Texts
Explore
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Oaths of Speech and Vain Oaths
Laws of Optional Restrictions
Sources
A
§
Rava says
that if one said: On my
oath I will not eat, and
then he
ate dirt,
he is
exempt,
because eating dirt is not considered to be eating.
Rava raises a dilemma:
If one says: On my
oath I will not eat dirt, how much
dirt must he eat
in
order to be liable? Is the
halakha
that
since he said: I will not eat
dirt,
his intention is
that the prohibition applies
to an olive-bulk?
That is the standard measure for prohibitions with regard to eating…
Shevuot 22b:6-17
When a person takes an oath that he will not eat anything on that day and he ate less than an olive-sized portion of food, he is not liable. For "eating" does not involve a quantity less than an olive-sized portion. It is as if he partook of less than the minimum measure of a
nevelah
, a
trefe
, or the like.
If he said: "[I am taking] an oath that I will not eat this substance," and he ate it, he is liable even if the substance concerning which he took the oath is one mustard seed or smaller…
Mishneh Torah, Oaths 4-5
GEMARA:
The Gemara asks:
Why do I
need
to teach
the mishna such that the wording of the first oath is: On my
oath I will not eat
this loaf, and then the wording of the second oath is: On my
oath I will not eat it?
The Gemara answers:
This teaches us
that
the reason that he is liable only once
is
that he said: I will not eat
this loaf,
and then said: I will not eat it. But
if he had
said: I will not eat it, and then had said: I will not eat
this loaf,
he would be liable twice.
…
Shevuot 27b:10-15
§
Rava says:
If one says: On my
oath I will not eat that loaf if I eat this one, and
then
he ate the first
one, i.e., the loaf whose consumption was the condition for the oath taking effect,
unwittingly, and
ate
the second intentionally,
he is
exempt.
Since he fulfilled the condition unintentionally, the oath does not take effect, as it was without full intent. But if he ate the
first intentionally,
knowing that if he eats it it will be prohibited for him to eat the other loaf,
and
he then ate the
second unwittingly…
Shevuot 28a:10-29a:7
Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: We are dealing with
a case in
which another is importuning him
to drink,
as
he
said to him: Come, drink wine, and oil, and honey with me;
if he wanted him to desist,
he should have said:
On my
oath I will not drink with you.
Under these circumstances,
why do I
need him to specify:
Wine, and oil, and honey?
The specification of the liquids serves to indicate his intention
to render
himself
liable for each and every one.
…
Shevuot 23b:8-24b:5
MISHNA:
If one says: On my
oath I will not eat this loaf,
and he then says again: On my
oath I will not eat it,
and again: On my
oath I will not eat it, and he
then
ate it, he is liable only once.
Once the first oath had taken effect, the subsequent oaths could not, as a prohibition cannot take effect where another prohibition is already in place.
Shevuot 27b:7
MISHNA:
If one
takes an oath to refrain from
performing
a mitzva and he does not refrain,
he is
exempt
from bringing an offering for an oath on an utterance. If he takes an oath
to perform
a mitzva
and he does not perform
it, he is also
exempt, though it would have been fitting
to claim
that he is liable
to bring the offering,
in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.
The mishna explains:
Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said: What? If,
with regard to an oath concerning
an optional
matter…
Shevuot 27a:1-7
§ The mishna teaches that an example of an oath on an utterance is where one took an oath, saying:
I will throw a stone into the sea, or: I will not throw
it. It
was stated:
With regard to one who says: On my
oath so-and-so threw a stone into the sea, or:
On my
oath he did not throw
it,
Rav says:
If it was later discovered that what he said was false, he is
liable
to bring an offering for his oath.
And Shmuel says:
He is
exempt.
The Gemara explains the opinions:
Rav says
that he is
liable…
Shevuot 25a:17-25b:8
MISHNA:
If one says:
An oath
that
I will not eat of yours,
or:
This
is
an oath that I will eat of yours [
she’okhal lekha
],
or:
Not an oath that I will not eat of yours,
the food
is forbidden.
GEMARA:
By inference
from the mishna, it may be derived
that
the statement:
This is an oath that I will eat of yours, indicates that I will not eat. And
the Gemara
raises a contradiction
from a mishna (
Shevuot
19b): There are
two
basic types of
oaths that are
in fact…
Nedarim 16a:4-17a:3
§ The mishna teaches: If one said: On my
oath I will eat this loaf,
and later said: On my
oath I will not eat it,
the first oath is an oath on an utterance, and the second is an oath taken in vain. If he ate the loaf, he violated the prohibition against taking an oath in vain. If he did not eat it, he violated the prohibition against breaking an oath on an utterance. The Gemara asks:
Now,
if he did not eat it,
he is liable because
he violated his
oath on an utterance…
Shevuot 29b:4-9
The Gemara inquires:
With regard to what
matter
do they disagree? They disagree with regard to uncertain forewarning,
i.e., forewarning concerning a transgression with regard to which it will not be clarified whether or not his action will render him liable to receive lashes. One
Sage,
Rabbi Yoḥanan,
holds: Uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning;
therefore, even if it is unclear whether the action that the transgressor is about to perform will render him liable to receive lashes, he can be forewarned…
Makkot 15b:4-6
In response to his own question,
Rabbi Abbahu says:
The case where one who takes a false oath is flogged
will be where
he takes an oath saying:
I ate, or: I did not eat.
