Shevuot — Daf 20a

מסרבין בו לאכול

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

בשלמא לאביי מדמתפיס בנדר נדר מתפיס בשבועה שבועה

urged to eat: our Mishnah [refers to the case where] he is not urged to eat;1 and the Baraitha2 [to the case where] he is urged to eat, and he says: ‘I shall not eat, I shall not eat’; so that when he swears,3 he means: ‘I swear I shall not eat’. R. Ashi said: Read [in the Baraitha]: ‘I swear I shall not eat of thine’.4 If so, what need is there to state it?5 — I might have thought his tongue became twisted,6 therefore he teaches us [that it is a definite negative]. Our Rabbis taught: Mibta7 is an oath; issar8 is an oath. What is the binding force of issar? If you say that issar is an oath, he is liable; and if not, he is exempt. If you say that issar is an oath! But you have just said that issar is an oath? Abaye said: Thus he means: Mibta is an oath; issar is tacked on to an oath.9 What is the binding force of issar? If you say, that which is tacked on to an oath is like a properly expressed oath, he is liable; and if not, he is exempt. And how do we know that mibta is an oath? Is it not because it is written: If any one swear, pronouncing with his lips.10 Then issar also [should be counted an oath], for it is written: Every vow and every oath of a bond?11 Then again, how do we know that issar has the force of being tacked on to an oath? Is it not because it is written: Or bound he,’ soul by a bond with an oath?12 Then mibta also [should have the force of being tacked on to an oath], for it is written: Whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath.13 But, said Abaye: That mibta is an oath we deduce from this: And if she be married to a husband while her vows are upon her, or the utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul:14 Now, oath is not mentioned; with what, then, did she bind herself? With mibta. Raba said: In reality, I can say to you, that which is tacked on to an oath is not like a properly expressed oath;15 and thus he [the Tanna] means: Mibta is an oath; issar is also an oath; and what is the binding force of issar? Scripture placed it between a vow and an oath [to teach us that] if he expressed it in the form of a vow, it is a vow; and if in the form of an oath, it is an oath.16 Where did [Scripture] place it [between a vow and an oath]? And if in her husband's house she vowed, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath.17 And they18 follow their own opinions, for it has been stated: That which is tacked on to an oath19 — Abaye said,it is like a properly expressed oath;20 and Raba said,it is not like a properly expressed oath. An objection was raised; [for it has been taught:] What is issar which is mentioned in the Torah? He who says: I take it upon me that I shall not eat meat, and that I shall not drink wine, as on the day that my father died, or, as on the day that So-and-So died, or, as on the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed, or, as on the day that I saw Jerusalem in its destruction; he is prohibited [from eating meat, etc.]; and Samuel said: only if he had already made a vow on that day.21 Now, it is well, according to Abaye, for just as that which is tacked on to a vow is a vow, so that which is tacked on to an oath is an oath; he had said: ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf’. as in the following case: If he prohibits one loaf to himself by oath; then he says of a second loaf: ‘This second loaf shall be like the first’, the second loaf is here tacked on to an oath. Similarly, if he says: ‘This loaf is issar to me’, the ruling is the same as in the case of a statement which is tacked on to an oath. If that is counted as a proper oath, then issar is also a proper oath. The Tanna is simply equating issar with a statement that is tacked on to an oath. and that he is in doubt whether that has the force of a properly expressed oath or not; but, says Raba, the Tanna holds definitely that a statement tacked on to an oath is not the same as a proper oath. I shall not eat this loaf’, it is an oath, and he is liable. anniversary of Gedaliah's murder (3rd Tishri); and now when he says, ‘I take it upon me that I shall not eat meat on that day’, he is tacking on the present prohibition to a previous vow; and he is prohibited from eating meat now, as if he had now made a vow; therefore a statement tacked on to a vow is like a proper vow; and similarly, a statement tacked on to an oath is like a proper oath.