## Shevuot Daf 26b

###### Shevuot 26b:1
[Shevuot 26b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:1)

אֵיזוֹ הִיא שִׁגְגַת שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי לְשֶׁעָבַר? אִי דְּיָדַע – מֵזִיד הוּא! אִי דְּלָא יָדַע – אָנוּס הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the case of **an unwitting oath on an utterance** referring **to the past,** for which one is liable to bring an offering? **If** it is a case **where he knows** when he takes the oath that it is not true, then **he is an intentional** taker of a false oath and may not bring an offering. **If** it is a case **where he did not know** at the time of taking the oath that what he was saying is not true, then **he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control,** and is exempt from bringing an offering.


###### Shevuot 26b:2
[Shevuot 26b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, בְּאוֹמֵר: ״יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁשְּׁבוּעָה זוֹ אֲסוּרָה, אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ קׇרְבָּן אוֹ לָאו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him** in answer to his question: It is a case **where** the one taking the oath **says: I know that** taking **this oath is prohibited, but I do not know if one is liable** to bring **an offering for it or not.** Since he does not know the full implications of his action, it is regarded as unwitting, and he may still bring an offering to atone for it.


###### Shevuot 26b:3
[Shevuot 26b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:3)

כְּמַאן – כְּמוֹנְבַּז, דְּאָמַר: שִׁגְגַת קׇרְבָּן שְׁמָהּ שְׁגָגָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava asked Rav Naḥman further: **In accordance with whose** opinion do you answer in this way? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Munbaz, who says: Lack of intention with regard to the offering,** i.e., ignorance as to whether one’s action renders one liable to bring an offering, **is regarded as lack of intention?** There is a dispute between Munbaz and the Rabbis in tractate *Shabbat* (69a–b) with regard to one who knows that a particular action desecrates Shabbat but does not know that it renders one liable to bring a sin-offering. Munbaz holds that even one who is merely ignorant of the liability to bring an offering is deemed an unwitting sinner who brings a sin-offering to atone. The Rabbis disagree and deem him unwitting only if he is unaware that the action is prohibited.


###### Shevuot 26b:4
[Shevuot 26b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:4)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּמוֹנְבַּז – אֶלָּא בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, דְּלָאו חִידּוּשׁ הוּא; אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא – דִּבְכָל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן לָאו דְּמַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman explains: **You** may **even say** that this explanation accords with the opinion of **the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with** the opinion **of Munbaz only with regard to all** typical cases in **the entire Torah** for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, where that liability **is not a novelty. But here,** with regard to oaths, it could be said **that** bringing a sin-offering **is a novelty, since** there is a principle that **we do not find in the entire Torah** another example of a simple **prohibition for which** one **brings an offering** for its unwitting violation.


###### Shevuot 26b:5
[Shevuot 26b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:5)

דְּיָלְפִינַן מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; וְהָכָא מַיְיתֵי – אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman continues: The reason for this principle is **that we derive** for which prohibitions one brings a sin-offering **from** the prohibition of **idol worship,** where one is liable to receive *karet* for an intentional violation and one is liable to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting violation. **And** yet **here,** in the case of the oath, **one brings** a sin-offering even though intentional violation of the prohibition is not punishable by *karet*. Given the novelty of the offering for an oath on an utterance, **even the Rabbis would agree** that ignorance of the fact that one is performing an action for which the Torah legislates an offering is sufficient for one to be regarded as unwitting and liable to bring a sliding-scale offering.


###### Shevuot 26b:6
[Shevuot 26b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:6)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבִינָא מֵרָבָא: נִשְׁבַּע עַל כִּכָּר וּמִסְתַּכֵּן עָלֶיהָ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina asked Rava:** If one **took an oath concerning** a certain **loaf,** rendering himself prohibited from eating it, **and** later his life **is in danger** due to his not eating it, **what is** the *halakha*? Is he liable to bring an offering in atonement for eating it?


###### Shevuot 26b:7
[Shevuot 26b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:7)

מִסְתַּכֵּן – לִישְׁרֵי לֵיהּ מָר! אֶלָּא מִצְטַעֵר, וַאֲכָלָהּ בְּשִׁגְגַת שְׁבוּעָה – מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava responded: If his life is **in danger, let the Master permit him** to eat, as saving his life overrides the prohibition; he is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control and does not need to atone at all. Ravina said: **Rather,** the question is this: With regard to **one who is suffering** from hunger **and** who **ate it unwittingly,** i.e., he forgot the prohibition generated by the **oath,** although had he known, he would still have eaten this loaf of bread intentionally due to his hunger, **what** is the *halakha*?


###### Shevuot 26b:8
[Shevuot 26b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵינָא: שָׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ – מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ; לֹא שָׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ – אֵין מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava said **to him: We learn** in a *baraita*: **One** who, had he known that his action was prohibited, would have **withdrawn** from sinning **due to his knowledge, brings an offering for his unwitting** sin; but **one** who **would not have withdrawn** from sinning **due to his knowledge does not bring an offering for his unwitting** sin. Since he would have eaten anyway, he does not bring an offering.


###### Shevuot 26b:9
[Shevuot 26b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:9)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיּוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְבַטֵּא בִּשְׂפָתַיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel says:** Even after one **decided** to take an oath, he **needs to express** it **with his lips** for it to take effect, **as it is stated** in the verse: “Or if anyone take an oath **clearly with his lips** to do evil, or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4).


###### Shevuot 26b:10
[Shevuot 26b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״בִּשְׂפָתַיִם״ – וְלֹא בַּלֵּב; גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יְבַטֵּא הָאָדָם בִּשְׁבוּעָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: The verse states that one takes an oath **“with his lips,” but not with his heart. From where** is it derived that **one who decided in his heart** to take an oath is liable to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance? **The verse states: “Whatsoever it be that a man shall express with an oath”** (Leviticus 5:4).


###### Shevuot 26b:11
[Shevuot 26b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:11)

הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא – אָמְרַתְּ ״בִּשְׂפָתַיִם״ וְלֹא בַּלֵּב, וַהֲדַר אָמְרַתְּ ״גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ מִנַּיִן״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara points out: **This** *baraita* is **difficult** in **itself. You said: “With his lips,” but not with his heart, and then you said: From where** is it derived that **one who decided in his heart** to take an oath is liable? There seems to be a contradiction within the *baraita* concerning the *halakha* where one did not express the oath.


###### Shevuot 26b:12
[Shevuot 26b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:12)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״בִּשְׂפָתַיִם״ – וְלֹא שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו וְלֹא הוֹצִיא; גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ סְתָם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יְבַטֵּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: This** is **not difficult; this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** One takes an oath **“with his lips” and** does **not** take an oath **when he** merely **decided in his heart to express with his lips but has not** yet actually **expressed** the oath verbally. **From where** is it derived that one who **simply decided in his heart** to take an oath without the intention of stating it with his lips is liable? **The verse states: “Whatsoever it be that** a man **shall express** with an oath” (Leviticus 5:4).


###### Shevuot 26b:13
[Shevuot 26b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:13)

אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But according to** the opinion of **Shmuel,** this *baraita* nevertheless poses **a difficulty,** as it indicates that an oath that was not expressed verbally takes effect.


###### Shevuot 26b:14
[Shevuot 26b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:14)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תָּרֵיץ וְאֵימָא הָכִי: ״בִּשְׂפָתַיִם״ – וְלֹא שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְהוֹצִיא ״פַּת חִטִּין״ וְהוֹצִיא ״פַּת שְׂעוֹרִין״; גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְהוֹצִיא ״פַּת חִטִּין״ וְהוֹצִיא ״פַּת״ סְתָם, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יְבַטֵּא הָאָדָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: Resolve** the difficulty **and say** the *baraita* like **this:** One takes an oath **“with his lips,” but** does **not** take an oath **where he decided in his heart to express** an oath prohibiting **wheat bread and** he instead **expressed** an oath about **barley bread. From where** is it derived that he is liable where **he decided in his heart to express** an oath about **wheat bread and expressed** his oath about **bread without specifying? The verse states: “Whatsoever it be that** a man **shall express** with an oath.”


###### Shevuot 26b:15
[Shevuot 26b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:15)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו; גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל נְדִיב לֵב״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Shmuel from a *baraita*: The verse states: **“That which is gone out of your lips you shall observe and do;** according as you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). From here **I have** derived **only** a case in **which he expresses with his lips. From where** do I derive a case where **he decided** only **in his heart? The verse states** in the context of the contributions to the building of the Tabernacle: “And they came, both men and women, **as many as were willinghearted,** and brought nose rings, and earrings, and signet rings, and girdles, all jewels of gold” (Exodus 35:22). The fact that the verse describes those who contributed as willinghearted indicates that one becomes liable via a non-verbal decision.


###### Shevuot 26b:16
[Shevuot 26b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:16)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל נְדִיב לֵב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The case **there,** of contributions to the Tabernacle, **is different, as it is written: “As many as were willinghearted.”** This *halakha* is stated only in the context of contributions to the Tabernacle, not in the context of oaths.


###### Shevuot 26b:17
[Shevuot 26b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:17)

וְנִיגְמַר מִינַּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let us learn from it** that in general, oaths can be taken via a non-verbal decision.


###### Shevuot 26b:18
[Shevuot 26b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:18)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָווּ תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: One cannot extrapolate from the fact that the non-verbal consecrations to the Tabernacle were effective, **because *teruma*,** which can be separated non-verbally, **and** donating **consecrated** items **are two verses that come as one,** i.e., they are both instances where a non-verbal commitment is sufficient, **and any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common element to apply to other cases.


###### Shevuot 26b:19
[Shevuot 26b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:19)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that two verses that come as one **do not teach** their common element, **but according to the one who says** that **they do teach** their common element, **what can be said?**


###### Shevuot 26b:20
[Shevuot 26b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/26b:20)

הָווּ חוּלִּין וְקָדָשִׁים, וְחוּלִּין מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא גָּמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The two contexts here are **non-sacred** items, i.e., oaths, **and consecrated** items, donations to the Tabernacle and *teruma*, **and we do not derive** *halakhot* concerning **non-sacred** items **from** *halakhot* concerning **consecrated** items.