## Shevuot Daf 29b

###### Shevuot 29b:1
[Shevuot 29b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:1)

אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּהְוֵי הֲפָרָה לִשְׁבוּעֲתַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Moses administered the oath in this manner **so that there would not be** any possibility of the **nullification of their oath.** An oath taken with public consent cannot be dissolved. In this case, Moses and God constitute the public that gives its consent to the oath administered to the people. This was the reason for Moses’ insistence that the oath was taken according to his and God’s awareness; it was not because there was a possibility that the people could take the oath according to a private meaning.


###### Shevuot 29b:2
[Shevuot 29b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:2)

וְ״אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְּקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבַּד״. וְלָא?! וְהָא הַהוּא דַּהֲוָה בִּשְׁנֵי שַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא, הֲוָה חַד דְּאַחְזֵיק תְּלֵיסַר אוּרָוָותָא תִּיבְנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches with regard to an oath about a matter that is impossible, e.g., If I did not see a camel flying through the air, or: **If I did not see a snake** as large **as the beam of the olive press.** The Gemara asks: **And** are there **no** snakes that large? **But wasn’t there a certain** snake **during the years** of the reign **of King Shapur, one** snake **that** could **contain,** i.e., swallow, **thirteen stables of straw?**


###### Shevuot 29b:3
[Shevuot 29b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:3)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּטָרוּף. כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי מִיטְרָף טְרִיפִין! בְּשֶׁגַּבּוֹ טָרוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said:** The size of the snake is not the subject of the analogy. The oath is referring **to** a snake that was **flat [*taruf* ]** like the beam of an olive press. The Gemara asks: **Aren’t they all flat?** The Gemara explains: Snakes’ undersides are flat. This oath is referring **to** a snake **whose back is flat.**


###### Shevuot 29b:4
[Shevuot 29b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:4)

״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״ כּוּ׳. הַשְׁתָּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי מִיחַיַּיב, מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא לָא מִיחַיַּיב?! הֲרֵי יָצְתָה שְׁבוּעָה לַשָּׁוְא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one said: On my **oath I will eat this loaf,** and later said: On my **oath I will not eat it,** the first oath is an oath on an utterance, and the second is an oath taken in vain. If he ate the loaf, he violated the prohibition against taking an oath in vain. If he did not eat it, he violated the prohibition against breaking an oath on an utterance. The Gemara asks: **Now,** if he did not eat it, **he is liable because** he violated his **oath on an utterance. Is he not** also **liable for an oath** taken **in vain? An oath was issued in vain** when he took the oath not to eat the loaf, as this required a violation of the oath he had taken to eat it.


###### Shevuot 29b:5
[Shevuot 29b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, תָּנֵי: אַף עַל שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said: Teach** the mishna with this emendation: If he did not eat it, he **also** violated the prohibition **against** breaking **an oath on an utterance.**


###### Shevuot 29b:6
[Shevuot 29b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּקְרוֹבִים וּבִרְחוֹקִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִין וּבִפְסוּלִין, בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קׇרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** As opposed to the *halakhot* of an oath of testimony, which will be discussed in the following chapter, the *halakhot* of **an oath on an utterance apply to men and to women, to relatives and to non-relatives, to those who are fit** to testify **and to those who are disqualified,** whether the oath is taken **in the presence of a court or not in the presence of a court,** i.e., when one takes an oath **on his own,** at his own initiative. **And for** violating an oath **intentionally** one is **liable** to receive **lashes, and for** doing so **unwittingly** he is liable to bring **a sliding-scale offering.**


###### Shevuot 29b:7
[Shevuot 29b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:7)

שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וּבִקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִין וּבִפְסוּלִין, בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – וּמִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Liability for **an oath** taken **in vain applies to men and to women, to relatives and to non-relatives, to those who are fit** to bear witness **and to those who are disqualified,** whether the oath is taken **in the presence of a court or not in the presence of a court, and** also when one takes an oath **on his own. And for** violating an oath **intentionally** one is **liable** to receive **lashes, and for** doing so **unwittingly** he is **exempt.**


###### Shevuot 29b:8
[Shevuot 29b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:8)

אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ, הַמּוּשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים חַיָּיב – ״אִם לֹא אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם״ וְ״לֹא הִנַּחְתִּי תְּפִלִּין הַיּוֹם״; ״מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי״, וְאָמַר ״אָמֵן״ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **both this,** an oath on an utterance, **and that,** an oath taken in vain, even if **he is administered the oath by others,** he is **liable.** For example, if one said: **If I did not eat today, or: I did not don phylacteries today,** and another said to him: **I administer an oath to you** that your statement is true, **and** the former **said: Amen,** he is **liable** if the statement was false.


###### Shevuot 29b:9
[Shevuot 29b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הָעוֹנֶה ״אָמֵן״ אַחַר שְׁבוּעָה – כְּמוֹצִיא שְׁבוּעָה בְּפִיו דָּמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says: Anyone who answers amen after** being administered **an oath is like one who expresses an oath with his** own **mouth, as it is written** in the context of the oath administered to a *sota*, a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful: **“And the woman shall say: Amen, amen”** (Numbers 5:22).


