ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 20
(a) Only a Shevu'as Shav is subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, but not a
(b) When the Beraisa then says 'Mivta, Shevu'ah; Isar, Shevu'ah', it means
to say - that 'Mivta Kikar Zu Alai' is considered a Shevu'ah. Consequently,
if he then eats the loaf, he will have to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, and
the same applies to someone who says 'Isar Kikar Zu Alai'.
(c) The problem with the continuation of the Beraisa 'Isur Isar, im Atah
Omer Isar, Shevu'ah, Chayav' is - that having said that 'Isar' is a Lashon
Shevu'ah, why does the Tana then express doubts whether it is or isn't?
(a) Abaye therefore explains the Beraisa by substituting 'Isar Shevu'ah' for
'Isar Mitfis bi'Shevu'ah' - which means that when the Noder says 'Isar Kikar
Zu Alai', it is as if he had made a Shevu'ah on a loaf of bread, and then
transferred the Isur on to the loaf in front of him (which is known as
(b) The Tana's Chidush is - that 'Matfis bi'Shevu'ah' is considered as if he
had made an express Shevu'ah (in which case he will have to bring a Korban
(a) Initially, we learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "O Nefesh Ki Sishava Le'vatei bi'Sefasayim" - that Mivta is a Lashon
(b) The problem with this is - that if that is so, the Pasuk "le'Chol Asher
Yevatei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah" also implies that Mivta is Matfis bi'Shevu'ah,
2. ... "Kol Neder ve'Chol Shevu'as Isar" - that Isar is a Lashon Shevu'ah,
3. ... "O Asrah Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah" - that Isar is considered Matfis
bi'Shevu'ah (as we just explained).
(c) So Abaye ultimately learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Hayo Yihyeh le'Ish
u'Nedarehah Alehah, O Mivta Sefasehah" - that Mivta is a Lashon Shevu'ah.
(d) This source is better than the previous one - inasmuch as it mentions
Mivta as an alternative to Neder, without mentioning Shevu'ah specifically.
(a) Rava interprets the Beraisa differently. According to him, the original
wording 'Mivta Shevu'ah, Isar Shevu'ah' remains intact, and he interpret the
continuation 'Isro Isar, Im Atah Omer Isar Shevu'ah ... ' to mean - that the
Torah deliberately places Isar in between Neder and Shevu'ah ("ve'Im Beis
Iyshah Nadarah, O Asrah Isar al Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah" [Matos]) to teach us
that in fact, an 'Isar' can be a Neder and it can be a Shevu'ah, depending
on the Lashon that one uses ('Isar she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu' is a Shevu'ah,
'Isar Kikar Zu Alai', a Neder).
(b) And he holds - 'Mitfis bi'Shevu'ah La'av ke'Motzi Shevu'ah mi'Piv Dami'
(Matfis bi'Shevu'ah is not considered as if one had actually declared a
(c) The basis of the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is not a new one.
Their original dispute is - whether 'Matfis Shevu'ah ke'Motzi Shevu'ah
mi'Piv Dami' (Abaye), or ' ... La'av ke'Motzi mi'Piv Dami' (Rava).
(a) Two of the cases that the Beraisa gives to describe Isar are 'she'Lo
Ochal Basar ve'she'Lo Eshteh Yayin ke'Yom she'Meis Bo Aviv, ke'Yom she'Meis
Bo P'loni' (or 'Rabo'). The other two are - 'ke'Yom she'Neherag Gedalyah ben
Achikam' and 'ke'Yom she'Ra'ah Yerushalayim be'Churbanah'.
(b) Shmuel qualifies the case - by requiring that he had in fact, made a
Neder on those four occasions.
(c) This Beraisa conforms with Abaye's opinion - because if Hatfasah of a
Neder is a Neder (see Tosfos DH 'mi'de'Matfis'), Hatfasah of a Shevu'ah is
also a Shevu'ah.
(d) It creates a problem with that of Rava however - who holds that Hatfasah
of a Shevu'ah is not considered a Shevu'ah, in which case Hatfasah of a
Neder should not be considered a Neder either?
(a) Rava amends the Lashon 'Eizehu Isar ha'Amur ba'Torah' to read - 'Eizehu
Isar Neder ha'Amur ba'Torah' (with reference to Neder, and not to Matfis
be'Neder, as we thought until now).
