POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 35
1) EXEMPTIONS FFROM "SHEVU'AS HA'EDUS"
(a) (Mishnah): 'I impose an oath on you if you will not
testify that Ploni promised to give me 200 Zuz, and did
not give me' - they (the witnesses) are exempt (for even
if this is true, Ploni need not give);
2) THE WORDING OF THE OATH
1. One is only liable for a claim of money that must be
paid, similar to a deposit.
(b) 'I impose an oath on you that you will testify for me
after you will see testimony' - they are exempt, for the
oath preceded (seeing) the testimony.
(c) If he said in the synagogue 'I impose an oath on (all of)
you, that if you will know testimony for me you will
testify' - they are exempt, (for he did not specify the
(d) 'I impose an oath on you, Ploni and Almoni, that if you
will know testimony for me you will testify', and they
heard testimony from another witness, or one of them was
a relative or an invalid witness, they are exempt;
(e) Reuven (the claimant) sent his slave to ask the witnesses
to testify, or the defendant made them swear - they are
exempt, because Reuven did not ask them to testify.
(f) (Gemara - Beraisa): 'I impose an oath on you if you will
not testify that Ploni promised to give me 200 Zuz, and
did not give me' - one might have thought that they (the
witnesses) are liable - "Secheta-Secheta" teaches that
they are only liable for a case similar to Shevu'as
ha'Pikadon, i.e. when there is a claim of money (that
must be paid).
(g) (Beraisa): 'I impose an oath on you that you will testify
for me after you will see testimony' - one might have
thought that they are liable - "V'Sham'ah Kol Alah v'Hu
Ed" - he must already be a witness at the time of the
(h) (Mishnah): If he said in the synagogue 'I impose an oath
on (all of) you...'
(i) (Shmuel): Even if there are witnesses among them, they
(j) Objection: This is obvious!
(k) Answer: The Chidush is, even if they are right by him;
1. One might have thought, this is like specifying them
- Shmuel teaches, this is not so.
(l) Support (Beraisa): He saw a throng of people and
witnesses were among them, and said 'I impose an oath on
you that you will testify for me if you know testimony'.
One might have thought that they are liable - "V'Hu Ed" -
he must specify the witnesses;
1. One might have thought, even if he said '(I impose
an oath on) you that are standing here' they are
exempt - "V'Hu Ed" - since he specified the
witnesses, they are liable.
(m) (Mishnah): 'I impose an oath on you, Ploni and Almoni...'
(n) (Beraisa): 'I impose an oath on you, Ploni and Almoni,
that if you will know testimony for me you will testify',
and they heard testimony from another witness, or one of
them was a relative or an invalid witness;
1. One might have thought, they are liable - "Im Lo
Yagid v'Nasa Avono", the witnesses must be fitting
(o) (Mishnah): He sent his slave...
(p) (Beraisa): He sent his slave to ask the witnesses to
testify, or the defendant made them swear - one might
have thought that they are liable - "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa
Avono" teaches that they are exempt.
(q) Question: How does the verse teach this?
(r) Answer (R. Elazar): The word 'Lo' is written with an
'Aleph' *and* 'Vav', suggesting that we read it both
ways, 'Im Lo Lo Yagid (if he will not tell *to* *him*)'.
(a) (Mishnah): 'I impose an oath on you', (or) 'I command
you', 'I forbid you' - they are liable;
3) THE HOLY NAMES OF HASH-M
(b) If he made them swear by Heaven and earth, they are
(c) If he made them swear by any of the following, they are
liable: 'Aleph-Dalet' (and 'Nun-Yud', the way we
pronounce Hash-m's name'), 'Yud-Kei' (Rashi - Hash-m's
four-letter name itself; Tosfos ha'Rosh - the first two
letters of it), Shakai, Tzevakos, Chanun, Rachum, Erech
Apayim, Rav Chesed, or any Kinuy (name that refers to
(d) R. Meir says, one who curses Hash-m or his parents with
any of these names is liable (to death administered by
Beis Din); Chachamim exempt him;
(e) One who curses himself or another person with any of
these names transgresses a Lav;
(f) 'Hash-m should strike you (if you will not testify for
me)' - this is the Alah (curse) the Torah refers to;
(g) R. Meir says, 'Hash-m should not strike you', or 'Hash-m
should bless you', 'Hash-m should do good to you (if you
will testify for me)' - they are liable; Chachamim exempt
(h) (Gemara) Question: What does the Mishnah mean 'I impose
an oath on you...'?
