## Shevuot Daf 27a

###### Shevuot 27a:1
[Shevuot 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִּיטֵּל – פָּטוּר. לְקַיֵּים וְלֹא קִיֵּים – פָּטוּר; שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּיב, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one **takes an oath to refrain from** performing **a mitzva and he does not refrain,** he is **exempt** from bringing an offering for an oath on an utterance. If he takes an oath **to perform** a mitzva **and he does not perform** it, he is also **exempt, though it would have been fitting** to claim **that he is liable** to bring the offering, **in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.**


###### Shevuot 27a:2
[Shevuot 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: מָה אִם הָרְשׁוּת, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּשְׁבָּע עָלָיו מֵהַר סִינַי – הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּיב עָלָיו; מִצְוָה, שֶׁהוּא מוּשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna explains: **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said: What? If,** with regard to an oath concerning **an optional** matter, **for which one is not under oath from Mount Sinai, he is liable for** breaking **it,** then with regard to an oath about **a mitzva, for which he is under oath from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he would be liable for** breaking **it?**


###### Shevuot 27a:3
[Shevuot 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:3)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁבוּעַת הָרְשׁוּת – שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בָּהּ לָאו כְּהֵן, תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת מִצְוָה – שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָּהּ לָאו כְּהֵן; שֶׁאִם נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל וְלֹא בִּיטֵּל – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to him: No, if you said** that one is liable **for** breaking **an oath** concerning **an optional** action, **where** the Torah **rendered** one liable for **a negative** oath not to perform it **like** for **a positive** oath to perform it, **shall you** also **say** one is liable **with regard to** breaking **an oath** concerning **a mitzva, where** the Torah **did not render** one liable for **a negative** oath **like** for **a positive** oath, **since if one takes an oath to refrain** from performing **a mitzva and did not refrain,** he is **exempt.**


###### Shevuot 27a:4
[Shevuot 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִּיטֵּל, יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב״ – מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת, אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת; אוֹצִיא נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִּיטֵּל, שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that when **one takes an oath to refrain** from performing **a mitzva and he does not refrain, he would be liable** to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance. To counter this, **the verse states: “To do evil, or to do good”** (Leviticus 5:4). **Just as doing good** is referring to an oath about **an optional** action, **so too, doing evil** is referring to an oath about **an optional** action. **I will** therefore **exclude** from liability one who **takes an oath to refrain from** performing **a mitzva and does not refrain,** so **that he is exempt** from bringing the offering.


###### Shevuot 27a:5
[Shevuot 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:5)

יָכוֹל נִשְׁבַּע לְקַיֵּים אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא קִיֵּים, שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב״ – מָה הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת, אַף הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת; אוֹצִיא נִשְׁבַּע לְקַיֵּים אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא קִיֵּים, שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that when **one takes an oath to perform a mitzva and does not perform** it, **that he would be liable.** To counter this, **the verse states: “To do evil, or to do good.” Just as doing evil** is referring to an oath about **an optional** action, **so too, doing good** is referring to an oath about **an optional** action. **I will** therefore **exclude** from liability one who **takes an oath to perform a mitzva and does not perform** it, so **that he is exempt** from bringing the offering.


###### Shevuot 27a:6
[Shevuot 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:6)

יָכוֹל נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לְעַצְמוֹ וְלֹא הָרַע – יָכוֹל יְהֵא פָּטוּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב״ – מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת, אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת; אָבִיא נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לְעַצְמוֹ וְלֹא הֵרַע, שֶׁהָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that when **one takes an oath to harm himself and he does not harm himself, that he could be exempt** from liability. **The verse states: “To do evil, or to do good.” Just as doing good** is referring to an oath about **an optional** action, **so too, doing evil** is referring to an oath about **an optional** action. **I include** as liable **one** who **takes an oath to harm himself and does not harm** himself, **since** it **is his prerogative** to harm himself or not.


###### Shevuot 27a:7
[Shevuot 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:7)

יָכוֹל נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא הֵרַע, שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב״ – מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת, אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת; אוֹצִיא נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא הֵרַע, שֶׁאֵין הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הֲטָבַת אֲחֵרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב״. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא הֲרָעַת אֲחֵרִים? ״אַכֶּה אֶת פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲפַצֵּעַ אֶת מוֹחוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that when **one takes an oath to harm others and does not harm** them, **that he would be liable.** To counter this, **the verse states: “To do evil, or to do good.” Just as doing good** is referring to an oath about **an optional** action, **so too, doing evil** is referring to an oath about **an optional** action. **I will** therefore **exclude** from liability **one who takes an oath to harm others and he does not harm** them, **since** it **is not his prerogative** to do so. **From where** is it derived that taking an oath that concerns **doing good to others is included** among the oaths for which one may be liable? **The verse states: “Or to do good.” And what is harming others?** An example is when one takes an oath saying: **I will strike so-and-so and injure his brain.**


###### Shevuot 27a:8
[Shevuot 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:8)

וּמִמַּאי דִּקְרָאֵי בִּדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת כְּתִיבִי? דִּלְמָא בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה כְּתִיבִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* assumes throughout that “to do evil, or to do good” is referring to optional actions. The Gemara asks: **But from where** do we know **that** these **verses are written** referring **to optional matters? Perhaps** they **are written** referring **to matters** involving **a mitzva.**


###### Shevuot 27a:9
[Shevuot 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:9)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דְּבָעֵינַן הֲטָבָה דּוּמְיָא דַּהֲרָעָה, וַהֲרָעָה דּוּמְיָא דַּהֲטָבָה; דְּאַקֵּישׁ הֲרָעָה לַהֲטָבָה – מָה הֲטָבָה אֵינָהּ בְּבִיטּוּל מִצְוָה, אַף הֲרָעָה אֵינָהּ בְּבִיטּוּל מִצְוָה. הֲרָעָה גּוּפָהּ – הֲטָבָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: This **should not enter your mind, since we require** that **doing good** be **similar to doing evil, and doing evil** be **similar to doing good, as doing evil is juxtaposed to doing good** in the verse. If one stipulates that the verse is referring to matters involving a mitzva, **then just as doing good does not** involve **refraining from** performing **a mitzva,** but must involve performing a mitzva, e.g., an oath to eat *matza* on Passover, **so too, doing evil does not** involve **refraining from** performing **a mitzva,** e.g., an oath not to eat leavened bread on Passover. The result of this reasoning is that **doing evil** in the verse **is itself doing good,** in that it will always involve taking oaths to keep mitzvot.


###### Shevuot 27a:10
[Shevuot 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:10)

וְאַקֵּישׁ הֲטָבָה לַהֲרָעָה – מָה הֲרָעָה אֵינָהּ בְּקִיּוּם מִצְוָה, אַף הֲטָבָה אֵינָהּ בְּקִיּוּם מִצְוָה. הֲטָבָה גּוּפַהּ – הֲרָעָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** likewise, **doing good is juxtaposed to doing evil; just as doing evil does not** involve **performing a mitzva,** as it would then not be doing evil, **so too, doing good does not** involve **performing a mitzva. Doing good** in the verse **is itself doing evil,** in that it does not involve the fulfillment of mitzvot.


###### Shevuot 27a:11
[Shevuot 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:11)

אִי הָכִי, בִּדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת נָמֵי לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that doing evil and doing good are compared in this manner, **you do not find** that the verse can be interpreted **even with regard to optional matters,** as the same sort of contradiction could be generated.


###### Shevuot 27a:12
[Shevuot 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:12)

אֶלָּא מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אוֹ״ לְרַבּוֹת הֲטָבַת אֲחֵרִים – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת כְּתִיבִי. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה כְּתִיבִי; הַשְׁתָּא הֲרָעַת אֲחֵרִים אִיתְרַבַּי, הֲטָבַת אֲחֵרִים מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one may derive that the verse is referring to optional matters **from** the fact **that it was necessary** for the verse to write **“or** to do good,” in order **to include** liability for oaths that involve **doing good to others. Conclude from it** that these **verses are written** referring **to optional matters. As, if it should enter your mind** that the **verses are written** referring **to matters** involving **a mitzva,** there is a difficulty: **Now** that **doing evil to others has been included,** i.e., when one takes an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva, **is** it **necessary** to mention **doing good to others?**


###### Shevuot 27a:13
[Shevuot 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:13)

וְהַאי ״אוֹ״ – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק! לְחַלֵּק לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But this “or” is necessary** in order **to separate** them, i.e., to indicate that one can be liable for either type of oath. Had the verse said: To do evil and to do good, one might assume that one is liable only for oaths that involve both. The Gemara answers: **A verse is unnecessary** in order **to separate,** as it is clear that either sort of oath is included.


###### Shevuot 27a:14
[Shevuot 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:14)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to Rabbi Yonatan’s** opinion concerning the interpretation of conjunctions, **but according to Rabbi Yoshiya’s** opinion, **what can be said?**


###### Shevuot 27a:15
[Shevuot 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:15)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יְקַלֵּל אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ; אָבִיו וְלֹא אִמּוֹ, אִמּוֹ וְלֹא אָבִיו – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ קִלֵּל״ – אָבִיו קִלֵּל, אִמּוֹ קִלֵּל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: From the verse: **“A man who curses his father and his mother** shall die” (Leviticus 20:9), **I have** derived **only** that one is liable if he curses both **his father and his mother. From where** do I derive that if one curses **his father but not his mother,** or **his mother but not his father,** he is liable? The continuation of **the verse states: “His father and his mother he has cursed;** his blood is upon him.” In the first part of the verse, the word “curses” is in proximity to “his father,” and in the last part of the verse, “cursed” is in proximity to “his mother.” This teaches that the verse is referring to both a case where **he cursed** only **his father** and a case where **he cursed** only **his mother;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.** Rabbi Yoshiya maintains that conjunctions are interpreted strictly unless the verse indicates otherwise.


###### Shevuot 27a:16
[Shevuot 27a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27a:16)

רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: מַשְׁמָע שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד וּמַשְׁמָע אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yonatan says:** There is no need for this derivation, because the phrase “his father and his mother” **indicates** that one is liable if he curses **both of them together, and it** also **indicates** that he is liable if he curses either **one** of them **on their own,**