ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 25
SHEVUOS 25 (16 Adar I) - dedicated anonymously to merit a Refu'ah Sheleimah
for all who need, in Klal Yisrael.
(a) Our Mishnah incorporates issues that concern others in a the Din of
Shevu'as Bituy, as well as issues that concern the Nishba himself. The four
cases of Shevu'as Bituy listed by the Tana Kama that concern others are - '
... that I will give so-and-so', ' ... that I will not give so-and-so', '
... that I gave so-and-so' and ' ... that I did not give so-and-so'.
(b) The Tana also incorporates 'Devarim she'Ein Bahen Mamash' (also each
consisting of the same four cases). The two connotations of 'Devarim she'Ein
Bahen Mamash' are - ' ... that I will (or will not, did or did not) toss a
pebble into the sea', and ' ... that I will (or will not, did or did not)
sleep (for a short period).
(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns from "Lehara O Leheitiv" - that one is only Chayav
a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for a Shevu'ah of the future, but not for one of the
past (as we have already learned).
(b) Rebbi Yishmael conceded to Rebbi Akiva that things that are neither good
nor bad ('Devarim she'Ein Bahen Mamash') - are subject to a Korban Oleh
(c) The problem Rebbi Akiva now has with Rebbi Yishmael is - that in his
(Rebbi Akiva's) opinion, the source for both this case and Shevu'os in the
past lies in the Pasuk "le'Chol Asher Yevatei ... ' (as we shall see later).
Consequently, if Rebbi Yishmael concedes the one, he ought to concede the
(a) The Beraisa weighs up Shevu'os and Nedarim. The Chumra of ...
1. ... Nedarim over Shevu'os is - the fact that they are valid on a D'var
Mitzvah (whereas Shevu'os are not).
(b) When the Tana says that Nedarim take effect on a Mitzvah, he is
referring to where the Noder said (for example) - 'Konem Sukah she'Ani
Oseh', or 'Konem Lulav she'Ani Notel'.
2. ... Shevu'os over Nedarim is - that they take effect even on abstract
issues (as we learned in our Mishnah [whereas Nedarim are not]).
(a) When our Mishnah presents the case of ...
1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Etein le'Ish P'loni', he cannot be referring to
giving Tzedakah to a poor man - since he is already Mushba ve'Omed me'Har
Sinai (via the Pasuk in Re'ei "Nason Titen Lo"), in which case his Shevu'ah
would not be valid.
(b) Consequently, he must be referring ...
2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ishan', he cannot be referring to never sleeping at
all - because Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ishan
Sheloshah Yamim, Malkin Oso ve'Yashen le'Alter' (meaning that he receives
Malkos for a Shevu'as Shav, in which case it does fall under the category of
1. ... in the former case - to giving a gift to a wealthy man.
2. ... in the latter case - to not sleeping for less than three days.
(a) If Reuven declares 'Shevu'ah she'Zarak (or she'Lo Zarak) P'loni Tz'ror
le'Yam', Rav sentences him to Malkos for a Shevu'as Bituy (should he
contravene his Shevu'ah), seeing as it is subject to both 'La'av ve'Hein'.
Shmuel disagrees with him - because it is only subject to the past, but not
to the future, since Reuven has no control over what Shimon does (in which
case it is a case of Shevu'as Shav, and not a Shevu'as Bituy).
(b) We try to link this Machlokes with the Machlokes Tana'im in our
Mishnah - in which case, Rav will hold like Rebbi Akiva (who does not
require a Shevu'ah Bituy to necessarily pertain to the past) and Shmuel like
Rebbi Yishmael (who does).
(c) When we reject this suggestion with the words 'Aliba de'Rebbi Yishmael
Kuli Alma Lo P'ligi', we mean - that there is no question that Rebbi
Yishmael cannot conform with Rav (and that Rav's statement is therefore a
(d) Rav cannot hold like Rebbi Yishmael - because if, even when the Shevu'ah
does pertain to the future, the latter precludes the Shevu'ah in the past
from a Shevu'as Bituy, he will certainly preclude it where when it does not.
(e) And we conclude they argue according to Rebbi Akiva. Rav maintains that
the latter holds like him, whereas Shmuel maintains that Rebbi Akiva will
agree with him too - because (unlike the case in the Mishnah), the Shevu'ah
*cannot* apply to the future, and therefore it will not apply to the past
(a) The Mishnah later rules that someone who swears to contravene a Mitzvah
and then breaks his word - is Patur (because his Shevu'ah is not valid).
(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira rules that someone who swears to fulfill a
Mitzvah and then breaks his word - is Chayav (because of Shevu'as Bituy) ...
(c) ... 'Kal va'Chomer from a Shevu'as Reshus, which is valid even though it
does not have the backing of a Shevu'ah at Har Sinai.
(d) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira's argument, based on the
fact that - whereas a Shevu'as Reshus is 'be'Hein ve'La'av', a Shevu'as
Mitzvah is not (and therefore it is not valid).
(a) We attempt to link the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel with that of
Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan - inasmuch as Rav, who does not
require le'Haba and le'she'Avar, holds like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, who
does not require 'Hein ve'La'av', and Sh'muel (who does not ... ) holds like
the Rabbanan (who do not ... ).
(b) We conclude however, that they do not argue about Rebbi Yehudah ben
Beseira - by which we mean that there is no question that Rebbi Yehudah ben
Beseira cannot conform with Shmuel (and that Shmuel's statement is therefore
a Machlokes Tana'im), because if he doesn't require La'av va'Hein (where the
Torah writes explicitly 'Lehara O Leheitiv'), then he certainly will not
require 'Le'Haba and Le'she'Avar' (which we only learn from a 'Ribuy').
