SHEVUOS 28 - Dedicated in memory of Max (Meir Menachem ben Shlomo ha'Levi) Turkel, by his children Eddie and Lawrence Turkel of New York. Max was a warm and loving husband and father and is missed dearly by his family and friends. His Yahrzeit is 5 Teves.

[28a - 23 lines; 28b - 33 lines]

1)[line 1]אפילו כל שהוא נמיAFILU KOL SHE'HU NAMI- even if only a minute amount is left [he should be able to annul the oath] as well [since he has still not transgressed it]

2a)[line 3]מיגו דמהניא ליה שאלה אכזית בתראMIGU D'MEHANYA LEI SHE'ELAH A'KEZAYIS BASRA- since the annulment is effective regarding the final k'Zayis [which had become prohibited to him, along with the rest of the k'Zeisim of which the loaf had been comprised, at the time of the oath]

b)[line 4]מהניא ליה שאלה נמי אכזית קמאMEHANYA LEI SHE'ELAH NAMI A'KEZAYIS KAMA- the annulment is effective regarding the first k'Zayis as well [since the annulment takes effect retroactively]

3)[line 6]חשיב לאיתשולי עליהCHASHIV L'IS'SHULEI ALEI- [that which remains prohibited by the oath] is significant enough to ask for an annulment

4)[line 9]ואחר כך נשאל על הראשונהV'ACHAR KACH NISH'AL AL HA'RISHONAH- That a Nazir can revoke his vow after it has been completed implies that an oath may be annulled even if nothing remains of the subject of the oath.

5)[line 10]בשלא כיפרBESHE'LO KIPER- [a case] in which [the Nazir] had not yet offered his Korbanos (see Background to 27:36:b) [and his vow was therefore not yet completed]

6)[line 11]בשלא גלחBESHE'LO GALACH- [a case] in which [the Nazir] had not yet shaved his hair (see Background to 27:36:b) [and his vow was therefore not yet completed]

7)[line 12]תגלחת מעכבאTIGLACHAS ME'AKVA- [the] shaving [of a Nazir upon the completion of his Nezirus] is necessary [before he may consume grape products or become Tamei from a corpse]

8)[line 13]נזירות קא רמית?NEZIRUS KA RAMIS?- are you posing a contradiction [to the ruling of Rava regarding oaths] from [a case of] Nezirus?

9)[line 13]מי גרם לשניה שלא תחול? ראשונה - ואינה!MI GARAM L'SHENIYAH SHE'LO TACHUL? RISHONAH, V'EINAH!- what caused the second period of Nezirus not to take effect [immediately]? The first [period of Nezirus] - and [now that it has been annulled] it [retroactively] never took effect! [If it never took effect, it could not have been completed, and therefore still exists enough to be annulled.]

10)[line 16]קרבןKORBAN- a Korban Shevu'ah (see Background to 27:26:e)

11)[line 17]כפתוהו על העמודKAFTUHU AL HA'AMUD- once they have tied him to the post (see Background to 27:28:b)

12)[line 19]ולא היאV'LO HI- and it is not so [that one cannot ask for an annulment of his oath once he has been tied down to the post]

13)[line 19]התם רץHASAM RATZ- there [in the ruling of Shmuel he is exempt from Malkus since] he ran [and thereby brought shame upon himself, and shame is an integral part of the punishment of Malkus (see Devarim 25:3 and Mishnah, Makos 22b)]

14)[line 21]ואכל את הראשונהACHAL ES HA'RISHONAH- if he ate the first loaf; i.e., the one whose consumption renders the other forbidden

15)[line 21]בשוגגB'SHOGEG- unintentionally; i.e., while having forgotten that he had taken the oath [in which case he does not have the status of "ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah" (see 26a)]

16)[line 22]פטורPATUR- he is exempt [from Malkus since the Shevu'ah did not take effect (and certainly from a Korban Shevu'ah, which one is obligated to offer only after an unintentional transgression)]

17)[last line]חייבCHAYAV- he is obligated [to offer a Korban Shevu'ah, since he unintentionally transgressed the oath that was triggered by his consumption of the first loaf]

18)[last line]שתיהן בשוגגSHETEIHEN B'SHOGEG- if he ate both loaves unintentionally; i.e., while having forgotten that he had taken the oath


19)[line 4]התראת ספק שמה התראה... לאו שמה התראהHASRA'AS SAFEK SHMAH HASRA'AH... LAV SHMAH HASRA'AH - whether an uncertain warning as deemed a valid warning (HASRA'AS SAFEK)

(a)Should one transgress a negative commandment for which the punishment is the death penalty or Malkus (lashes), he does not receive this punishment unless his action was observed by at least two valid witnesses and he had received a proper Hasra'ah (warning). The warning must identify the action by name, categorize it as a sin, and specify the specific punishment that the offender will receive.

(b)The Chachamim rule that Hasra'ah need not be administered by the witnesses themselves; if any bystander warns the sinner than he is liable to be punished in Beis Din. Rebbi Yosi maintains that only the witnesses themselves may administer Hasra'ah (Makos 6b).

(c)The offender must then clearly state that he has understood and accepted the consequences of his action, and then sin immediately. Should he merely remain silent, nods his head, or even state, "I know," he is not liable to either the death penalty nor Malkus mid'Oraisa. He is, however, subject to Malkus mid'Rabanan.

(d)A Hasra'as Safek is an uncertain warning. It refers to a case wherein the witnesses warn the perpetrator, but they cannot know whether or not the action that they warn against indeed constitutes a transgression. The concept of Hasra'as Safek can be illustrated through a case in which one swore to consume a specific loaf of bread "today." The most that can be said to him in warning is that if he does not consume the loaf immediately, then he may not have another chance to do so, thereby transgressing his oath. Such Hasra'ah is uncertain. Whether or not such Hasra'ah is enough to make the transgressor liable to receive punishment is the subject of a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish (3b).

(e)The case in our Gemara is, by definition, one of Hasra'as Safek. At the time that he ate the first loaf, it was not yet clear that it was to become retroactively forbidden; that would only happen when and if the second loaf was eaten. Therefore, the only warning that could have been delivered was an uncertain one. A warning delivered prior to the consumption of the trigger loaf could have been certain, but such a warning would not suffice to render him liable to receive Malkus since it was not delivered at the time of the transgression.

20)[line 5]תלאן זו בזוTELA'AN ZO B'ZO- if he made each one dependent upon the other (as the Gemara goes on to explain)

21)[line 7]ואכל זו בזדון עצמה ובשגגת חבירתהACHAL ZO BI'ZDON ATZMAH UV'SHIGEGAS CHAVERTAH- he ate this one while remembering that it would become retroactively forbidden if he ate the other, but having forgotten that the other had now become forbidden since he had eaten this one

22)[line 8]פטורPATUR- he is exempt [both from Malkus for eating the second one - even though he knew it was forbidden when he did so - since the oath had not taken effect when he ate the first one since he did not remember it, and from offering a Korban Shevu'ah for eating the first one retroactively, since he did not eat it unintentionally]

23)[line 8]זו בשגגת עצמה ובזדון חבירתהZO B'SHIGEGAS ATZMAH UVI'ZDON CHAVERTAH- if he ate this one while remembering that the other had now become forbidden since he had eaten it, but having forgotten that it would become retroactively forbidden if he would eat the other

24)[line 10]חייבCHAYAV- he is obligated [to offer a Korban Shevu'ah for eating the second loaf]

25)[line 13]אף אנן נמי תנינאAF ANAN NAMI TENINA- we learned [like Rava] in a Mishnah as well [that one who makes an oath in which one item becomes forbidden if a certain action is performed transgresses the oath only if he remembers the oath when triggering it]

26)[line 13](ארבעה נדרים התירו חכמים...)(ARBA'AH NEDARIM HITIRU CHACHAMIM...)- (the Chachamim permitted four [categories] of vows [without need of annulment]...). Although these words are indeed the beginning of the Beraisa quoted by our Gemara, it is clear from the fac tthat RASHI (DH Nidrei Shegagos) felt the need to quote it that he did not have these words in his Gemara.

27a)[line 14]נדרי זרוזיןNIDREI ZIRUZIN- vows taken in order to motivate another

b)[line 14]נדרי הבאיNIDREI HAVAI- vows of exaggeration with no basis in reality

c)[line 15]נדרי שגגותNIDREI SHEGAGOS- vows taken in error

d)[line 15]נדרי אונסין)NIDREI ONSIN)- (a) vows that one was forced to violate (MEFARESH to Nedarim 11a, first explanation); (b) vows that one was forced to take (MEFARESH to Nedarim 11a, second explanation)) (see Sugya beginning on Nedarim 20b for more details)

28)[line 16]קונםKONAM (KINUYEI NEDARIM)

(a)A Neder (see Background to 27:26) may be expressed by relating the object in question to that which had previously been prohibited, such as a Korban. This is termed "Hatfasah." (Some Rishonim maintain that Hatfasah is integral to a Neder; see Insights to Nedarim 2:2.) The object of the comparison, however, must be a "Davar ha'Nadur" - that which itself had been prohibited my man, either through a Neder or through Hekdesh (consecration). If one attempts to prohibit an object through a Neder by comparing it to a "Davar ha'Asur" - that which is prohibited by the Torah, such as non-kosher meat - is has no effect (Nedarim 14a).

(b)One need not mention the Davar ha'Nadur itself when expressing his Neder. He may instead utilize a Kinuy, a related term. For example, instead of saying, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to you like a Korban," one may use the term "Konam" or "Konach."

(c)Amora'im disagree as to the source of these terms. Rebbi Yochanan explains that they are words in foreign languages that are loosely based on the original Hebrew. Reish Lakish maintains that the Chachamim originated these expressions so that people would avoid using the actual terms. The reason for this is to prevent one from pronouncing HaSh-m's name in vain. Since it is natural to say "Korban la'Sh-m", which is the terminology of the Torah (Vayikra 1:2), one may come to mention the name of HaSh-m before uttering the word "Korban." If he does not then end up finishing his Neder, he has uttered the Holy name of HaSh-m to no end (Nedarim 10a).

29)[line 17](שאיני) [שאני] אוכל (שאיני) [שאני] שותה(SHE'EINI) [SHE'ANI] OCHEL; (SHE'EINI) [SHE'ANI] SHOSEH- [such-and-such an object should be prohibited to me like a Korban] (that I should not) [if I] eat; [such-and-such an object should be prohibited to me like a Korban] (that I should not) [if I] drink

30)[line 19](שבועות שגגות היכי דמי? לאו כי האי גוונא? שמע מינה!)(SHEVU'OS SHEGAGOS HEICHI DAMI? LAV KI HAI GAVNA? SHEMA MINAH!)- (what is the case of oaths taken in error? Is it not such a case [in which one swore not to eat an item if he performed a certain action, and then performed the action having forgotten his oath]? We see from this [that Rava was correct!). RASHI (DH Shevu'os Shegagos) maintains that these words appear in our Gemara in error. This is because it is unnecessary to infer from the Beraisa that Rava is correct; the second example of Nidrei Shegagos is equivalent to the case discussed by Rava.

31a)[line 21]עיפא תני שבועות בי רבהEIFAH TANI SHEVU'OS BEI RABAH- Eifah (son of Rachvah of Pumbedisa) was learning Maseches Shevuos in the Yeshivah of Rabah

b)[line 21]פגע ביה אבימי אחוהPAGA BEI AVIMEI ACHVAH- his brother Avimei met up with him

32)[line 23]אינו חייב אלא אחתEINO CHAYAV ELA ACHAS- he is only liable to receive punishment for transgressing one of them [since the second oath adds nothing to the first (Shevu'ah Al Shevu'ah)]

33a)[line 24]אישתבשתISHTABASHT- you have made an error

b)[line 24]הרי יצאה שבועה לשקר!HAREI YATZ'AH SHEVU'AH L'SHEKER!- his oath has expressed a falsehood [and he is therefore liable for having transgressed the prohibition against swearing falsely (a Shevu'as Shav; see Background to 27:26:c)]!

34)[line 25]שבועה שלא אוכל תשע ועשרSHEVU'AH SHE'LO OCHAL TESHA V'ESER- if one says, "I swear not to eat nine (figs, for example)" and [then says, "I swear not to eat] ten" [and then forgets both oaths and eats ten]?

35)[line 26]חייב על כל אחת ואחתCHAYAV AL KOL ACHAS V'ACHAS- he is liable to be punished for each of them [as the second oath took effect since it was not included in the first]

36)[line 27]אי תשע לא אכיל, עשר לא אכילIY TESHA LO ACHIL, ESER LO ACHIL- if he has not eaten nine, then he has [certainly] not eaten ten [and the second oath was therefore covered already by the first and was a Shevu'ah Al Shevu'ah]

37)[line 28]אינו חייב אלא אחתEINO CHAYAV ELA ACHAS- he is only liable for one [oath; namely, the first, since the second oath that detailed nine is included in the first that detailed ten]

38)[line 29]עשר הוא דלא אכיל, הא תשע מיהא אכילESER HU D'LO ACHIL, HA TESHA MIHA ACHIL- [after having eaten nine] he has not eaten ten, but he has eaten nine [and it is therefore possible to transgress the second oath and not the first, which means that it was not included in the first and was therefore able to take effect]

39)[line 30]זימנין דמשכחת לה להא דעיפאZIMNIN D'MISHKACHAS LAH L'HA D'EIFA- it is sometimes possible to find a case in which the ruling of Eifah [in the case of "Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochel Eser v'Tesha"] is correct

40)[line 31]כדמרKID'MAR- according to [the ruling] of Mar (a third-person term of respect that Abaye always uses to refer to his Rebbi, Rabah)

41)[line 32]שבועה שלא אוכל תאנים וענביםSHEVU'AH SHEL'LO OCHAL TE'ENIM VA'ANAVIM- [if one says] "I swear not to figs and grapes [on the same day]"