[27a - 48 lines; 27b - 43 lines]

1)[line 2]היה בדיןHAYAH B'DIN - it would have been [provable] though logic [of a Kal va'Chomer] (KAL VA'CHOMER)

(a)In a Beraisa found in the introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash on Vayikra), Rebbi Yishmael lists the thirteen methodologies employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah. One of these is Kal va'Chomer. This is a logical argument in which proof of a law is shown by means of an already proven stronger law. A Kal va'Chomer can be applied to permit (i.e., something must be permitted since that which is more likely to be forbidden is already permitted) as well as to forbid (i.e., something must be forbidden since that which is more likely to be permitted is already forbidden). Because a Kal va'Chomer is based upon pure logic, one need not have a tradition in order to apply it. In this, a Kal va'Chomer differs from the other thirteen methodologies found in the Beraisa.

(b)The Gemara will often describe the source of a Halachah as a "Din." Although this can refer to any of the thirteen methodologies in the Beraisa mentioned above, it nearly always refers to a Kal va'Chomer. Our Mishnah states that one who swears to uphold a Mitzvah and does not do so ought to have been liable for transgressing his oath as a result of a Kal va'Chomer.

2)[line 4]הרשותHA'RESHUS- that which is permitted [but not obligatory]

3)[line 5]הרי הוא חייב עליוHAREI HU CHAYAV ALAV- he is liable for [transgressing an oath whose subject is that which is not a Mitzvah]

4)[line 8]עשה בה לאו כהןASAH BAH LAV K'HEN- the negative (i.e., an oath taken not to do that which one is permitted to do) is equal to the positive (i.e., an oath taken to do that which one is permitted to do) [in that either oath is binding]. That which an oath must be able to take effect both in the negative and positive form is derived from Vayikra 5:4 (see next entry).

5)[line 12]"[אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִשָּׁבַע לְבַטֵּא בִשְׂפָתַיִם] לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב...""[O NEFESH KI SISHAVA L'VATEI VI'SEFASAYIM] L'HARA O L'HEITIV..."- "[Or one who shall swear to utter with his lips] to harm or to benefit..." (Vayikra 5:4). This verse refers to the Korban Oleh v'Yored offered for violating a Shevu'as Bituy; see entry #26 below. From the wording of the verse, it is clear that a Shevu'ah referred to by the Torah is an oath that can take effect both to deny oneself something or, conversely, require it of himself.

6)[line 13]מה הטבה רשותMAH HATAVAH RESHUS- just as the benefit referred to in this verse is benefit that is permitted, but not obligatory... The Gemara soon explains why this must be so.

7)[line 19]להרע לעצמוL'HERA L'ATZMO- to cause harm to himself (e.g., to refrain from eating)

8)[line 27]ת"ל, "או להיטיב"TALMUD LOMAR "O L'HEITIV"- see above, entry #5. The Beraisa cited in our Gemara explains that the seemingly extraneous word "O" teaches us that one is liable for breaking an oath to benefit another even though he is not liable for breaking an oath to harm another.

9)[line 28]אכה את פלוני ואפצע את מוחוAKEH ES PELONI V'EFTZEH ES MOCHO- I shall strike so-and-so and break open his brain

10)[line 29]דלמא בדבר מצוה כתיביDILMA BI'DVAR MITZVAH KESIVEI- perhaps the verse refers [also] to Mitzvah observance (e.g., one who swears to fast on Yom ha'Kipurim or to eat Matzah on Pesach - TOSFOS DH Dilma)

11)[line 31]אקישAKISH (HEKESH)

(a)One of the methods employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah is "Hekesh." A Hekesh entails comparing two subjects that are mentioned together in one verse or neighboring verses.

(b)A Hekesh is a powerful way of determining Halachah. When two subjects are compared through a Hekesh, all possible parallels are drawn between them, unless a different Derashah teaches us otherwise ("Ein Hekesh l'Mechetzah"). Additionally, Pirchos (logical differences) that would impede a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Bava Kama 24:43) or a Gezeirah Shavah (see Background to Bava Kama 40:9a) do not stand in the way of learning one subject from another through a Hekesh ("Ein Meshivin Al ha'Hekesh").

