שבועות 20 — Soncino English Talmud

¹urged to eat: our Mishnah [refers to the case where] he is not urged to eat; and the Baraitha [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, he means: ‘I swear I shall not eat’. R. Ashi said: Read [in the Baraitha]: ‘I swear I shall not eat of thine’. If so, what need is there to state it? — I might have thought his tongue became twisted, therefore he teaches us [that it is a definite negative]. Our Rabbis taught: Mibta is an oath; issar 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. 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. Then issar also [should be counted an oath], for it is written: Every vow and every oath of a bond? 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? 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. 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: 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; 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. 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. And they follow their own opinions, for it has been stated: That which is tacked on to an oath — Abaye said,it is like a properly expressed oath; 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. 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;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:And he swears ‘I shall eat’- obviously a positive oath.
^ᵇnote:[Tosaf. deletes ‘Baraitha’ as the passage belongs to a Mishnah.]
^ᶜnote:Using the expression kfuta vguca.
^ᵈnote:Not kfuta, but kfut hta.
^ᵉnote:For kfut ht is the same as kfut tk.
^ᶠnote:That he intended to say kfuta (positive), but inadvertently said kfut hta (negative).
^ᵍnote:Num. XXX, 7: the utterance (tycn) of her lips. If a man says: ‘This loaf shall be mibta to me’, it is an oath, as if he had said: ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf’.
^ʰnote:Num. XXX, 3: To bind his soul with a bond ( rxt). If a man says: ‘This loaf shall be issar to me’, it is an oath.
^ⁱnote:If he says: ‘This loaf is issar to me’, it is not actually an oath, but has the same force as if it were tacked on to an oath, 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.
^ʲnote:Lev. V, 4: tyck gca,, i.e., swear by the expression tycn.
^ᵏnote:Num. XXX, 14: rxt ,guca, i.e., the oath of issar.
^ˡnote:Ibid. 11: vgucac rxt /// vrxt, i.e., bound herself by issar by (tacking it on to) an oath.
^ᵐnote:Lev. V, 4: vgucac /// tych, i.e., prohibit it to himself by mibta by tacking it on to an oath.
^ⁿnote:Num. XXX, 7: vrxt /// tycn, i.e., she bound herself by mibta; hence, mibta is an oath.
^ᵒnote:Raba disagrees with Abaye who said that the Tanna holds that issar is the same as a statement 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.
^ᵖnote:If he said: ‘This loaf is issar to me’, it is a vow, and he is exempt from a sliding scale sacrifice. If he said: ‘Issar that I shall not eat this loaf’, it is an oath, and he is liable.
^ᵠnote:Num. XXX, 11: vgucac /// rxt /// vrsb.
^ʳnote:Abaye and Raba.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘he who tacks on to an oath.’
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘as if he expresses an oath by word of mouth.’
^ᵘnote:He had previously vowed that he would never eat meat on the anniversary of his father's death, or on the 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.

²but according to Raba, it is difficult? — Raba may say to you, explain it thus: What is the binding force of a vow 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 was killed; [he is prohibited from eating meat, etc.;] and Samuel said: only if he had already made a vow on that day. What is the reason Scripture says: If a man vow a vow unto the Lord — only if he vow in the matter which he had already vowed. — ‘As on the day my father died’! This is self-evident? — ‘As on the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed’ is necessary. I might have thought that, since it is also prohibited even if he had not vowed, the fact that he vowed does not bring a prohibition upon him [because of his vow]; so that it [his present vow] is not based on a [previous] vow, [and hence is not a normal vow]; therefore he teaches us [that it is so based; and because perforce he mentions this clause, he mentions also the previous clause, though it is unnecessary]. And R. Johanan also holds this view of Raba, for when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said that R. Johanan said: [If one says:] ‘Mibta that I shall not eat of thine’, or, ‘Issar that I shall not eat of thine’, it is an oath. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said that R. Johanan said: [If one says: ‘I swear] I shall eat’, or, ‘[I swear] I shall not eat’, [and he transgresses the oath,] it is a false oath; and its prohibition is [derived] from this [verse]: Ye shall not swear by My name falsely. [If one says: ‘I swear] I have eaten’ or, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’, [and it was untrue,] it is a vain oath, and its prohibition is [derived] from this [verse]: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Vows come under the prohibition of: He shall not break his word. An objection was raised: Vain and false [oaths] are one. Does not this imply that just as a vain oath is in the past tense, so a false oath is in the past tense; hence, ‘[I swear] I have eaten’ and ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’ are false oaths! — Is this an argument? This is in its own category, and that is in its own category. And what is the meaning of: ‘They are one’? That they were pronounced in one utterance; as it has been taught [in another connection]: Remember [the Sabbath day], and Keep [the Sabbath day] were pronounced in a single utterance, — an utterance which the mouth cannot utter, nor the ear hear. Granted, there they were pronounced in one utterance, as R. Ada b. Ahabah said, for R. Ada b. Ahabah said: Women are in duty bound to sanctify the [Sabbath] day, by decree of the Torah, for Scripture says: Remember and Keep; all who are included in the exhortation Keep are included in the exhortation Remember; and women, since they are included in Keep, are included also in Remember. But here, for what law is it necessary? But, [say then to teach us that] just as stripes are inflicted for a vain oath, so they are inflicted for a false oath; — Whither are you turning? — Well [then, say]: Just as stripes are inflicted for a false oath, so they are inflicted for a vain oath. But this is obvious: this is a negative precept, and that is a negative precept! — I might have thought, as R. Papa said to Abaye: He will not hold him guiltless at all,^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵛnote:The Tanna is not discussing a statement tacked on to a vow, but explaining that every normal vow (to make him guilty, if he breaks it) must be based on a previous vow, and must be detailed. If, however, he says: ‘This day shall be to me as the day that father died’ (without mentioning details, ‘I shall not eat meat’, etc.), it is merely a statement tacked on to a vow, and is not counted as a vow.
^ʷnote:Num. XXX, 3.
^ˣnote:Base the present vow on a previous vow.
^ʸnote:If the reason is that he based this vow on a previous vow, why mention his father's death? This does not make the vow stronger.
^ᶻnote:To him to eat, since it is a public fast.
^ᵃᵃnote:That issar expressed in the form of an oath is an oath.
^ᵃᵇnote:An oath uttered in the future tense, if transgressed, comes under the category of ‘false’ oath.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. XIX, 12; i.e., ye shall not swear to do that which later, by transgressing, you make false.
^ᵃᵈnote:An oath in the past tense, which is known to be untrue at the moment of utterance, comes under the category of ‘vain’ oath.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ex. XX, 7.
^ᵃᶠnote:obue konam is one of the forms in which vows are expressed.
^ᵃᵍnote:Num. XXX, 3.
^ᵃʰnote:A vain oath is an oath which is known immediately to be untrue, such as, swearing that a stone pillar is gold (infra 29a); so a false oath in the past tense is known immediately to be untrue. It is called false, and not vain, because its falsity is not apparent to all, but only to the one who utters it.
^ᵃⁱnote:Yet R. Johanan calls them vain oaths.
^ᵃʲnote:They are entirely different: vain oaths are in the past, and false oaths are in the future, but they are declared to be one merely because the prohibitions against both were simultaneously uttered by God.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ex. XX, 8.
^ᵃˡnote:Deut. V, 12.
^ᵃᵐnote:By reciting, or hearing the recital of, the Kiddush. Though such positive precepts as depend for their observance on certain specified times need not be observed by women (,uruyp ohab tnrd inzva vag ,umn), the precept of Kiddush must be observed by them, for Remember (which is explained as meaning ‘Remember it over wine’, i.e., recite Kiddush) is equated with Keep (i.e., do not transgress the negative precepts of the Sabbath); and just as women must keep the Sabbath (for all negative precepts, whether dependent for their observance on time or not, must be observed by women), so they must remember it.
^ᵃⁿnote:Therefore Remember and Keep were pronounced in one utterance, in order to teach us this.
^ᵃᵒnote:That the prohibition against vain oath and false oath should have been pronounced in one utterance?
^ᵃᵖnote:The statement ‘Vain and false oaths are one’ does not mean that they were pronounced in one utterance, but that they are both the same in that stripes are inflicted equally for both.
^ᵃᵠnote:Your statement should be reversed, for the transgression of a false oath (such as, ‘I swear I shall not eat’, and he ate) is more likely to be punishable by stripes (because it involves action) than the transgression of a vain oath (such as, ‘I swear I have eaten’ or, ‘not eaten’, which does not involve action).
^ᵃʳnote:In the transgression of which, action is involved.
^ᵃˢnote:Although no action is involved; v. infra 21a.
^ᵃᵗnote:As deduced from a verse, infra 21a.
^ᵃᵘnote:False oath.
^ᵃᵛnote:Vain oath.
^ᵃʷnote:V. Ex. XX, 7; he who swears a vain oath will never be guiltless, i.e., he is not punished by stripes to remove his guilt (for, after punishment, the guilt is wiped out).