שבועות 29 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and he ate figs, and set apart the offering; and then he ate grapes alone, the grapes are then only half the quantity, and for half the quantity he is not liable. So here also, if he said: ‘I swear I shall not eat ten [figs],’ and then he said, ‘I swear I shall not eat nine [figs],’ and he ate nine, and set apart the offering, and then he ate a tenth [fig], the tenth is then only half the quantity, and for half the quantity he is not liable. MISHNAH. WHAT IS A VAIN OATH? IF HE SWORE THAT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS KNOWN TO MAN, SAYING OF A PILLAR OF STONE THAT IT IS OF GOLD; OR OF A MAN THAT HE IS A WOMAN; OR OF A WOMAN THAT SHE IS A MAN; IF HE SWORE CONCERNING A THING WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE, [AS E.G., ‘IF I HAVE NOT SEEN A CAMEL FLYING IN THE AIR’, OR, ‘IF I HAVE NOT SEEN A SERPENT LIKE THE BEAM OF THE OLIVE PRESS’; IF HE SAID TO WITNESSES, ‘COME AND BEAR TESTIMONY FOR ME’, [AND THEY REPLIED,] ‘WE SWEAR THAT WE WILL NOT BEAR TESTIMONY FOR YOU’; IF HE SWORE TO ANNUL A PRECEPT, [AS E.G.,] NOT TO MAKE A SUKKAH, OR, NOT TO TAKE A LULAB, OR, NOT TO PUT ON TEFILLIN: THESE ARE VAIN OATHS, FOR WHICH ONE IS LIABLE, FOR WILFUL TRANSGRESSION, STRIPES, AND FOR UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION ONE IS EXEMPT. [IF A MAN SAID:] ‘I SWEAR I SHALL EAT THIS LOAF; I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT IT,’ THE FIRST IS AN OATH OF UTTERANCE, AND THE SECOND IS A VAIN OATH. IF HE ATE IT, HE TRANSGRESSED THE VAIN OATH; IF HE DID NOT EAT IT, HE TRANSGRESSED THE OATH OF UTTERANCE. GEMARA. Ulla said: Provided that it was already known to three men. IF HE SWORE CONCERNING A THING WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE, [AS E.G., ] ‘IF I HAVE NOT SEEN A CAMEL FLYING IN THE AIR.’ ‘I swear that I have seen,’ he does not say! What [then] is meant by, ‘If I have not seen ? Abaye said: Learn, ‘I swear I have seen.’ Raba said: [The Mishnah means:] he said, ‘[I swear that] all the fruits of the world shall be prohibited to me, if I have not seen a camel flying in the air.’ Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Perhaps this man saw a large bird, and gave it the name of camel, and when he swore, he swore according to his own mind; and if you say, we go according to his mouth, and we do not go according to his mind, [that cannot be,] for it has been taught: When they adjure him, they say to him, ‘Know that we do not adjure you according to your own mind, but according to the mind of the Omnipresent and the mind of the Beth din.’ What is the reason? Is it not because we say, perhaps he gave him counters, and called them zuzim, in which case when he swears, he swears according to his own mind? — No! There [the reason is] because of the cane of Raba. Come and hear! And so we find that when Moses adjured the Israelites, he said to them: Know that I do not adjure you according to your own minds, but according to the mind of the Omnipresent and according to my mind. Now, why [should he say this]? Let him say to them: Fulfil what God has decreed. Is it not then because they might bring to their minds an idol? — No! But because an idol is also called god, for it is written: gods of silver, or gods of gold, [ye shall not make unto you]. — Well, let him say to them: Fulfil the Torah. — [That might have implied] one Torah. Let him [then] say: Fulfil the two Toroth. — [That might have implied] the Torah of sin offering and the Torah of trespass offering. [Let him say:] Fulfil the whole Torah. — [That might have implied merely the avoidance of] idolatry, for it has been said: Important is idolatry in that he who denies it is as if he accepts the whole Torah. Well, let him say to them: Fulfil the precept. — [That would have implied] one precept. [Let him say:] Fulfil the precepts. — [That might have implied merely] two. [Let him say: Fulfil] all the precepts. — [That might have implied] the precept of zizith, for a Master said: The precept of zizith is equal to all the precepts together. Then, let him say to them: Fulfil the six hundred and thirteen precepts. — But, even according to your reasoning, let him say. ‘According to my mind;’ why is it necessary to add, ‘according to the mind of the Omnipresent’?32^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:Having forgotten the second oath.
^ᵇnote:Having forgotten the first oath.