12a)[line 32]מה "הטבה" אינה בביטול מצוהMAH "HATAVAH" EINAH B'VITUL MITZVAH- just as "benefit" cannot refer to the annulment of a Mitzvah [such as an oath to eat on Yom ha'Kipurim, since this is not spiritually beneficial]

b)[line 32]אף "הרעה" אינה בביטול מצוהAF "HARA'AH" EINAH B'VITUL MITZVAH- so too "harm" cannot refer to the annulment of a Mitzvah [such as an oath to fast on Pesach, but rather must refer to an oath that is "harmful" to himself in the fulfillment of a Mitzvah, such as an oath to fast on Yom ha'Kipurim]

c)[line 33]"הרעה" גופה הטבה היא!"HARA'AH" GUFAH HATAVAH HI!- [in that case, the] "harm" [referred to in the verse] is actually benefit [since the fulfillment of a Mitzvah is spiritually beneficial]!

13a)[line 34]מה "הרעה" אינה בקיום מצוהMAH "HARA'AH" EINAH B'KIYUM MITZVAH- just as "harm" cannot refer to the fulfillment of a Mitzvah [such as an oath to eat Chametz on Pesach, since this is spiritually beneficial]

b)[line 35]אף "הטבה" אינה בקיום מצוהAF "HATAVAH" EINAH B'KIYUM MITZVAH- so too "benefit" cannot refer to the fulfillment of a Mitzvah [such as an oath to eat Matzah on Pesach, but rather must refer to an oath that is "beneficial" to himself in the annulment of a Mitzvah, such as an oath to eat Chametz on Pesach]

c)[line 36]"הטבה" גופה הרעה היא"HATAVAH" GUFAH HARA'AH HI!- [in that case, the] "benefit" [referred to in the verse] is actually harm [since the annulment of a Mitzvah is spiritually harmful]!

14)[line 36]אי הכי, בדבר הרשות נמי לא משכחת להIY HACHI, BI'DVAR HA'RESHUS NAMI LO MISHKACHAS LAH!- if it is so [that these two types of oaths ought to be compared to one another in this manner], it is impossible to find [an oath that fits the parameters of the verse] in permitted matters as well! The logic presented by our Gemara is to be understood as follows. First we should compare "harm" to "benefit." "Benefit" clearly cannot refer to an oath to consume that which is harmful to the body - since this is not physically beneficial - but rather must refer to an oath to consume that which is beneficial to the body. So, too, "harm" must refer to an oath that is beneficial, namely, one to refrain for consuming that which is harmful to the body. In that case, however, the "harm" referred to in the verse is actually benefit! Let us then compare "benefit" to "harm." "Harm" clearly cannot refer to an oath to refrain from consuming that which is harmful to the body - since this is not detrimental - but rather must refer to an oath to refrain from consuming that which is beneficial to the body. So, too, "benefit" must refer to an oath that is harmful, namely, one to consume that which is harmful to the body. In that case, however, the "benefit" referred to in the verse is actually harm!

15)[line 40]השתא הרעת אחרים איתרבי, הטבת אחרים מיבעיא?HASHTA HARA'AS ACHERIM ISRABI, HATAVAS ACHERIM MIBAYA?- if [an oath] to harm others [which is forbidden by Torah law] is included [among those whose transgression makes one liable to receive punishment], need we be told that [it is forbidden to transgress] an oath to benefit others?

16)[line 41]לחלקL'CHALEK- to teach that one need not include both harm and benefit in his oaths in order to be liable to punishment; an oath with the character of either one is sufficient.