###### Shevuot 29b:10
[Shevuot 29b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:10)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין וּבָרָיְיתָא נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בְּנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וְלֹא בִּקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִין וְלֹא בִּפְסוּלִין; וְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּרְאוּיִן לְהָעִיד, וּבִפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ; וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין, עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava:** An inference from **the mishna and a *baraita* also** support this when they are read **precisely, as it is taught** in the mishna (30a): **The oath of testimony is practiced with regard to men but not with regard to women; with regard to non-relatives** of the litigants, **but not with regard to relatives; with regard to** those **fit** to testify **but not with regard to** those **unfit** to testify due to a transgression that they performed. **And** the oath of testimony **is practiced only with regard to** those **fit to testify. And** this oath applies both **in the presence of a court and not in the presence of a court,** i.e., when the witness takes the oath **on his own** that he has no knowledge of the matter. **But** if an oath is administered to the witnesses **by others, they are not liable until they deny** knowledge of the matter **in court** and take an oath to that effect; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Shevuot 29b:11
[Shevuot 29b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:11)

וְתַנְיָא בְּבָרַיְיתָא: שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת כֵּיצַד? אָמַר לְעֵדִים: ״בּוֹאוּ וְהַעִידוּנִי״; ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת״, אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ: ״אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת״; ״מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם״, וְאָמְרוּ (לוֹ) ״אָמֵן״ – בֵּין בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין, בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בֵּין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּפְרוּ בָּהֶם – חַיָּיבִין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before stating the inference from the mishna, Rav Pappa cites the *baraita*. **And** it **is taught in a *baraita*:** With regard to **an oath of testimony, how** is one liable to bring a sliding-scale offering? A person **said to witnesses: Come and testify for me.** They replied: On our **oath we do not know any testimony that concerns you,** i.e., we have no knowledge of the matter. **Alternatively, they said: We do not know any testimony that concerns you,** and he said to them: **I administer an oath to you, and they said to him: Amen. Whether** this oath was taken **in the presence of a court** or **whether** it was **not in the presence of a court, whether** it was taken by each witness **by himself** or **whether** it was administered **by others, once they denied** knowing testimony that they in fact knew, they **are liable;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Shevuot 29b:12
[Shevuot 29b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:12)

קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָא דְּעָנָה ״אָמֵן״, הָא דְּלָא עָנָה ״אָמֵן״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa asks: Aren’t the mishna and the *baraita* **difficult,** as they contradict **each other?** According to the mishna one is liable when the oath is administered by others only if it takes place in the presence of a court, while according to the *baraita* one is liable even not in the presence of a court. **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from it** that **this** statement in the *baraita*, where he is liable even not in the presence of a court, is referring to one **who answered amen** to the administered oath. **That** statement in the mishna is referring to one **who did not answer amen** and is therefore liable only in the presence of a court? The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from it** that it is so.


###### Shevuot 29b:13
[Shevuot 29b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:13)

אָמַר רָבִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין דְּהָכָא נָמֵי דַּיְקָא – דְּקָא תָּנֵי: ״שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וּבִקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִין וּבִפְסוּלִין, בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין – מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ אִין, מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים לָא; וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״זֶה וָזֶה מוּשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים – חַיָּיב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said in the name of Rava: The mishna that is here** (29b) **also** may be read **precisely** to support this point. **As it is taught** in the mishna: The *halakhot* of **an oath on an utterance apply to men and to women, to relatives and to non-relatives, to those who are fit** to testify **and to those who are disqualified,** whether the oath is taken **in the presence of a court or not in the presence of a court,** i.e., when one takes an oath **on his own,** at his own initiative. Ravina states his inference: On his own, **yes,** but administered **by others, no. And** it is **taught** in **the last clause** of the mishna: With regard to **this,** an oath on an utterance, **and that,** an oath taken in vain, even if **he is administered the oath by others,** he is **liable.**


###### Shevuot 29b:14
[Shevuot 29b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:14)

קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָא דְּעָנָה ״אָמֵן״, הָא דְּלָא עָנָה ״אָמֵן״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
These statements in the mishna are **difficult,** as they contradict **each other. Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from it** that **this** latter clause of the mishna is referring to one **who answered amen** to the administered oath. **That** former clause is referring to one **who did not answer amen** and is therefore liable only in the presence of a court.


###### Shevuot 29b:15
[Shevuot 29b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:15)

וְאֶלָּא שְׁמוּאֵל – מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? דּוּקְיָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** since his statement can be derived from tannaitic sources, **what is Shmuel teaching us?** The Gemara answers: **He is teaching us the precise** reading **of the mishna.** Since that *halakha* is not stated explicitly in the mishna, Shmuel saw fit to state it.


###### Shevuot 29b:16
[Shevuot 29b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/29b:16)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם**