## Shevuot Daf 20b

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

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to Rava’s** opinion, that association with an oath is not considered an oath, the *baraita* poses **a difficulty,** as it indicates that association with a vow is considered a vow; a corresponding rule should apply to an oath.


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

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא, תָּרֵיץ וְאֵימָא הָכִי: אֵיזֶהוּ אִיסַּר נֶדֶר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה? הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן״ כַּיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ אָבִיו, כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ פְּלוֹנִי. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁנָּדוּר וּבָא מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rava** could **say to you: Resolve** the difficulty posed by the *baraita* **and say** that the *baraita* teaches **this: Which is the bond** of **a vow mentioned in the Torah?** When is a bond, i.e., the acceptance of a prohibition on oneself, considered a vow? According to Rava, “bond” in the verse is not referring to association. Rather, it is referring 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 was killed. And Shmuel says:** This **is** the *halakha* only **when he is prohibited** from eating meat and drinking wine **by vow since that day,** e.g., the day his father died.


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

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ כִּי יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַה׳״ – עַד שֶׁיִּדּוֹר בְּדָבָר הַנָּדוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for Shmuel’s caveat? **The verse states: “When a man vows a vow to the Lord”** (Numbers 30:3). The redundancy in the phrase “vows a vow” teaches that when one associates a vow with another prohibition, it does not take effect **unless he vows by** associating it with **an item** forbidden **by** means of **a vow.** Association is derived from this verse and is limited to vows.


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

כַּיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ אָבִיו. פְּשִׁיטָא! כְּיוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ גְּדַלְיָה בֶּן אֲחִיקָם אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דְּכִי לָא נָדַר נָמֵי אָסוּר – כִּי נָדַר נָמֵי לָא הָוְיָא עֲלֵיהּ אִיסּוּר, וְהַאי לָאו מִיתְּפֵיס בְּנֶדֶר הוּא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the *baraita*: 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 father died.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that he is prohibited from eating meat and drinking wine? Why does the *baraita* need to mention the specific example of a vow concerning the day his father died? The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** that the *baraita* state that the vow takes effect for the sake of the other example: **Like** on **the day that Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed.** Otherwise, it **may enter your mind to say: Since,** even **if he did not vow** to refrain from eating meat or drinking wine on that day **they would be prohibited to him anyway,** as it is a public fast day, **when he did vow** to refrain from eating and drinking on that day, the **prohibition** of the vow **would not take effect on him, and that** subsequent vow would then **not be associated with a vow,** but with an ordinary prohibition. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that the vow made on the fast day takes effect and the second vow can be associated with it.


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

וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרָבָא; דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״מִבְטָא לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ״, ״אִיסָּר לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ״ – שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds in accordance with this** opinion **of Rava** that a bond is not an association with an oath, but an oath itself, **as when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one says: By my **clear utterance I will not eat of yours,** or: On my **bond I will not eat of yours,** it is **an oath.**


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

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹכַל״ וְ״לֹא אוֹכַל״ – שֶׁקֶר, וְאַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״לָא תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר״. ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ – שָׁוְא, וְאַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael, he reported that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one takes an oath, saying: **I will eat, or: I will not eat,** relating to the future, and does not fulfill it, it is **a false** oath. **And its prohibition** in the Torah is **from here:** “And **you shall not take an oath by My name falsely,** so that you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:12). If one takes an oath, saying: **I ate, or: I did not eat,** relating to past actions, and it is a lie, it is an oath taken **in vain, and its prohibition** in the Torah is **from here: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain;** for the Lord will not absolve of guilt he that takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).


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

קוּנָּמוֹת – עוֹבֵר בְּ״לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Dimi continued: With regard to vows where one states that an item is forbidden **like an offering [*konamot*],** if he subsequently derives benefit from that item, one **violates** the prohibition: “When a man vows a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind his soul with a bond, **he shall not break his word;** he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (Numbers 30:3).


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

מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁוְא וְשֶׁקֶר אֶחָד הֵן. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּשָׁוְא לְשֶׁעָבַר – אַף שֶׁקֶר נָמֵי לְשֶׁעָבַר? אַלְמָא ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ שֶׁקֶר הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: The prohibitions against taking an oath **in vain and** taking **a false** oath **are one.** The Gemara suggests: **What, is** the *baraita* **not** teaching **that** if an oath taken **in vain** refers **to the past, a false** oath **also** refers **to the past? Apparently,** the statements: **I ate,** and: **I did not eat, are** both **false** oaths, contrary to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that a false oath is one that relates to the future.


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

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא. וּמַאי ״דָּבָר אֶחָד הֵן״? דִּבְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״זָכוֹר״ וְ״שָׁמוֹר״ בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ – מַה שֶּׁאֵין יָכוֹל הַפֶּה לְדַבֵּר, וּמָה שֶׁאֵין הָאוֹזֶן יָכוֹל לִשְׁמוֹעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Are the cases comparable? This** case, of a false oath, is **as it is and that** case, of an oath taken in vain, is **as it is. What,** then, is the meaning of the assertion of the *baraita* that **they are one?** It is **that** both **were spoken in a single utterance** at the giving of the Torah, **like that** which **is taught** in a *baraita*: **“Remember** the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), **and: “Observe** the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Deuteronomy 5:12), **were spoken in one utterance,** in a manner **that the** human **mouth cannot say and that the** human **ear cannot hear.**


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם בְּדִיבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ, כִּדְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה – דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בְּקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״זָכוֹר״ וְ״שָׁמוֹר״ – כׇּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁמִירָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּזְכִירָה, וְהָנֵי נְשֵׁי הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁמִירָה אִיתַנְהוּ נָמֵי בִּזְכִירָה. אֶלָּא הָכָא לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, there,** “remember” and “observe” **were spoken in a single utterance** in order to teach the *halakha* **that Rav Adda bar Ahava** says; **as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: Women are obligated to** recite ***kiddush*** sanctifying **the** seventh **day, by Torah law,** even though it is a positive, time-bound mitzva, **since the verses state: “Remember,” and: “Observe,”** indicating that **anyone who is** obligated **to observe,** i.e., is prohibited from performing labor on Shabbat, **is** obligated **to remember,** by reciting *kiddush*. **And these women, since they are** obligated **to observe, they also are** obligated **to remember. But here,** with regard to the prohibitions against taking a false oath and taking an oath in vain, **for what *halakha* is it necessary** for them to have been spoken in a single utterance?


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

אֶלָּא כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלּוֹקֶה עַל שָׁוְא, כָּךְ לוֹקֶה נָמֵי עַל שֶׁקֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather,** the *baraita* states that these two oaths are one to teach that **just as** one **is flogged for** taking an oath **in vain, so** is one **also flogged for** taking **a false** oath.


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

כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלּוֹקֶה עַל שֶׁקֶר, כָּךְ לוֹקֶה נָמֵי עַל שָׁוְא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t it the opposite [*kelapei layya*]?** It is clear that one receives lashes for taking a false oath about the future, which one violates with an action, but an oath taken in vain about the past is merely a verbal pronouncement. **Rather, say** like this: **Just as** one **is flogged for** taking a **false** oath, i.e., violating one’s oath about the future, **so** is one **also flogged for** taking an oath **in vain.**


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

פְּשִׁיטָא – הַאי לָאו וְהַאי לָאו! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: ״לֹא יִנָּקֶה״ כְּלָל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why must the *baraita* state that one is flogged for either type of oath? Isn’t it **obvious? This is a prohibition and that is a prohibition,** and for both one is liable to receive lashes. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye,** that the verse: “For the Lord **will not absolve of guilt** he that takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7), might indicate that God will not absolve him **at all,** and even if he is punished he cannot atone for his sin,