The Gemara asks:
What is different
about oaths relating to the past, for which one is liable to receive lashes even though he did not perform an action, and oaths relating to the future that one violates by omission, and for which one is therefore exempt from lashes according to Rabbi Yoḥanan because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action?
Rava said: The Torah explicitly extended
…
Shevuot 21a:11
GEMARA:
The Gemara
raises a contradiction
from the following
baraita
: There is a
stricture
that applies
to oaths beyond
the strictures that apply
to vows, and
there is a stricture that applies
to vows beyond
the strictures that apply
to oaths. The stricture
that applies
to vows is that vows take effect with regard to a mitzva as
they do
with regard to optional
activities,
which is not the case with regard to oaths,
as one cannot take an oath to neglect a mitzva…
Nedarim 13b:4
§
Rava says:
The
dispute
between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis is with regard to
where
one took the oath
without specifying
that he is liable for eating any amount.
But
in a case
where he specifies
that his oath applies to any amount,
everyone agrees
that he is liable
for
eating
any amount. What is the reason
for this?
One who specifies
this renders any amount significant
like
a whole
entity.
And Rava says:
The
dispute
is with regard to a case
where
one takes an oath saying: On my oath
I…
Shevuot 22a:7-8
Rather, what are the circumstances in which
a second
oath does not take effect
after
an oath
was already made?
For example, where
one
said:
I hereby take
an oath that I will not eat figs, and he again said:
I hereby take
an oath that I will not eat figs. In the corresponding
situation
with regard to naziriteship, what are the circumstances?
It must be a case
where
one
said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am a hereby a nazirite today; and
the mishna
teaches
that in this case
there is a vow within a vow…
Nedarim 17b:3-6
The Gemara asks:
If so,
if according to Reish Lakish there is a rabbinic prohibition to eat a half-measure,
one should not be liable to bring an offering
for breaking
an oath
to eat a half-measure of forbidden foods.
Why,
then, did we
learn
in a mishna otherwise: He who swore the following oath,
an oath that I will not eat, and
then
ate
unslaughtered
animal carcasses,
tereifot
, reptiles, or creeping animals,
he is
liable
to bring an offering for violating his oath.
Rabbi Shimon exempts
him.
Yoma 73b:18
And Rava said,
with regard to the same issue:
Even though the Rabbis said
that they
may not broach
dissolution
by
asking about
a new situation, however,
they
may broach
dissolution
by
asking about
the conditions of a new situation,
i.e., with situations similar to a new situation.
What are the circumstances
of this type of broaching dissolution? The halakhic authorities
say to
the nazirites who took their vows before the destruction of the Temple:
If a person had come and said to you
before you took your vow
that…
Nazir 32b:4
GEMARA:
The Gemara asks: Is this
to say that
phrasing an oath as: On my oath
I will eat,
always
means that
I take an oath that
I will eat?
The Gemara
raises a contradiction
from a mishna (
Nedarim
16a): If one says: On my
oath I will not eat of yours,
or: On my
oath I will eat of yours,
or:
Not
on my
oath I will not eat of yours,
the food of the other person is
forbidden.
Abaye said: Actually,
saying: On my oath I will eat,
means that
I take an oath that
I will eat…
Shevuot 19b:15-16
MISHNA:
If one unwittingly takes a false oath about the past or breaks an oath he made about the future,
both
if it is an oath that addresses
matters that concern oneself and
if it is an oath that addresses
matters that concern others,
he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for an oath on an utterance.
And
likewise, an oath on an utterance may address
both tangible matters and intangible matters.
How so?
Examples of oaths about future actions that concern others are if one
said:
On my
oath I will give so-and-so
a…
Shevuot 25a:5-15
§ The Gemara discusses whether it is permitted to injure oneself.
And is a person not permitted to injure himself? But isn’t it taught
in a
baraita
: One
might
have thought that if one
takes an oath to do evil to himself and did not do evil he will be exempt
from bringing an offering for having transgressed this oath. Therefore,
the verse states:
“Or if anyone swear clearly with his lips
to do evil or to do good”
(Leviticus 5:4), which teaches that
just as
taking an oath to
do good
for which one is liable is referring to
an optional
…
Bava Kamma 91b:2-7
Laws of Optional Restrictions
דיני הימנעות רצונית
Types of Oaths and their Specifications
Oaths of Speech and Vain Oaths
Laws of Release from an Oath
Laws of Oaths over Deposits
Laws of Oaths over Testimony
Laws of Oaths in Court
Severity of Oaths and Carefulness about It
Laws of Vows and their Release
Vowing about Eating and Benefit
Intention and Interpretation of Vows
More
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור
