## Shevuot Daf 20a

###### Shevuot 20a:1
[Shevuot 20a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:1)

מְסָרְבִין בּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**importuning [*mesarevin*] him to eat.**


###### Shevuot 20a:2
[Shevuot 20a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:2)

מַתְנִיתִין – בְּשֶׁאֵין מְסָרְבִין בּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל; בָּרַיְיתָא – בִּמְסָרְבִין בּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וְקָאָמַר ״לָא אָכֵילְנָא״ וְ״לָא אָכֵילְנָא״, דְּכִי קָא מִשְׁתְּבַע הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The mishna** here is referring to a case **where** others **are not importuning him to eat;** therefore, his oath should be understood literally, as obligating himself to eat. The **external** mishna, in tractate *Nedarim*, is referring to a case **where** others **are importuning him to eat and he is saying: I will not eat, I will not eat.** Under those circumstances, **when he takes an oath, this** is what he **is saying:** On my **oath I will not eat.**


###### Shevuot 20a:3
[Shevuot 20a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:3)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: תְּנִי ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאִי אוֹכַל לָךְ״. אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִישָּׁנֵיהּ (דאיתקילא) [אִיתְּקִילא] לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi,** offering a different resolution of the contradiction, **says: Teach,** i.e., revise the mishna in tractate *Nedarim* to say in the middle oath: On my **oath I will not [*she’i*] eat of yours,** i.e., using a different formulation for: On my oath I will not eat of yours. The Gemara asks: **If so, what** is the purpose **of stating** what is effectively the same oath twice? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that there is a concern that the oath was **a slip of his tongue** and he meant to take an oath that he will eat and instead said: I will not eat, the mishna **teaches us** that one need not be concerned that this is what occurred.


###### Shevuot 20a:4
[Shevuot 20a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִבְטָא״ – שְׁבוּעָה. ״אִיסָּר״ – שְׁבוּעָה. אִיסּוּר אִיסָּר: אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אִיסָּר״ – שְׁבוּעָה, חַיָּיב; וְאִם לָאו, פָּטוּר. ״אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר אִיסָּר שְׁבוּעָה״?! וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: אִיסָּר – שְׁבוּעָה הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** “The **clear utterance** of her lips, with which she has bound her soul” (Numbers 30:7), is referring to **an oath,** and: **“A bond** with which she has bound her soul” (Numbers 30:5), is also referring to **an oath.** With regard to **the prohibition** invoked by the word **“bond,” if you say a bond is an oath,** he is **liable, but if not,** he is **exempt.** The Gemara seeks to explicate this *baraita*: **If you say a bond is an oath? But you** already **said** that **a bond is an oath.**


###### Shevuot 20a:5
[Shevuot 20a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר, ״מִבְטָא״ – שְׁבוּעָה. ״אִיסָּר״ – מִיתְּפֵיס בִּשְׁבוּעָה. אִיסּוּר אִיסָּר – אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: מִיתְּפֵיס בִּשְׁבוּעָה כְּמוֹצִיא שְׁבוּעָה מִפִּיו דָּמֵי, חַיָּיב; וְאִם לָאו, פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: This** is what the *baraita* **is saying: “Clear utterance”** is **an oath,** whereas **“bond” is** the **association** of some object or action **with** a matter that has already been prohibited by **an oath.** What is the **prohibition** invoked by the word **“bond”? If you say** that creating **an association with an oath is like** explicitly **expressing an oath with his** own **mouth** then he is **liable** to bring an offering for unwittingly violating the oath and to receive lashes for doing so intentionally. **But if** it is **not** like stating an oath explicitly, he is **exempt.**


###### Shevuot 20a:6
[Shevuot 20a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:6)

מִמַּאי דְּמִבְטָא שְׁבוּעָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִשָּׁבַע לְבַטֵּא בִשְׂפָתַיִם״; אִיסָּר נָמֵי – דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל נֵדֶר וְכׇל שְׁבֻעַת אִסָּר״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes Abaye’s explanation: **From where** may one derive that **“clear utterance” is an oath?** One derives it from the verse written with regard to an oath on an utterance, **as it is written: “Or if anyone take an oath to clearly utter with his lips”** (Leviticus 5:4). The Gemara asks: Isn’t **“bond” also** referring to an oath, **as it is written: “Every vow, and every oath of a bond** to afflict the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may make it void” (Numbers 30:14)?


###### Shevuot 20a:7
[Shevuot 20a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:7)

אֶלָּא מִמַּאי דְּאִיסָּר מִיתְּפֵס בִּשְׁבוּעָה הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״אוֹ אָסְרָה אִסָּר עַל נַפְשָׁהּ בִּשְׁבֻעָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, from where** may one derive **that a bond is** the **association** of some object or action **with** another matter that has been prohibited by **an oath?** One may derive it from the verse, **as it is written: “Or bound her soul by a bond with an oath”** (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that the bond is associated with a preexisting oath.


