ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 35
(a) Our Mishnah exempts witnesses from a Korban if they deny knowledge of Reuven's
1. ... that Shimon promised to give him two hundred Zuz - because Shimon would be
under no obligation to pay, even if they wee to testify (seeing as he is permitted to
(b) Our Mishnah also exempts them, in a regular case of Shevu'as Eidus, only where
the witnesses ...
2. ... against Shimon, assuming that Reuven had asked them to testify in advance,
before he had even lent Shimon the money - because they are only Chayav if the
testimony preceded the Shevu'ah (and not vice-versa, as we shall see).
1. ... were sitting with many others in the Beis-Hamedrash when Reuven asked if
anyone present knew that he lent Shimon money (because he did not designate them).
(c) We have already learned that if a third party asks the witnesses to testify, they
are not subject to a Shevu'as Eidus - and this includes a debtor who asks them to
testify on behalf of the creditor.
2. ... knew the testimony from the mouth of other witnesses ('Eid mi'Pi Eid' or ...
3. ... where one of them was a relative of his or of Shimon's or Pasul from
testifying (because all of these are not eligible to testify, as we shall see).
(a) The Beraisa learn the first Din in our Mishnah (that if Reuven asked the
witnesses to testify that Shimon promised to give him two hundred Zuz, they are
Patur) - from "Secheta" "Secheta" from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, where the Torah
specifically confines the Chiyuv Korban to a Shevu'ah which absolves the defendant
from his obligation to pay.
(b) The Tana in our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah, ve'Hu Eid O
Ra'ah O Yada" is - that if the Shevu'ah precedes the testimony, the witnesses are
(c) Regarding the case where Reuven addresses the people learning in the
Beis-Hamedrash, Shmuel needs to inform us that the Tana speaks even where the
witnesses are present when he makes the announcement - because the Tana is speaking
where the witnesses are actually standing beside Reuven at the time (which we would
otherwise have considered designation).
(a) We learned a Beraisa that supports Shmuel - where Reuven addressed a group of
people including the two witnesses, and said 'Mashbi'ani Aleichem Im Atem Yod'in Li
Eidus ... '.
(b) In the case in the Seifa, the Tana obligates them - where Reuven specifically
announced 'Kol ha'Omdin *Ka'an*', which implies those who are standing beside him.
(c) We know that the Reisha too, is speaking when the witnesses are standing beside
Reuven - because presumably, it is speaking in the same circumstances as the Seifa.
(a) The Beraisa learn that 'Eid mi'Pi Eid' and Pesulei Eidus are Patur - from "Im Lo
Yagid ve'Nasa Avono", which implies that only witnesses who are eligible to testify
are Chayav (as we explained in our Mishnah).
(b) Rebbi Elazar explains a second D'rashah "Im Lo Yagid ve'Nasa Avono" (from which
the Beraisa also exempts the witnesses if it is a third party that calls them to
testify) - based on the fact that "Lo" is spelt both with a 'Vav and with an 'Alef',
implying that if the witnesses refuse to tell *him*, they are Chayav, but if they
refuse to tell a third party, they are Patur.
(a) Our Mishnah ...
1. ... incorporates 'Mashbi'ani Ani Aleichem', 'Metzaveh Ani Aleichem', Osarchem
Aleichem' in the Din of Shevu'as ha'Eidus.
(b) If someone curses a fellow Jew using any of these names, Rebbi Meir renders him -
Chayav Misah; the Chachamim say 'Patur'.
2. ... precludes 'ba'Shamayim u'va'Aretz' - from the Chiyuv.