(i) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): 'I impose an oath on you - the
oath mentioned in the Torah; 'I command you' - with the
command mentioned in the Torah (by the Parshah of vows);
'I forbid you' - with the Isur mentioned in the Torah.
(j) Question (Abaye): But R. Chiya taught, 'Kovalchem (I put
you in fetters)' - they are liable;
1. We do not find this language in the Torah!
(k) Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, each of these languages ('I
impose an oath, I command, I forbid, I put you in
fetters') is with an oath (and Hash-m's name).
(a) (Mishnah)::With 'Aleph-Dalet', 'Yud-Kei', Shakai,
Tzevakos, Chanun, Rachum, Erech Apayim, Rav Chesed...
(b) Inference: This teaches that Chanun and Rachum are names
(c) Contradiction (Beraisa): Some names of Hash-m may be
erased, other names that refer to Him may not;
1. The following may not be erased: Kel, Eloka, Elokim,
Elokeichem, Echyeh Asher Echyeh, 'Aleph-Dalet',
'Yud-Kei', Shakai, and Tzevakos.
(d) Answer (Abaye): In our Mishnah, he refers to the One Who
is Chanun (gracious) or Rachum (merciful).
2. The following may be erased: ha'Gadol, ha'Gibor,
ha'Nora, ha'Adir, ha'Chazak, ha'Amitz, ha'Izuz,
Chanun, Rachum, Erech Apayim, and Rav Chesed!
(e) Question (Rava): If so, when he made them swear by Heaven
and earth, we should say, the Owner of Heaven and earth!
4) MUST THE OATH INCLUDE HASHEM'S NAME?
(f) Answer (Abaye): No - nothing else is called Chanun (or
Rachum), so surely he means 'The One Who is Chanun (or
1. Regarding Heaven and earth, he made them swear by
Heaven and earth themselves!
(g) (Beraisa): If one wanted to write 'Elokim', once he
writes 'Aleph-Lamed', these letters are (themselves a
name of Hash-m, they are) Kodesh, they may not be erased;
the same applies to 'Yud-Kei' of Hash-m's name;
1. If he wrote 'Shin-Dalet' from Shakai, ('Aleph-Dalet'
from Adon-i - R. Chananel's text puts this in the
previous clause, it may not be erased), 'Tzadi-Beis'
from Tzevakos, these letters may be erased;
(h) (Shmuel): The Halachah does not follow R. Yosi.
2. R. Yosi says, the entire word 'Tzevakos' may be
erased, for it is not a name of Hash-m, it refers to
Yisrael - "Tziv'osai Es Ami Venei Yisrael".
(i) (Beraisa): Any letters appended to Hash-m's name, whether
before or after it, may be erased;
1. If 'Lamed', 'Beis', 'Vav', 'Mem', 'Shin', 'Hei', or
'Kaf' is prefixed to Hash-m's name, it may be
(j) All the occurrences of Hash-m's name ('Aleph-Dalet')
written by Avraham are Kodesh, except for "Adonai Im Na
Matzasi Chen b'Einecha" (he was addressing the man
(really, angel) in the middle).
2. The letters 'Nun-Vav', 'Hei-Mem', or 'Chaf-Mem'
suffixed to 'Elokai' may be erased.
3. Others say, letters suffixed may not be erased,
because Hash-m's name that precedes them makes them
4. (Rav Huna): The Halachah follows this latter
(k) Chanina ben Achi R. Yehoshua and R. Elazar ben Azaryah
say, even this is Kodesh.
1. (Rav Yehudah): Hosting guests is greater than
receiving the Divine Presence.