###### Shevuot 20a:8
[Shevuot 20a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:8)

מְבַטֵּא נָמֵי – הָכְתִיב: ״לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יְבַטֵּא הָאָדָם בִּשְׁבֻעָה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t the term **“clear utterance” also** associated with an oath in a verse, as **it is written: “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath”** (Leviticus 5:4)?


###### Shevuot 20a:9
[Shevuot 20a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִבְטָא שְׁבוּעָה מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ מִבְטָא שְׂפָתֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ״ – וְאִילּוּ שְׁבוּעָה לָא קָאָמַר; בְּמַאי אָסְרָה עַצְמָהּ? בְּמִבְטָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said:** The fact that **“clear utterance”** means **an oath** is derived **from here: “And if she be married to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the clear utterance of her lips, with which she has bound her soul”** (Numbers 30:7). **While** in that verse, it **does not state: Oath. With what does she impose a prohibition upon herself?** She does so **with “clear utterance,”** indicating that “clear utterance” is referring to an oath.


###### Shevuot 20a:10
[Shevuot 20a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:10)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ, מִיתְּפֵיס בִּשְׁבוּעָה לָאו כְּמוֹצִיא שְׁבוּעָה מִפִּיו דָּמֵי; וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מִבְטָא״ – שְׁבוּעָה. ״אִיסָּר״ – נָמֵי שְׁבוּעָה. אִסָּרֵיהּ דְּאִיסָּר – הִטִּילוֹ הַכָּתוּב בֵּין נֶדֶר לִשְׁבוּעָה; הוֹצִיאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן נֶדֶר – נֶדֶר, בִּלְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה – שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually, I will say to you** that **association with an oath is not like expressing an oath with one’s** own **mouth, and this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: “Clear utterance”** is **an oath. “Bond”** can **also** be **an oath,** but it is ambiguous. **The verse placed** the wording of **the prohibition of a bond between** that of **a vow and** that of **an oath.** Therefore, if one **expressed** a bond **with the language of a vow,** it is **a vow.** If one expressed it **with the language of an oath,** it is **an oath.**


###### Shevuot 20a:11
[Shevuot 20a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:11)

הֵיכָן הִטִּילוֹ? ״וְאִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה אוֹ אָסְרָה אִסָּר עַל נַפְשָׁהּ בִּשְׁבֻעָה וְגוֹ׳״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Where did** the verse **place** the word for “bond” between a vow and an oath? The verse says: **“And if she vowed in her husband’s house or bound her soul by a bond with an oath”** (Numbers 30:11).


###### Shevuot 20a:12
[Shevuot 20a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:12)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ; דְּאִיתְּמַר: מַתְפִּיס בִּשְׁבוּעָה – אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כְּמוֹצִיא שְׁבוּעָה מִפִּיו דָּמֵי, וְרָבָא אָמַר: לָאו כְּמוֹצִיא שְׁבוּעָה מִפִּיו דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava both **follow their** own lines of **reasoning, as it was stated:** With regard to one who **associates** some object or action **with** another matter that has been prohibited by **an oath, Abaye says:** It **is like** explicitly **expressing an oath with his mouth, and Rava says: It is not like** explicitly **expressing an oath with his mouth.**


###### Shevuot 20a:13
[Shevuot 20a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:13)

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵיזֶה אִיסָּר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה? הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן״ כַּיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ אָבִיו, כַּיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ פְּלוֹנִי, כְּיוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ גְּדַלְיָה בֶּן אֲחִיקָם, כַּיּוֹם שֶׁרָאָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בְּחוּרְבָּנָהּ – אָסוּר. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁנָּדוּר וּבָא מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **What is the bond mentioned in the Torah?** A bond applies to **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me that I will not eat meat and that I will not drink wine like** on **the day that his,** i.e., my, **father died,** or: **Like** on **the day that so-and-so died,** or: **Like** on **the day that Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed,** or: **Like** on **the day** on **which he saw Jerusalem in its destruction.** One who makes one of these pronouncements is **prohibited** from eating meat and drinking wine. **And Shmuel says:** This **is** the case only **when he is prohibited** from eating meat and drinking wine **by vow since that day,** e.g., the day his father died.


###### Shevuot 20a:14
[Shevuot 20a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/20a:14)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי, מִדְּמַתְפִּיס בְּנֶדֶר – נֶדֶר, מַתְפִּיס בִּשְׁבוּעָה – שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Abaye, from** the fact that a vow **that one associates with** another **vow** is considered **a vow,** as Shmuel’s ruling demonstrates, one may conclude that an oath that **one associates with** another **oath** is considered **an oath.**