(b) The Chidush of the Beraisa stems from the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yidor li'Nedor
Neder la'Hashem" from which we learn - that a Neder only takes affect if one
connects it to something that is forbidden through a Neder (but not that is
intrinsically forbidden [such as Neveilah]).
(c) The Chidush lies, not in the case of 'ke'Yom she'Meis Bo Aviv' (which is
obviously a Davar ha'Nadur), but in 'ke'Yom she'Neherag Bo Gedalyah ben
Achikam' - which, the Tana is coming to teach us, takes effect, even though
it is forbidden to eat on that day anyway, because a Neder is effective on a
Mitzvah (i.e. the Mitzvah to fast on Tzom Gedalyah).
(d) We reject the Lashon that attributes the Neder taking effect to the fact
that the prohibition is only mi'de'Rabbanan - because the Neder would take
effect, even if fasting on Tzom Gedalyah would be a Mitzvah min ha'Torah,
for the reason that we just explained.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Rava, because when Ravin came from Eretz
Yisrael, he quoted him as saying - 'Mivta Lo Ochal Lach, Isar Lo Ochal Lach,
(b) The basic difference between the Lashon 'Sheker' and that of 'Shav' is -
that the former implies breaking one's word, whereas the latter implies
deviating from the truth, with no practical consequences.
(c) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he therefore (quoting Rebbi
Yochanan) referred to ...
1. ... Shevu'as Sheker as - a Shevu'ah in the future ('Ochal, ve'Lo Achal'),
whose Azharah is - the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Lo Sishav'u vi'Shemi
(d) The significance of this distinction is - that one only receives Malkos,
if the witnesses who warned the sinner quoted the appropriate Pasuk.
2. ... Shevu'as Shav as - a Shevu'ah in the past ('Achalti, ve'Lo Achal'),
whose Azharah is - the Pasuk in Yisro "Lo Sisa es Shem Hashem Elokecha
(e) And Rav Dimi learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yachel Devaro" - the Azharah for
Konamos (Nedarim [though Ravin will dispute this later in the Sugya]).
(a) We ask on Rav Dimi from the Beraisa 'Shav ve'Sheker Echad Hein'. If both
really refer to the past - 'Shav' would refer to a case where everybody knew
the Shevu'ah to be false, whereas 'Sheker' would refer to things that the
public did not know about.
(b) We conclude that in fact, Shav refers to the past and Sheker, to the
future (like Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explained), and when the Tana says
'Echad Hein', he means - that Hashem said ''Shav" and "Sheker"
(c) And we support this answer with a Beraisa, which says the same (that
Hashem 'performed the impossible') - about "Zachor and "Shamor" (see Agados
Maharsha [see also Rabeinu Chananel]).
(a) We query the comparison between "Zachor" and "Shamor" on the one hand,
and 'Shevu'as Sheker' and 'Shevu'as Shav' on the other - on the grounds that
the former at least, teaches us something, but what is there to learn from
(b) We learn from the fact that 'Shamor ve'Zachor be'Dibur Echad Ne'emru'
(which is treated like a 'Hekesh') - that just as women are Chayav to keep
''Shamor" (the prohibition of working on Shabbos) so too, are they Chayav to
keep "Zachor" (the Mitzvah of reciting Kidush when Shabbos enters).
(c) We reject the answer that here too, we learn Shevu'as Sheker from
Shevu'as Shav regarding Malkos - because if anything, it is Shevu'as Sheker
that ought to be subject to Malkos (since it incorporates a case where an
act is performed ['Lo Ochal, ve'Achal']), whereas Shevu'as Shav (in the
past), is purely a La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.
(d) So it is Shevu'as Shav that we learn from the 'Hekesh' is subject to
Malkos, like Shevu'as Sheker.
(a) We learn Malkos by Shevu'as Shav, from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hashem
... " - by inference, since the Pasuk implies that Hashem will not let the
person who swore off the hook, but Beis-Din will, if he is warned by two
witnesses (and receives Malkos).
(b) This D'rashah is not obvious - because if not for the Hekesh (see Tosfos
'ka Mashma Lan'), we would have interpreted the Pasuk like Rav Papa, who
suggested to Abaye that "Lo Yenakeh Hashem" means that the sinner is