3. ... but includes Shevu'os made in the Name of 'Alef Daled', 'Yud Key', 'Shakai',
'Tzevakos', 'Chanun, 'Rachum' ... or any of the 'Kinuyin' (other minor Names of
(c) With regard to someone who curses his father or mother with one of the above
Kinuyin, Rebbi Meir (Chayav) and the Chachamim (Patur) - simply repeat the previous
(a) The Mishnah defines 'Yakcha Hashem' or 'Yakchem Elokim' as - an 'Alah', because
it is included in the curses contained in the Torah.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir, if Reuven says to the witnesses 'Al Yakcha Im Te'iduni'
or 'Yevarech'cha (or 'Yeitiv Lecha') Im Te'iduni', they are Chayav. The latter ruling
is based on the principle - 'mi'Chelal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein (u'mi'Chelal Hein Atah
Shome'a La'av' ['One implies the positive side of a negative satement, and
(c) The Chachamim, who do not hold 'Mi'chelal La'av ... ', rule - 'Patur'.
(a) Initially, Rav Yehudah explains 'Mashbi'ani Aleichem - bi'Shevu'ah ha'Amurah
ba'Torah', 'Metzaveh Ani Aleichem - be'Tzava'ah ha'Amurah ba'Torah' and 'Osrani Ani
Aleichem - be Isur ha'Amur ba'Torah'?
(b) Abaye queries Rav Yehudah however, from a Beraisa quoted by Rebbi Chiya, which
includes 'Kovalchem (which means to tie with fetters) Ani Aleichem' - and there is no
such thing as a Koval in the Torah.
(c) So Abaye explains all the cases - in connection with a Shevu'ah ('Mashbi'ani,
Metzaveh Ani, Osrani, Aleichem - bi'Shevu'ah ha'Amurah ba'Torah').
(a) The Beraisa lists ...
1. ... 'Keil', 'Elokecha', 'Elokeichem', 'Ehekeh Asher Ehekeh', 'Alef Daled', 'Yud
Key', 'Shakay' and 'Tzevakos' - as Names of Hashem that one may not erase.
(b) To reconcile this with our Mishnah, which reckons 'Chanun', 'Rachum', 'Erech
Apayim' and 'Rav Chesed' among the Names of Hashem, Abaye explains - that our Mishnah
is really referring to the One who is Chanun and Rachum ... ', but does consider
'Chanun' and 'Rachum' themselves to be Names of Hashem.
2. ... 'ha'Gadol, 'ha'Gibor' ... 'ha'Adir' 'ha'Chazak' ... 'Chanun' ve'Rachum' - as
Names that one may erase.
(c) Rava asked Abaye why, that case, we do not say the same S'vara with regard to
'Shamayim va'Aretz' - perhaps if someone says to two witnesses 'Mshbi'ani Aleichem
ba'Shamayim u'va'Aretz', he also mean to make them swear by the One to whom Heaven
and earth belong? Why does our then exempt them from a Korban?
(d) Abaye replied - that whereas 'Rachum ve'Chanun' are adjectives which describe
Hashem exclusively, that is obviously what the Mshbi'a meant, Shamayim va'Aretz are
nouns in their own right, and there is no reason to assume that he meant anything
other than what he said.
(a) The Beraisa rules that 'Alef Lamed' from 'Elokim' or 'Yud Hey' from Hashem's
four-letter Name - may not be erased (since they spell Names of Hashem in their own
right), whereas 'Shin Daled' from 'Shakai', 'Alef Hey' from 'Ehekeh', 'Alef Daled'
from the Name of 'Adnus' or 'Tzadey Veis' from 'Tzevakos', which are meaningless, may
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi however - the entire name 'Tzevakos' may be erased,
because based on the Pasuk ''Ve'hotzeisi es Ami B'nei Yisrael me'Eretz Mitzrayim", it
refers to Yisrael (and is not an intrinsic Name of Hashem).
(c) Shmuel rules like the Tana Kama.
(d) Another Beraisa - considers neither prefixes to Hashem's Name, such as
'la'Hashem' or 'ba'Hashem' nor suffixes, such as 'Elokeinu' or 'Elokeichem', to be
holy, in which case both may be erased.
(e) Acherim, like whom Rav Huna rules, disagrees. In his opinion - suffixes are holy
and may not be erased, because the Name that precedes them sanctifies them together
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the only time that an ambiguous word
denoting Hashem mentioned by Avraham is actually not Kodesh is 'Adonai' in the Pasuk
in (in connection with the visit of the three angels) "Adonai, Im Na Matza'si Chein
be'Einecha" - because it refer to Micha'el, the most senior of Avraham's three
(b) Chanina ben Achi Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in the name of Rebbi
Elazar ha'Muda'i both maintain - that there too, it pertains to Hashem and is
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - extrapolates from Avraham's above words (asking "Ad-nai"
to wait) that 'Hachnasas Orchim' takes precedence over welcoming the Shechinah',
following the opinion of 'that pair'.
(d) The same Beraisa says that the word "Ad-nai" (in the Pasuk there [in connection
with two of the same angels in S'dom] "Vayomer Lot Aleihem, Al Na *Ad-nai*, Hinei Na
Matza Avd'cha Chein be'Einecha") is the only ambiguous one mentioned by Lot that
actually denotes Hashem's Name (all the others simply refer to the angels, and are
'Chol). The Tana knows that - because Lot pleads there for his life, and the only one
who is able to grant life is Hashem.
(a) The Tana Kama states that all the ambiguous names of Hashem mentioned in
connection with ...
1. ... Navos alleged cursing of Hashem (in Melachim) - are Kodesh.
(b) Rebbi Elazar disagrees with the latter ruling. In his opinion - the Name 'Alef'
'Lamed' ... is always Chol, and the Name 'Yud' Hey', Kodesh.
2. ... Michah, the idolatrous priest (in Shoftim) - are Chol.
(c) The only exception to this rule, says Rebbi Elazar, is the Pasuk there in Shoftim
"Kol Yemei Heyos Beis-*ha'Elokim* be'Shiloh', which is Kodesh.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer establishes all the names mentioned in connection with Giv'as
Binyamin (Pilegesh be'Giv'ah [in Shoftim, in connection with Yisrael's war with
Binyamin]) as Chol - because it is inconceivable, he says, that Hashem should order
them to go and fight, and then allow them to lose.
(e) Rebbi Yehoshua replied - that this is only because they failed to ask Him whether
they would win. In fact, when before the third and final battle, they did ask and
Hashem replied that they would win, they did.
(a) The word "Sh'lomoh" in Shir Hashirim - (an acronym of 'Melech she'Ha'Shalom
she'Lo') normally pertains to Hashem.
(b) The Tana Kama - lists "Sh'lomoh" in the Pasuk there "Karmi she'Li Lefanai.
ha'Elef Lecha Sh'lomoh, u'Masayim le'Notrim es Piryo" as the sole exception ...
(c) ... and the Pasuk means - that for every thousand measures that Sh'lomoh picked
for himself from his vineyard, he left two hundred (one sixth [of the total]) for the
Talmidei-Chachamim, who are the 'Notrim es Piryo', referring to the Torah that they
(a) Yesh Omrim (Rebbi Nasan) says that also the "Sh'lomoh" in the Pasuk there "Hinei
Mitaso she'li'Sh'lomoh, Shishim Giborim Saviv Lah" refers to Sh'lomoh himself ...
(b) ... who required 'sixty strong men' (which refers, among other things, to the
letters of Birchas Kohanim) to surround his bed - because of his fear of Ashmodai
(king of the demons).
(c) Shmuel therefore interprets the Pasuk ''ha'Elef Lecha Sh'lomoh, u'Masayim
le'Notrim es Piryo" to mean - that of every thousand men that dies by the Divine
Hand, two hundred die as a result of the heavy work-tax that Sh'lomoh imposed on the
people for the building of the Beis-Hamikdash)?
(d) The problem with this is - that 'Yesh Omrim's statement (with reference to the
second Pasuk) '*Af* Zeh Chol' implies that according to both Tana'im, the first Pasuk
"Karmi she'Li Lefanai. ha'Elef Lecha Sh'lomoh, u'Masayim le'Notrim es Piryo" refers
to Sh'lomoh, in which case Shmuel will hold like neither Tana.