(l) The occurrences of 'Adonai' written by Lot are Chol, only
"Al Na (Hash-m)...Lehachayos Es Nafshi" is Kodesh;
2. This is according to Chanina and R. Elazar. (Avraham
was speaking to Hash-m, and stopped to host
1. He addressed Hash-m, Who can kill or keep alive.
(m) All the occurrences of Hash-m's name by Navos are Kodesh;
those by Michah are Chol;
1. R. Eliezer says, the names 'Yud-Kei' by Michah are
Kodesh, the names 'Aleph-Lamed' are not, except for
"Beis ha'Elokim b'Shilo".
(n) Every 'Shlomo' in Shir ha'Shirim refers to Hash-m (the
One to Whom is Shal-m), except for "Ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo"
- Shlomo had 1000 servants;
2. R. Eliezer says, all the occurrences of Hash-m's
name written by the war against Binyamin are not
Kodesh; R. Yehoshua says, they are Kodesh.
3. R. Eliezer: They cannot be Kodesh, had Hash-m
promised Benei Yisrael victory, he would have
fulfilled it (the first time)!
4. R. Yehoshua: Hash-m did not promise victory, for
they did not ask about this, until the last time
(then, He promised and fulfilled).
1. "U'Masayim l'Noterim Es Piryo" - these are
(o) Every 'Malkiya' in Daniel is Chol, except for ('Melech'
in) "Ant Malka, *Melech* Malkaya..."
2. Some say, also "Hine Mitaso Shel Shlomo" is Chol.
3. Question: Shmuel taught, a king that conscripts a
sixth of the population for his work (Rashi; Tosfos
- that kills a sixth of the world in optional wars;
Rashba - that executes a sixth of his subjects) is
not punished - "Ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo" (1000 for
Hash-m) and "U'Masayim l'Noterim Es Piryo" (200 for
i. This is not like either Tana (both agree that
"Ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo" is Chol)!
4. Correction: Rather, some say, "Ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo"
is Kodesh and "Hine Mitaso Shel Shlomo" is Chol;
5. Shmuel holds like this latter Tana.
(p) Some say, also the following is Kodesh - "Mari Chelma
l'Sanach u'Fishrei l'Arach";
1. He could not refer to Nebuchadnetzar, who hated
Yisrael, for then Daniel would have cursed Yisrael!
2. The first Tana holds that surely he also hated some
(a) (Mishnah): If he made them swear by any Kinuy of Hash-m,
they are liable.
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa) It says (by Sotah) "l'Alah
veli'Shevu'ah" - but it already says "Bi'Shvu'as
1. It is extra to make a Gezerah Shavah to teach about
'Alah' written by Shevu'as ha'Edus: just as the Alah
of Sotah is a Shevu'ah with Hash-m's name, also that
by Shevu'as ha'Edus.
(c) Resolution (Abaye): That Beraisa is R. Chanina bar Idi
(and our Mishnah is Chachamim).
1. (Beraisa - R. Chanina bar Idi): The Torah commands
to swear (Rashi - the oath of Shomerim; R. Chananel
- the oath of Sotah) and not to swear (falsely); it
commands to curse (a Sotah), and not to curse
(Hash-m or people);
(d) Question: How do Chachamim learn?
i. Just as we are commanded to swear and curse
with Hash-m's name, we are commanded not to
swear and curse with Hash-m's name.
1. If they also learn the Gezerah Shavah, they should
also require Hash-m's name!
(e) Answer: (They do not learn the Gezerah Shavah,) they
learn that Alah is an oath as follows.
2. If they do not learn the Gezerah Shavah, what is
their source that Alah is an oath?
1. (Beraisa): 'Alah' means oath, as it says regarding a
Sotah "V'Hishbi'a... bi'Shvu'as ha'Alah".
2. Question: We cannot learn from there, there it says
3. Answer: Rather, "V'Hishbi'a... bi'Shvu'as ha'Alah"
teaches that Alah is with an oath;
i. "V'Sham'ah Kol Alah" teaches that (Rashi
deletes the following from the text: 'Alah'
written without Shevu'ah is like Alah with
Shevu'ah, and) Shevu'ah without Alah like
Shevu'ah with Alah.