(c) Rav maintains that the Rabbanan will agree with him (and not require
'le'Haba' and 'le'she'Avar') - because unlike 'La'av ve'Hein' (which they
require because it is written explicitly, as we just explained), it is only
learned from a Ribuy.
(a) The Mishnah later rules that if someone declares 'Lo Achalti Ha'yom,
ve'Lo Hinachti Tefilin Ha'yom. Nishbacha, ve'Amar Amen - Chayav'.
(b) Rav Hamnuna poses a Kashya from this Mishnah on Shmuel - from the case
of Tefilin, which does not apply to the future (because it is a case of
'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah').
(c) We answer that the Mishnah is learned 'li'Tzedadin - meaning 'Lo
Achalti, le'Korban (because it is a Shevu'as Bituy), Lo Hinachti le'Malkos'
(because it is a Shevu'as Sheker).
(a) The Tana there also discusses a case of Shevu'as Shav ('Nishba Leshanos
es ha'Yudu'a le'Adam'). Shmuel rules that - it falls under the category of
Shevu'as Shav if three people knew about it.
(b) Rava extrapolates - that if three people did not know about it, then it
would be a Shevu'as Bituy, creating a Kashya on Shmuel - since such a
Shevu'ah (e.g. that a stone pillar should become gold) does not pertain to
(c) Rava himself answers the Kashya, by establishing 'Lo Nikar' (not as a
Shevu'as Bituy, but) - as a Shevu'as Sheker.
(a) Abaye states that if Reuven says to Shimon 'Shevu'ah she'Ani Yode'a Lach
Eidus', and it turns out that he doesn't, he is not Chayav for Shevu'as
Bituy, even according to Rav - because it is not 'be'Hein ve'La'av' (and Rav
only argues with Shmuel by 'le'she'Avar u'Lehaba')
(b) He says about 'Shevu'ah ...
1. ... she'Yada'ti Lach Eidus' or she'Lo Yada'ti Lach Eidus' - that Rav and
Shmuel argue over this (seeing as it does not apply to the future (as we
(c) Even though the Torah writes Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as Eidus in the
same La'av in Vayikra, we have no problem with the Torah mentioning the
latter independently, according to Shmuel - because Shevu'as Bituy will not
apply to Shevu'as ha'Eidus anyway (seeing as it does not pertain to the
2. ... He'adti' or 'Lo He'adti' - just like he said in the previous case.
(d) The problem, according to Rav (who does not require 'le'she'Avar
u'le'Haba' is - seeing as the Nishba is already Chayav because of Shevu'as
Bituy, why does the Torah then add Shevu'as ha'Eidus.
(a) The Rabbanan attempted to answer the Kashya in front of Abaye - by
sentencing him to both Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as ha'Eidus.
(b) Based on the Pasuk "Vehayah Ki Ye'sham *le'Achas* me'Eileh" however,
Abaye retorted - the Torah specifically precludes such a ruling (with the
(c) So Abaye answered the Kashya on Rav with a Beraisa 'be'Chulan Ne'emar
"ve'Ne'elam", ve'Ka'an Lo Ne'emar "ve'Ne'elam", by which he meant - that by
all the cases of Shevu'as Bituy, the Torah writes "ve'Ne'elam" (confining
the Chiyuv Korban Oleh ve'Yored to a case of Shogeg), whereas by Shevu'as
ha'Eidus it does not, thereby confining it to Meizid.
(d) The Rabbanan suggested to Abaye that perhaps "Achas" pertains
specifically to Meizid, who will therefore be Chayav only one set of Malkos
(for Shevu'as Eidus), but not to Shogeg, who will therefore be Chayav two
Korbanos (a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for Shevuas Bituy as well). He replied that
Meizid does not require the D'rashah of "Achas", seeing as the Torah has
already written "ve'Ne'elam", in which case it can only pertain to Shogeg,
as we explained.
(a) According to Rava, we do not need "Achas" to teach us that Shevu'as
Eidus is not Chayav because of Shevu'as Bituy as well - because it is a
'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza Lidon be'Davar he'Chadash I Atah Yachol
Lehachziro li'Chelalo ... ' (which means that, seeing as the Torah
introduced the Chidush of Shevu'as ha'Eidus to the existing case of Shevu'as
Bituy, one is no longer Chayav for Shevu'as Bituy (unless the Torah were to
specifically reinstate it).
(b) According to Rava, "Achas" comes to teach us - that if someone says
'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal', and then eats wheat bread, barley bread and spelt
bread, he will only receive one set of Malkos.
(a) Abaye disagrees with Rava. According to him, the Shevu'as Bituy is not
automatically precluded from a case of Shevu'as Eidus. Despite the fact that
the Torah anyway writes "Achas", the difference between Abaye and Rava will
be - in a case where Shevu'as Eidus is not applicable (i.e. if the Nishba
was Pasul le'Eidus or where he declared the Shevu'ah outside Beis-Din). In
such a case, he will be Chayav because of Shevu'as Bituy according to Abaye,
but not according to Rava.
(b) This create a problem with Abaye's earlier statement 'Shevu'ah she'Ani
Yode'a Lach Eidus ve'Ishtakach de'Lo Yada Patur, Ho'il ve'Leiseih be'Eini
Yode'a' - which implies that in a case of Shevu'as ha'Eidus, there is no
Shevu'as Bituy at all (whereas we just explained that there is).
(c) Initially, we reply - that Abaye retracted from that statement.
(d) Alternatively - we establish one of Abaye's two statements like Rav Papa
(and Abaye never actually said it at all).