## Shevuot Daf 36a

###### Shevuot 36a:1
[Shevuot 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:1)

וּמִנַּיִן לַעֲשׂוֹת אָלָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ שְׁבוּעָה כְּאָלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ שְׁבוּעָה, וּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ אָלָה כִּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ אָלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה״ – וְשָׁמְעָה אָלָה, וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where** is it derived **to render an *ala* with which** the word **oath is not** written **like an *ala* with which** the word **oath is** written **and an oath with which** the word ***ala* is not** written **like an oath with which** the word ***ala* is** written? **The verse states: “And he hears the voice of an *ala*”** (Leviticus 5:1). The phrase “the voice of an *ala*” is unnecessary, as it would have been sufficient to write: And he heard an *ala*. It is interpreted as though it were written: **And he heard an *ala* and he heard a voice.**


###### Shevuot 36a:2
[Shevuot 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מִנַּיִן לְ״אָלָה״ שֶׁהִיא שְׁבוּעָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּבֵא אֹתוֹ בְּאָלָה וְגוֹ׳״; וּכְתִיב: ״וְגַם בַּמֶּלֶךְ נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר מָרָד אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁבִּיעוֹ בֵּאלֹהִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu says: From where** is it derived **with regard to *ala* that it is an oath?** It is derived **as it is stated:** “And he took from the seed of the monarchy…**and brought it into an *ala*”** (Ezekiel 17:13); **and it is stated** with regard to Zedekiah, who was from the seed of the monarchy: **“And he also rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar who had administered an oath to him by God”** (II Chronicles 36:13). This indicates that the *ala* is an oath.


###### Shevuot 36a:3
[Shevuot 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:3)

תָּנָא: ״אָרוּר״ – בּוֹ נִידּוּי, בּוֹ קְלָלָה, בּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara proceeds to define a related term. It is **taught** with regard to the term ***arur*:** There is an element of **ostracism within it,** there is an element of **curse within it,** and there is an element of **oath within it.**


###### Shevuot 36a:4
[Shevuot 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:4)

בּוֹ נִידּוּי – דִּכְתִיב: ״אוֹרוּ מֵרוֹז אָמַר מַלְאַךְ ה׳, אֹרוּ אָרוֹר יֹשְׁבֶיהָ״, וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: בְּאַרְבַּע מְאָה שִׁיפּוּרֵי שַׁמְּתֵיהּ בָּרָק לְמֵרוֹז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: There is an element of **ostracism within it, as it is written** in the song of Deborah: **“Curse [*oru*] Meroz, said the angel of God; cursed with a curse [*oru aror*] are its inhabitants”** (Judges 5:23). **And Ulla says: With** blasts from **four hundred *shofarot*, Barak ostracized** the city of **Meroz,** indicating that the term *arur* has the connotation of ostracism.


###### Shevuot 36a:5
[Shevuot 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:5)

בּוֹ קְלָלָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ עַל הַקְּלָלָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is an element of **curse within it, as it is written** with regard to the ceremony at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal: **“And these shall stand for the curse”** (Deuteronomy 27:13), **and it is written: “Cursed [*arur*] be the man who fashions a graven image,** an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret. And all the people shall answer and say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:15).


###### Shevuot 36a:6
[Shevuot 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:6)

בּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּשְׁבַּע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּעֵת הַהִיא לֵאמֹר, אָרוּר הָאִישׁ לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״. וְדִלְמָא תַּרְתֵּי עֲבַד לְהוּ – אַשְׁבְּעִינְהוּ וְלַיְיטִינְהוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is an element of **oath within it, as it is written: “And Joshua administered an oath at that time saying: *Arur* be the man before God** who shall arise and rebuild this city, Jericho” (Joshua 6:26). The Gemara challenges: **But perhaps** Joshua **performed two** actions **to** the people; **he administered an oath to them and he cursed them,** and the term *arur* relates to the curse, not to the oath.