(e) We therefore erase the word 'Af' from the statement of 'Yesh Omrim' - amending it
to read 'Zeh Chol' (but not the first Pasuk), in which case Shmuel will hold like
(a) The reason that ...
1. ... the Tana establishes the Pasuk in Daniel "Ant Malka Melech Malchaya ... " as
the only one there where "Melech" is Kodesh is - because Daniel would not have
referred to Nevachednetzar (to whom all the others pertain) as ''Melech Malchaya''.
(b) The Tana Kama counters Yesh Omrim's argument however - inasmuch as Nevuchadnetzar
had plenty of gentile enemies too, and it was to these to whom Daniel referred.
2. ... Yesh Omrim add to this the Pasuk there "Mari, Chelma le'San'ach u'Pishreih
le'Arach" (meaning 'My Master, let the dream come true with regard to your enemies
and its interpretation, with regard to your adversaries') is - because if here too,
he was referring to Nevuchadnetzar, then, assuming that the enemies of Nevuchadnetzar
were K'lal Yisrael, Daniel would not have cursed Yisrael in this way.
(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk (in connection with a Sotah) has already written
"Vehishbi'a ha'Kohen es ha'Ishah bi'Shevu'as ha'Alah", the problem with the Pasuk
"Yiten Hashem Osach le'Alah ve'li'Shevu'ah" is - why the Torah needs to repeat
"le'Alah ve'li'Shevu'ah"? It should have continued 'Yiten Hashem es Yereichech
Nofeles ... "?
(b) So the Beraisa learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Alah" "Alah") from Shevu'as ha'Eidus.
Bearing in mind that the Torah writes ...
1. ... there "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah", the Tana learns from there that the Shevu'ah of a
Sotah, like that of Shevu'as ha'Eidus, is Chayav for a Shevu'ah even without an
(c) Based on this Beraisa, we ask on our Mishnah, which includes all the Kinuyin in
Shevu'as ha'Eidus - seeing as the Beraisa requires specifically the Name of Hashem.
2. ... here (by Sotah) "Yiten Hashem Osach", we learn that Shevu'as ha'Eidus, like
Shevu'as Sotah, requires the Name of Hashem.
(d) We reply that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Chanina bar Idi, whilst our
Mishnah goes according to the Rabbanan. Rebbi Chanina bar Idi (in another Beraisa)
says - that just as ...
1. ... "Shevu'as Hashem Tiheyeh Bein Sheneihem" (in connection with a Shomer Pikadon)
requires the Name of Hashem, so too does "Lo Sishava vi'Shemi la'Sheker" (in
Kedoshim), in order to be Chayav.
2. ... "Yiten Hashem Oscha le'Alah" requires the Name of Hashem, so too does "Lo
Sekalel Cheresh" (in Kedoshim).
(a) According to the Chachamim, the problem we now have with the Pasuk "ve'Sham'ah
Kol Alah" - that seeing as they don't Darshen the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (to require
specifically the Name of Hashem in our Mishnah), then from where do they learn the
Din of Shevu'ah by Shevu'as ha'Alah (which only mentions "Alah")?
(b) We reject the initial Lashon of the Beraisa 'Ein Alah Ela Shevu'ah; ve'Chein Hu
Omer "ve'Hishbi'a ha'Kohen es ha'Ishah bi'Shevu'as ha'Alah" - since it makes no sense
to interpret "Shevu'as ha'Alah" as a 'Shevu'ah' on its own.
(c) The Rabbanan extrapolate from "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah" (and not just 've'Sham'ah
Alah'), that the Pasuk speaks when they heard either 'Kol' or 'Alah.
(d) So, assuming that ''Kol" there refers to Shevu'ah, we finally conclude - that
this is the Rabbanan's source for the Din of Shevu'ah by Shevu'as ha'Eidus.