a vow. If one expressed it with the language of an oath, it is an oath.

היכן הטילו (במדבר ל, יא) ואם בית אישה נדרה או אסרה אסר על נפשה בשבועה וגו'

The Gemara asks: Where did the verse place the word for “bond” between a vow and an oath? The verse says: “And if she vowed in her husband’s house or bound her soul by a bond with an oath” (Numbers 30:11).

ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר מתפיס בשבועה אביי אמר כמוציא שבועה מפיו דמי ורבא אמר לאו כמוציא שבועה מפיו דמי

The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava both follow their own lines of reasoning, as it was stated: With regard to one who associates some object or action with another matter that has been prohibited by an oath, Abaye says: It is like explicitly expressing an oath with his mouth, and Rava says: It is not like explicitly expressing an oath with his mouth.

מיתיבי איזה איסר האמור בתורה האומר הרי עלי שלא אוכל בשר ושלא אשתה יין כיום שמת בו אביו כיום שמת בו פלוני כיום שנהרג בו גדליה בן אחיקם כיום שראה ירושלים בחורבנה אסור ואמר שמואל והוא שנדור ובא מאותו היום

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: What is the bond mentioned in the Torah? A bond applies to one who says: It is incumbent upon me that I will not eat meat and that I will not drink wine like on the day that his, i.e., my, father died, or: Like on the day that so-and-so died, or: Like on the day that Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed, or: Like on the day on which he saw Jerusalem in its destruction. One who makes one of these pronouncements is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine. And Shmuel says: This is the case only when he is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine by vow since that day, e.g., the day his father died.

בשלמא לאביי מדמתפיס בנדר נדר מתפיס בשבועה שבועה

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to the opinion of Abaye, from the fact that a vow that one associates with another vow is considered a vow, as Shmuel’s ruling demonstrates, one may conclude that an oath that one associates with another oath is considered an oath.