17)[line 44]"[כִּי אִישׁ] אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יְקַלֵּל אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ [מוֹת יוּמָת]; אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ קִלֵּל, [דָּמָיו בּוֹ]""[KI ISH] ISH ASHER YEKALEL ES AVIV V'ES IMO [MOS YUMAS]; AVIV V'IMO KILEL; [DAMAV BO]"- "[For] any man who shall curse his father or his mother [shall surely be put to death]; he will have cursed his father or his mother, [his blood shall be upon him]" (Vayikra 20:9). A connecting "Vav" such as the one connecting the words "father" and "mother" often means "and." Rebbi Yonasan and Rebbi Yoshiyah disagree as to how we know that it means "or" in this verse.

18a)[line 46]אביו ואמו קללAVIV V'IMO KILEL- see previous entry

b)[line 46]אביו קלל; אמו קללAVIV KILEL; IMO KILEL- one who curses [only] his father [is implied in the first half of the verse, since the word "curse" appears closer to the word "father" than to the word "mother"]; one who curses [only] his mother [is implied in the latter half of the verse, since the word "curse" appears closer to the word "mother" than to the word "father"]


19)[line 1]עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב "יחדיו"AD SHE'YIFROT LECHA HA'CHASUV "YACHDAV"- unless the verse specifies [that the two actions must be done] "together" [as it does regarding the prohibition against plowing with an ox and a donkey together" (Devarim 22:10) and that against wearing wool and linen "together" (Devarim 22:11)]

20)[line 2]כר"ע דדריש רבויי ומיעוטיK'REBBI AKIVA D'DARISH RIBUYEI U'MI'UTEI- like Rebbi Akiva who derives laws through Ribuyim and Mi'utim (see 26a and Background ibid. #5) [in which case only one thing is excluded]

21)[line 5](ממאי) [מאי] קא ממעט?(MIMAI) [MAI] KA MEMA'ET?- what is excluded? [If one is liable for transgressing an oath to annul a Mitzvah, he should certainly be liable for transgressing any other oath!]

22)[line 7]שפירSHAPIR- [a] well [formed retort]

23)[line 8]אטו הטבת אחרים לאו אע"ג דליתא בכלל הרעת אחרים ורבי רחמנא?ATU HATAVAS ACHERIM LAV AF AL GAV D'LEISA BI'CHLAL HARA'AS ACHERIM V'RABI RACHMANA?- is not [transgressing an oath to] benefit others included [in the liability] by the Torah even though one cannot swear to harm others [since it is forbidden by Torah law]?

24)[line 12]איתיה ב"לא איטיב"ISEI B"LO EITIV"- [an oath related to the harm of another] is possible [according to Torah law] in [the case of one who swears] "I will not benefit him" [when the subject of his oath does not require Tzedakah]

25)[line 13]שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו, שבועה שלא אוכלנה, שבועה שלא אוכלנהSHEVU'AH SHE'LO OCHAL KIKAR ZO, SHEVU'AH SHE'LO OCHLENAH, SHEVU'AH SHE'LO OCHLENAH- [if one says] "I swear that I will not eat this loaf of bread, I swear that I will not eat it, I swear that I will not eat it"

26)[line 16]שבועת בטויSHEVU'AS BITUY (SHEVU'OS)

(a)By accepting a prohibition or obligation upon oneself aloud, he has triggered a Torah obligation to fulfill that prohibition or obligation (Bamidbar 30:3). There are two categories of vows possible to accept upon oneself: Nedarim (Nidrei Isur) and Shevu'os.

(b)Generally speaking, the difference between a Neder and a Shevu'ah is that the object of a Neder is the item in question, whereas the object of a Shevu'ah is the person taking the vow. One who states, "This loaf of bread is prohibited to me" has voiced a Neder, whereas one who states "I hereby prohibit myself from eating this loaf of bread" has expressed a Shevu'ah. A Neder, therefore, is generally limited to prohibitions, whereas a Shevu'ah can obligate one in a previously voluntary activity as well. Furthermore, the subject of a Shevu'ah can be that which is intangible (a "Davar she'Ein Bo Mamash"), such as sleep. A Neder must focus upon a tangible object. A further difference between a Neder and a Shevu'ah is that through a Neder one may prohibit even his own object on another or another's object to himself. A Shevu'ah, however, affects only the one who expresses it. The Mishnah and Gemara (Nedarim 16b) suggest many other practical differences between Nedarim and Shevu'os. (See also Insights to Nedarim 2:3.)

(c)One who swears falsely transgresses a Torah prohibition (Vayikra 19:12). Included in this category are oaths regarding what happened in the past as well as oaths regarding future actions, if one does not end up keeping his word. Such an oath is called a Shevu'as Bituy. One who breaches an oath regarding a future action transgresses an additional Torah prohibition as well; namely, that which warns against violating one's word (Bamidbar 30:3). An unnecessary or frivolous oath is termed a "Shevu'as Shav." This is prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments (Shemos 20:7). There are four categories of Shevu'as Shav:

1.An oath that contradicts reality; i.e., one swears that a certain woman is a man.

2.An oath that affirms that which is obvious; i.e., one swears that that a certain woman is a woman.

3.An oath to contravene a Mitzvah; i.e., one swears not to eat Matzah on Pesach.

4.An oath to accomplish the impossible; i.e., one swears not to sleep for three days.

(d)Some Rishonim maintain that when expressing a Shevu'ah, one must include a name of or reference to HaSh-m in order for the Shevu'ah to take effect. This might take the form of "I make a Shevu'ah to HaSh-m that...." Other Rishonim maintain that only certain Shevu'os require this (RABEINU TAM), or that it is the subject of an Amora'ic dispute (RAN), or that a Shevu'ah without HaSh-m's name takes effect although it less severe (RA'AVAD) (see RAN and other Rishonim to Nedarim 2a).

(e)One who unintentionally transgresses a Shevu'as Bituy offers a Korban Shevu'ah. This Korban is a Korban Oleh v'Yored, which means that the makeup of the Korban varies depending upon the means of the penitent. A wealthy individual must offer a female sheep or goat as a Korban Chatas (Korban Ashir). One who cannot afford a sheep must offer a pair of turtledoves (Torim) or common doves (Bnei Yonim), one as a Korban Olah and one as a Korban Chatas (Korban Oleh v'Yored b'Dalus). If he cannot afford even a pair of birds, he may offer one-tenth of an Eifah of fine flour as a Minchas Chatas (Korban Oleh v'Yored b'Dalei Dalus) (Vayikra 5:5-13).

(f)One who intentionally swears falsely or actively transgresses his oath receives Malkus (lashes; see below, entry #28). One who passively transgresses his vow, however, does not receive Malkus, since his transgression involved no action. One who unintentionally takes a Shevu'as Shav receives no punishment. One who does so intentionally, however, is punished with Malkus.

27)[line 16]זדונהZEDONAH- intentional transgression of [this sin]

28)[line 16]מכותMAKOS (MALKUS ARBA'IM)

(a)One is liable to receive Malkus Arba'im (lit. forty lashes; actually thirty-nine) if he transgresses a Lav (negative Torah commandment) after having been warned that this would be his punishment by at least two witnesses (Devarim 25:2). These lashes may only be administered in Eretz Yisrael by a court of three judges who are Semuchin (Halachically ordained).

(b)Malkus are delivered three at a time. The court first determines how many lashes the culprit is able to withstand. He is then instructed to stand against a post and his clothes are ripped to reveal his heart. Beis Din chooses a weak Torah scholar to stand behind him upon a rock and deliver the blows. One third land upon his chest, one third upon his shoulder, and the remaining third upon his other shoulder (Makos 22b).

(c)Before each blow, the deputy judge announces the number of the lash and a third judge proclaims "Hakehu!" - "Whip him!" During the whipping, the senior judge reads aloud the verse, "If you do not carefully perform all the commandments in this Torah... then HaSh-m will cause you to receive extraordinary blows..." (Devarim 28:58-59).

