Shevuot

and he ate figs,1 and set apart the offering; and then he ate grapes alone,2 the grapes are then only half the quantity,3 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.4 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’,5 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’;6 IF HE SWORE TO ANNUL A PRECEPT, [AS E.G.,] NOT TO MAKE A SUKKAH,7 OR, NOT TO TAKE A LULAB,7 OR, NOT TO PUT ON TEFILLIN:7 THESE8 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,9 AND THE SECOND IS A VAIN OATH.10 IF HE ATE IT, HE TRANSGRESSED THE VAIN OATH; IF HE DID NOT EAT IT, HE TRANSGRESSED THE OATH OF UTTERANCE.11 GEMARA. Ulla said: Provided that it was already known to three men.12 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.’13 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;14 and if you say, we go according to his mouth, and we do not go according to his mind,15 [that cannot be,] for it has been taught: When they adjure him,16 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,17 and called them zuzim, in which case when he swears, he swears according to his own mind?18 — No! There [the reason is] because of the cane of Raba.19 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.20 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?21 — No! But because an idol is also called god,22 for it is written: gods of silver, or gods of gold, [ye shall not make unto you].23 — Well, let him say to them: Fulfil the Torah.24 — [That might have implied] one Torah.25 Let him [then] say: Fulfil the two Toroth. — [That might have implied] the Torah of sin offering and the Torah of trespass offering.26 [Let him say:] Fulfil the whole Torah. — [That might have implied merely the avoidance of] idolatry,27 for it has been said: Important is idolatry in that he who denies it is as if he accepts the whole Torah.28 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,29 for a Master said: The precept of zizith is equal to all the precepts together.30 Then, let him say to them: Fulfil the six hundred and thirteen precepts. — But, even according to your reasoning,31 let him say. ‘According to my mind;’ why is it necessary to add, ‘according to the mind of the Omnipresent’?32 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’. 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. was not known to three men, it is a false oath, and not a vain oath. oath, for he really did see a ‘camel’ (the name he gave in his own mind to the large bird) flying. money) in the game of iskundre (a kind of draughts or chess). 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. 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. yourselves think (with possible reservations in your minds) do I impose this oath of allegiance upon you. of the utterer; and therefore Moses had to warn them. 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. 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. fulfilling any other commandments. commandments refers to idolatry. might have made mental reservations. difficulty of possible mental reservations on their part.