^ᶜnote:I.e., only a portion of that which he prohibited to himself by the first oath, for as soon as he had set apart his offering for the figs, they can no longer combine with the grapes to make him liable for the first oath; so that he is not now transgressing the first oath by eating the grapes, for the oath was ‘grapes and figs’.
^ᵈnote:If he had not yet set apart the offering for the nine figs, and had eaten the tenth fig, he would have been liable for the first oath also; but now that he has set apart the offering for the nine, they no longer combine; he is therefore now eating only one fig, and is not thereby transgressing the first oath.
^ᵉnote:The Gemara explains why the oath is not positive: ‘I swear I have seen a camel flying’.
^ᶠnote:This is annulling a precept, for they must bear testimony, if they were witnesses; Lev. V, 1.
^ᵍnote:V. Glos.
^ʰnote:All those mentioned in the Mishnah.
^ⁱnote:Lev. V, 4: if any one swear uttering with his lips to do evil, or to do good.
^ʲnote:For he is swearing to annul a precept; the fulfilling of his first oath is incumbent upon him like a precept.
^ᵏnote:In addition to transgressing the vain oath (v. infra 29b).
^ˡnote:That the pillar is of stone; then it is a vain oath (for at the moment of utterance its falsity is already evident); but if it was not known to three men, it is a false oath, and not a vain oath.
^ᵐnote:I.e., emend the Mishnah.
^ⁿnote:And not according to the universally accepted view of what the word ‘camel’ connotes; therefore it is not a vain oath, for he really did see a ‘camel’ (the name he gave in his own mind to the large bird) flying.
^ᵒnote:Therefore it is a vain oath, for his mouth said ‘camel’, i.e., what is universally recognised as camel.
^ᵖnote:When the Beth din impose an oath on a litigant in court.
^ᵠnote:Perhaps the debtor (who has to swear) had given to the creditor counters, such as are used as tokens (instead of money) in the game of iskundre (a kind of draughts or chess).
^ʳnote:I.e., when taking the oath the debtor may have mentally called the counters zuzim; therefore the Beth din say to him that the oath must be taken according to their mind, not his (i.e., mental reservations are not taken account of); hence, since the Beth din's warning is necessary, we deduce that an oath (were it not for the Beth din's warning) would take effect in accordance with the mind of the utterer.
^ˢnote:Ned. 25a; a case came before Raba where the debtor, when ordered by Raba to take an oath, handed the creditor a cane to hold for a moment while he took the oath: ‘I swear I have given to the creditor the money I owe him.’ The creditor, in a fit of temper, broke the cane, and a number of coins (the amount of the debt) fell out. The debtor had put the coins in a hollow cane; the oath he took was true: he had given the creditor the money he owed him (by handing him the cane, which he would have taken back later). To avoid the occurrence of such an incident as this the Beth din warn the debtor that the oath he takes is in accordance with their mind, and not his. Hence, the Beth din's warning is necessary not because a man may swear an oath with mental reservations, but because he may swear a true oath (though with trickery). It may be, therefore, that in an oath we go according to the mouth and not the mind.
^ᵗnote:Deut. XXIX, 13: Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath, i.e., neither with you only, not as you yourselves think (with possible reservations in your minds) do I impose this oath of allegiance upon you.
^ᵘnote:I.e., they might in their own minds interpret the word ‘God’ by ‘idol’; hence, an oath is in accordance with the mind of the utterer; and therefore Moses had to warn them.
^ᵛnote:An oath is in accordance with the mouth (i.e., actual words uttered); and ‘god’ may actually imply ‘idol’.
^ʷnote:Ex. XX, 20.
^ˣnote:Yet he did not say this because, presumably, they could have made a mental reservation (when taking the oath to fulfil the Torah) that sins be included in the word ‘Torah’; hence, we go according to the mind or thought of the utterer of the oath.
^ʸnote:Therefore he could not have imposed the oath in that form, for we have two Toroth, written and oral.
^ᶻnote:Lev. VI, 18: ,tyjv ,ru, ,tz; ibid. VII, 1: oatv ,ru, ,tz; The name ‘Torah’ is applied to the laws concerning sin offerings and trespass offerings, as also to the laws concerning burnt offerings (Lev. VI, 2) meal offerings (VI, 7), and peace offerings (VII, 11). If Moses had said: ‘Fulfil the two Toroth’, the Israelites, in taking the oath, might have intended it to apply only to the laws concerning sin offerings and trespass offerings (or any other two, such as burnt offerings and peace offerings) to which the name vru, is specifically applied, but not to any other precepts.
