## Shevuot Daf 27b

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

עַד שֶׁיִּפְרוֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״יַחְדָּיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**unless the verse specifies** that one is liable only if he curses both **together.** An example of a verse where the Torah specifies that the *halakha* applies only to the two elements in conjunction is: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10).


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

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה; וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּדָרֵישׁ רִבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי, וְאִיַּיתַּר לֵיהּ ״אוֹ״ לְחַלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **You** may **even say** that the verse is referring to optional matters according to the opinion of **Rabbi Yoshiya.** He **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who interprets** the Torah using the hermeneutical principle of **amplifications and restrictions** (see 26a), **and** the word **“or” is superfluous** and is used **to separate** “to do evil” from “to do good.”


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת כְּתִיב, מְמַעֵט דְּבַר מִצְוָה; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה כְּתִיב, מִמַּאי קָא מְמַעֵט?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains how one derives that the oaths referred to in the verse are oaths about optional matters in accordance with Rabbi Yoshiya, who interprets the verse in accordance with the principle of amplifications and restrictions: **Granted, if you say** that the verse about an oath on an utterance **is written with regard to optional matters,** the words “to do evil, or to do good” serve to **restrict** the meaning of the verse and exclude the application of an oath on an utterance to **a matter** involving **a mitzva.** The Gemara asks rhetorically: **But if you say** that the verse **is written** referring **to a matter** involving **a mitzva, what** do the words “to do evil, or to do good” serve to **restrict?**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: מָה אִם הָרְשׁוּת כּוּ׳. וְרַבָּנַן – שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **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? The Rabbis then asked him why he thinks one should be liable for an oath about a mitzva, since one would be exempt if it were inverted from positive to negative, rendering it an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva, which does not take effect. The Gemara comments: **The Rabbis’** objection **to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira is well stated.**


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

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אָמַר לָךְ: אַטּוּ הֲטָבַת אֲחֵרִים – לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיתַהּ בִּכְלַל הֲרָעַת אֲחֵרִים, וְרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא? הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקִיּוּם מִצְוָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּבִיטּוּל מִצְוָה, רַבְּיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira** could **say to you: Isn’t** there the case of an oath involving **doing good to others, even though it does not include** the possibility of being inverted to include liability for an oath concerning **harming others, but** nevertheless **the Merciful One has amplified** the *halakha* to include it? **Here also, with regard to** an oath to **perform a mitzva, even though** it **does not** include the possibility of being inverted to include liability for an oath concerning **refraining from** performing **a mitzva, the Merciful One has amplified** the *halakha* to include it.


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

וְרַבָּנַן – הָתָם, אִיתֵיהּ בְּ״לֹא אֵיטִיב״; הָכָא מִי אִיתֵיהּ בְּ״לֹא אֲקַיֵּים״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how could **the Rabbis** respond? They could say that **there,** with regard to an oath to do good to others, **there is** the possibility of inverting the oath to: **I will not do good. Here,** with regard to an oath to perform a mitzva, **is there** any possibility of a valid oath: **I will not perform** a mitzva?


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

**מַתְנִי׳** ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ״; ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״; ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״; וַאֲכָלָהּ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one says: On my **oath I will not eat this loaf,** and he then says again: On my **oath I will not eat it,** and again: On my **oath I will not eat it, and he** then **ate it, he is liable only once.** Once the first oath had taken effect, the subsequent oaths could not, as a prohibition cannot take effect where another prohibition is already in place.


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

זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי – שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קׇרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is an oath on an utterance, for which** one is **liable** to receive **lashes for intentionally** breaking **it, and for unwittingly** breaking **it** one is liable to bring **a sliding-scale offering.**


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

שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא – חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
For **an oath** taken **in vain,** one is **liable** to receive **lashes when** it is taken **intentionally, and** one is **exempt when** it is taken **unwittingly.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **to teach** the mishna such that the wording of the first oath is: On my **oath I will not eat** this loaf, and then the wording of the second oath is: On my **oath I will not eat it?**


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

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וַהֲדַר אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״ – דְּלָא מִיחַיַּיב אֶלָּא חֲדָא; אֲבָל אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״ וַהֲדַר אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ – מִיחַיַּיב תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This teaches us** that **the reason that he is liable only once** is **that he said: I will not eat** this loaf, **and then said: I will not eat it. But** if he had **said: I will not eat it, and then had said: I will not eat** this loaf, **he would be liable twice.**


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

כִּדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָכַל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת – חַיָּיב. ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶת כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava, as Rava says:** If one says: On my **oath I will not eat this loaf, once he has eaten an olive-bulk of it** he is **liable,** as this oath is understood to mean that it is prohibited for him to eat any of the loaf. If he says: On my oath **I will not eat it, he is not liable unless he eats the whole** loaf. The words: I will not eat it, indicate that his oath applies only to eating the entire loaf. Accordingly, when the first oath is: I will not eat it, and the second oath is: I will not eat this loaf, the second oath can take effect, as it generates a new prohibition that applies to each and every olive-bulk of the loaf.


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

״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״, וַאֲכָלָהּ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת כּוּ׳. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one says: On my oath I will not eat this loaf, and he then says again: On my oath I will not eat it, and again: On my **oath I will not eat it, and he** then **ate it, he is liable only once.** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the mishna to mention **this additional,** third, oath: I will not eat it?


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

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: חִיּוּבָא הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא – הָא שְׁבוּעָה אִיכָּא; דְּאִי מַשְׁכַּחַת רַוְוחָא – חָיְילָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This teaches us** that **there is no liability** where one states redundant oaths, **but there is an oath;** the final oath is not completely discounted, so **that if you find room,** i.e., an application, for the additional oath, **it goes into effect.**


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

לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לְכִדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁאִם נִשְׁאַל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה – עָלְתָה לוֹ שְׁנִיָּה תַּחְתֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**For what** matter is this ***halakha*** relevant? It is relevant **for** the statement **of Rava, as Rava says that if one requested of** a halakhic authority **to** dissolve **the first oath,** and he did so, **the second one counts for him in its place** unless it, too, was dissolved.


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

לֵימָא מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ: מִי שֶׁנָּדַר שְׁתֵּי נְזִירוֹת, וּמָנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְהִפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ קׇרְבָּן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁאַל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה – עָלְתָה לוֹ שְׁנִיָּה בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the following *baraita* **supports his** opinion: With regard to **one who took two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first** term of naziriteship and **separated an offering for it, and afterward requested** and received dissolution **of the first** vow from a halakhic authority, **the second** term **was counted for him in** the observance of **the first** term, and he is not required to be a nazirite further. This indicates that the second vow went into effect retroactively once the first was dissolved, and the same would be true in the case of two oaths.


###### Shevuot 27b:17
[Shevuot 27b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27b:17)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם נְזִירוּת מִיהָא אִיתַאּ, דְּכִי מָנֵי לְרִאשׁוֹנָה, בָּעֵי מִיהְדָּר מִימְנָא לִשְׁנִיָּה בְּלָא שְׁאֵלָה. הָכָא, שְׁבוּעָה שְׁנִיָּה מִי אִיתַאּ כְּלָל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** the second **naziriteship is there in any event, as once he counts the first** term, **he needs to return** and **count the second** if there is **no request** for dissolution. **Here,** if he does not request dissolution of the first oath, **is there a second oath at all?** Therefore one cannot find support for Rava’s opinion from the *baraita*.


###### Shevuot 27b:18
[Shevuot 27b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27b:18)

אָמַר רָבָא: נִשְׁבַּע עַל כִּכָּר וַאֲכָלָהּ – אִם שִׁיֵּיר מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת, נִשְׁאַל עָלֶיהָ; אֲכָלָהּ כּוּלָּהּ, אֵין נִשְׁאָל עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says:** If one **took an oath about a loaf and** then **ate it, if** he **left an olive-bulk of it,** he **may request** that his oath **about** the loaf be dissolved. If **he ate the whole** loaf, **he may no longer request** that his oath **about it** be dissolved.


###### Shevuot 27b:19
[Shevuot 27b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/27b:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ – מִכְּזַיִת קַמָּא עַבְדֵּיהּ לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ! אִי דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״ – מַאי אִירְיָא כְּזַיִת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What are the circumstances? If** one took an oath **where he said: I will not eat** this loaf, which Rava, as cited above, understands as rendering it prohibited for him to eat any part of the loaf, then **with the first olive-bulk** that he ate **he** already **committed his transgression. If** he took an oath **where he said: I will not eat it,** which Rava understands as rendering it prohibited for him to eat only the whole loaf, **why** does Rava mention **specifically** that he left over an **olive-bulk?**