29)[line 17]קרבן עולה ויורדKORBAN OLEH V'YORED- see above, entry #26:e

30)[line 17]שבועת שואSHEVU'AS SHAV- see above, entry #26:c

31)[line 19]למה לי למיתני, "שבועה שלא אוכל..., שבועה שלא אוכלנה"LAMAH LI L'MISNI, "SHEVU'AH SHE'LO OCHAL, SHEVU'AH SHE'LO OCHLENAH"?- why do I need to teach, "I swear that I will not eat..., I swear that I will not eat it"? [Rather, teach a case of one who swore the same oath twice; i.e., "I swear that I will not eat..., "I swear that I will not eat..."!]

32)[line 28]הא תו למה לי?HA SU LAMAH LI?- what does this addition[al third oath] teach me? (see also TOSFOS DH Ha)

33)[line 29]אי משכחת רווחא, חיילאIY MISHKACHAS RAVCHA, CHAILA- if [the additional oath] finds space, it will take effect

34)[line 31]נשאלNISHAL (HATARAS NEDARIM)

(a)After one has taken a Neder (vow) or Shevu'ah (oath), pledged to be a Nazir, or designated Chalah (see Background to Beitzah 12:12), Terumah (see Background to Beitzah 12:15), or Hekdesh (that which is sanctified to HaSh-m), he may have his vow revoked. He cannot accomplish this himself; rather, he must appeal to either a Beis Din of three or a Yachid Mumcheh (an outstanding authority).

(b)Two possible methods exist to repeal a Neder. One is that the person who took the vow explains that had he been fully aware of the circumstances at the time that he took the Neder, or had he thought through the ramifications of his Neder, then he would not have taken the Neder in the first place. This is called a Pesach.

(c)The other method is that of Charatah - sincere remorse that one had ever taken the Neder. Charatah requires that he who vowed wishes that he had never taken the Neder to begin with, and not merely that the Neder would not now be in effect. Tana'im disagree as to whether or not Charatah alone is sufficient for Beis Din or a Chacham to revoke a Neder (Nedarim 22).

35)[line 31]עלתה לו שניה תחתיהALSAH LO SHENIYAH TACHTEHA- the second (or any other subsequent) [oath] will come [and take effect retroactively] in its place

36)[line 32]מי שנדר ב' נזירותMI SHE'NADAR SHNEI NEZIROS - one who has taken a vow to be a Nazir twice (i.e. two consecutive terms) (NAZIR)

(a)One who makes a vow to be a Nazir without stipulating for how long he wishes his Nezirus to last is a Nazir for a period of thirty days. During this period, the Nazir is not allowed to:

1.cut his hair;

2.become Tamei by touching or being in the same room as a corpse;

3.consume any products of the grapevine (Bamidbar 6:1-21).

(b)When a Nazir completes his period of Nezirus, he must offer three sacrifices: a male sheep as an Olah, a female sheep as a Chatas, and a ram as a Shelamim. Together with the Shelamim he brings 6 and 2/3 Esronos of Soles (fine flour) which are made into 20 loaves of Matzah, 10 Chalos (unleavened loaves) and 10 Rekikin (flat Matzos). He then shaves his hair and burns it under the pot in which the Shelamim is cooked (Bamidbar 6:18).

(c)The Beraisa cited in our Gemara discusses a case in which one vowed to accept Nezirus upon himself twice. The Halachah in such a case is that he must complete one thirty-day period of Nezirus, offer the required Korbanos, and then complete a second period of Nezirus.

37)[line 33]מנהMANAH- he counted

38)[line 35]הכי השתא?HACHI HASHTA?- now [is it] so [that this is a valid comparison]?

39)[line 36]בעי מיהדר מימנא לשניה בלא שאלהBA'I MIHADAR MIMNA L'SHENIYAH B'LO SHE'ELAH- he must subsequently count the second one even had he not annulled [the first one]

40)[line 42]מכזית קמא עבדיה לאיסוריהMI'CHEZAYIS KAMAH AVDEI L'ISUREI- he has already transgressed the prohibition from [the time that he consumed] the first k'Zayis [and it is therefore too late to annul the oath]!

41)[last line]מאי איריא...?MAI IRYA...?- why specify...?