^ᵃᵃnote:Had the oath been imposed in that form, they could have fulfilled it by merely refraining from idol worship, without fulfilling any other commandments.
^ᵃᵇnote:Num. XV, 22: And if ye err, and do not observe all these commandments; it is explained (Hor. 8a) that all these commandments refers to idolatry.
^ᵃᶜnote:The fringes; Num. XV, 38.
^ᵃᵈnote:Ibid. 39: that he may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord; v. Men. 43b.
^ᵃᵉnote:You infer that the reason for the formula of the oath which Moses administered to the Israelites was because they might have made mental reservations.
^ᵃᶠnote:Moses could have said, ‘I adjure you according to my mind, not yours.’ That would have sufficed to overcome the difficulty of possible mental reservations on their part.

²Obviously, therefore, merely so that there should not be any absolution for their oath. ‘IF I HAVE NOT SEEN A SERPENT LIKE THE BEAM OF THE OLIVE PRESS.’ And is it not [possible]? Lo! There was one in the reign of King Shapur which swallowed thirteen hides stuffed with straw. — Samuel said: [He meant] striped. But they are all striped! [He meant] striped on his back. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL EAT THIS LOAF; I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT IT’, etc. Now, for the oath of utterance he is liable, and for the vain oath he is not liable? Surely, the oath was uttered in vain! — R. Jeremiah said: Learn, ALSO THE OATH OF UTTERANCE. MISHNAH. THE OATH OF UTTERANCE APPLIES TO MEN AND WOMEN, TO RELATIVES AND NON-RELATIVES, TO THOSE QUALIFIED [TO BEAR WITNESS] AND THOSE NOT QUALIFIED, [WHETHER UTTERED] BEFORE THE BETH DIN, OR NOT BEFORE THE BETH DIN, [BUT IT MUST BE UTTERED] WITH A MAN'S OWN MOUTH; AND HE IS LIABLE, FOR WILFUL TRANSGRESSION, STRIPES, AND FOR UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION, A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. A VAIN OATH APPLIES TO MEN AND WOMEN, TO NON-RELATIVES AND RELATIVES, TO THOSE QUALIFIED [TO BEAR WITNESS] AND THOSE NOT QUALIFIED, [WHETHER UTTERED] BEFORE THE BETH DIN OR NOT BEFORE THE BETH DIN, [BUT IT MUST BE UTTERED] WITH HIS OWN MOUTH; AND HE IS LIABLE, FOR WILFUL TRANSGRESSION, STRIPES, AND FOR UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION HE IS EXEMPT. [IN THE CASE OF] BOTH THIS AND THAT [OATH], IF HE WAS ADJURED BY THE MOUTH OF OTHERS, HE IS LIABLE; THUS, IF HE SAID, ‘I HAVE NOT EATEN TODAY,’ OR, ‘I HAVE NOT PUT ON TEFILLIN TODAY,’ [AND THE OTHER SAID,] ‘I ADJURE THEE,’ AND HE SAID, ‘AMEN!’ HE IS LIABLE. GEMARA. Samuel said: He who responds ‘Amen’ after an oath — it is as if he uttered the oath with his own mouth, for it is written: And the woman shall say, Amen, Amen. R. Papa said in the name of Raba: A Mishnah and a Baraitha also prove it, for the Mishnah states: ‘The oath of testimony applies to men, and not to women; to non-relatives, and not to relatives; to those qualified [to bear witness], and not to those unqualified; and it applies only to those liable to bear witness; and [whether uttered] before the Beth din or not before the Beth din, [if uttered] with his own mouth; but if [adjured] by the mouth of others, he is not liable unless he denies it before the Beth din: this is the opinion of R. Meir.’ And in the Baraitha it was taught: What is the oath of testimony? He said to witnesses, ‘Come and bear testimony for me;’ [and they replied,] ‘We swear we know no testimony for you,’ or they said, ‘We know no testimony for you,’ [and he said,] ‘I adjure you,’ and they responded. ‘Amen’ — whether [it was uttered] before the Beth din, or not before the Beth din, whether from their own mouths or the mouths of others, since they denied [knowing any testimony], they are liable: this is the opinion of R. Meir. Now, they contradict each other! Obviously, therefore, we deduce from this that here [it is a case where] he said ‘Amen,’ and there [a case where] he did not say ‘Amen’. This proves it. Rabina said in the name of Raba: Our Mishnah also proves it, for it states: THE OATH OF UTTERANCE APPLIES TO MEN AND WOMEN, TO NON-RELATIVES AND RELATIVES, TO THOSE QUALIFIED [TO BEAR WITNESS] AND THOSE NOT QUALIFIED, [WHETHER UTTERED] BEFORE THE BETH DIN OR NOT BEFORE THE BETH DIN, [BUT IT MUST BE UTTERED] WITH HIS OWN MOUTH. [Hence, if uttered] WITH HIS OWN MOUTH, he is liable; but from the mouth of others, he is not liable. And yet the last clause states: [IN THE CASE] OF BOTH THIS AND THAT [OATH], IF HE WAS ADJURED BY THE MOUTH OF OTHERS HE IS LIABLE. Thus they contradict each other! Obviously, therefore, we must infer from this that here [it is a case where] he said ‘Amen’, and there [a case where] he did not say ‘Amen’. — But, if so, what does Samuel teach us? — The deduction of the Mishnah he teaches us. [^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ

^ᵃᵍnote:For an oath taken in accordance with the mind of others cannot be absolved. An oath, however, always takes effect in accordance with the mouth (i.e., actual words uttered); therefore, ‘I have seen a camel flying’ is a vain oath.
^ᵃʰnote:To see a serpent as thick as the beam of the olive press?
^ᵃⁱnote:Sapur I, King of Persia.
^ᵃʲnote:[Var. lec., ‘stables’.]
^ᵃᵏnote:[According to Rashi, this was a man-devouring serpent, and he was killed by being stuffed with straw in which hot coals were concealed.]
^ᵃˡnote:Like the markings in the wood of the beam; but he was not thinking of its girth or length.
^ᵃᵐnote:Whereas all serpents are striped only on the neck. (Rashi.) [Asheri, Ned. 28a, renders ‘flat at the back’, whereas serpents are flat only at the belly, v. Lewysohn, Zoologie, p. 234.]
^ᵃⁿnote:But why should he not be liable also, if he does not eat it for the vain oath, even if he fulfils it (by not eating the loaf)? The vain oath, when uttered, was designed to annul a precept (not to fulfil the previous oath); and if one swears to annul a precept, would he not be liable even if he fulfils the oath, and annuls the precept?
^ᵃᵒnote:The Mishnah means: If he did not eat it, he transgresses the oath of utterance also, in addition to the vain oath.
^ᵃᵖnote:If he swore, ‘I shall give So-and-so a loaf,’ and did not fulfil his oath, he is liable, whether that person is a relative or not.
^ᵃᵠnote:V. Sanh. III, 3, 4.
^ᵃʳnote:But if he is adjured by another to say, e.g., whether he has eaten, and he replies. ‘I have eaten,’ it is not an oath, since he himself did not utter the oath. If, however, he says. ‘Amen’ to the other's adjuration, it is counted as an oath (v. infra).
^ᵃˢnote:Num. V, 22; the previous verse states that the priest shall cause the woman to swear; but the priest himself pronounces the oath, and the woman merely responds, ‘Amen’.
^ᵃᵗnote:Infra 30a.
^ᵃᵘnote:Without taking an oath.
^ᵃᵛnote:For in the Mishnah R. Meir says that, if adjured by others, they are liable only if the adjuration be uttered before the Beth din; and in the Baraitha he says that, even if adjured by others, they are liable even if the adjuration be not uttered before the Beth din.
^ᵃʷnote:In the Baraitha.
^ᵃˣnote:And this is counted as if he uttered the oath himself.
^ᵃʸnote:In the Mishnah.
^ᵃᶻnote:That responding ‘Amen’ to an oath is like uttering an oath oneself, as Samuel states.
^ᵇᵃnote:The last clause.
^ᵇᵇnote:The first clause.
^ᵇᶜnote:Why does Samuel need to tell us that he who responds ‘Amen’ to an oath is reckoned as uttering an oath himself? This is so easily and obviously deduced from the Mishnah!
^ᵇᵈnote:That the Mishnah really wishes to teach us that there is no liability if adjured by others, unless be did say, ‘Amen’; and we should not think that the first clause, in stating that the oath must be uttered by himself, does not thereby desire to exclude adjuration by others, but mentions it merely because it is more usual for the oath to be uttered by himself; and that the last clause, in stating that adjuration by others makes him liable, if he responds, ‘Amen’, does not thereby desire to imply that if he does not respond, ‘Amen’, he is not liable, but merely mentions ‘Amen’ because it is usual for ‘Amen’ to be said in response to an oath, but that really he is liable, if adjured by others, even if he does not say, ‘Amen’. Therefore, Samuel states that the Mishnah really does desire to make this distinction in adjuration by others [between the case where ‘Amen’ is said and the case where it is not said.