###### Shevuot 36a:7
[Shevuot 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:7)

אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל נִגַּשׂ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, וַיֹּאֶל שָׁאוּל אֶת הָעָם לֵאמֹר, אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יֹאכַל וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וִיהוֹנָתָן לֹא שָׁמַע בְּהַשְׁבִּיעַ אָבִיו אֶת הָעָם״. וְדִלְמָא הָכָא נָמֵי תַּרְתֵּי עֲבַד לְהוּ – אַשְׁבְּעִינְהוּ וְלַיְיטִינְהוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the fact that there is an element of oath in the term *arur* is derived **from here: “And the men of Israel were distressed on that day, and Saul administered an oath [*vayyoel*] to the people, saying: *Arur* is the man who eats** bread until the evening and I will be avenged on my enemies” (I Samuel 14:24). **And it is written: “But Jonathan did not hear when his father administered the oath to the people”** (I Samuel 14:27). The Gemara challenges: **But perhaps, here too,** Saul **performed two** actions **to** the people; **he administered an oath to them and he cursed them.**


###### Shevuot 36a:8
[Shevuot 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:8)

מִי כְּתִיב ״וְאָרוּר״?! הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, הָתָם נָמֵי לָא כְּתִיב ״וְאָרוּר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Is it written** in that context ***ve’arur*,** with a conjunctional prefix, which would indicate that *arur* is independent of the oath that was administered? *Arur* is written without a prefix, indicating that it is an intrinsic part of the oath. The Gemara notes: **Now that you have arrived at this** insight, **there too,** in the context of Joshua, ***ve’arur*** with a conjunctional prefix **is not written,** indicating that *arur* is an intrinsic part of the oath.


###### Shevuot 36a:9
[Shevuot 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: ״אָמֵן״ – בּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה, בּוֹ קַבָּלַת דְּבָרִים, בּוֹ הַאֲמָנַת דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says** with regard to the term **amen:** There is an element of **oath within it,** there is an element of **acceptance of the statement** and agreement **within it,** and there is an element of **confirmation of the statement,** i.e., that he believes and prays that the statement will be fulfilled, **within it.**


###### Shevuot 36a:10
[Shevuot 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:10)

בּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: There is an element of **oath within it, as it is written:** “And the priest shall administer an oath to the woman…**and the woman shall say: Amen, amen”** (Numbers 5:21–22). “Amen” is the oath that the woman takes.


###### Shevuot 36a:11
[Shevuot 36a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:11)

בּוֹ קַבָּלַת דְּבָרִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָקִים אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם, וְאָמַר כׇּל הָעָם אָמֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is an element of **acceptance of the statement within it, as it is written: “Cursed is he who shall not confirm the matters of this Torah to perform them; and all the people shall say: Amen”** (Deuteronomy 27:26), expressing their agreement to fulfill all the matters of the Torah.


###### Shevuot 36a:12
[Shevuot 36a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:12)

בּוֹ הַאֲמָנַת דְּבָרִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר יִרְמְיָה [הַנָּבִיא] (אֶל חֲנַנְיָהוּ), אָמֵן כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה ה׳, יָקֵם ה׳ אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is an element of **confirmation of the statement within it, as it is written: “And Jeremiah the prophet said: Amen, may the Lord do so; may the Lord uphold your statement”** (Jeremiah 28:6).


###### Shevuot 36a:13
[Shevuot 36a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״לָאו״ – שְׁבוּעָה, ״הֵן״ – שְׁבוּעָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״לָאו״ שְׁבוּעָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עוֹד הַמַּיִם לְמַבּוּל״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מֵי נֹחַ זֹאת לִי אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי״. אֶלָּא ״הֵן״ שְׁבוּעָה – מְנָא לַן? סְבָרָא הוּא – מִדְּ״לָאו״ שְׁבוּעָה, ״הֵן״ נָמֵי שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Elazar says: No,** or any negative expression, can be **an oath,** and **yes,** or any positive expression, can be **an oath.** The Gemara notes: **Granted** that **no** can be **an oath, as it is written: “And the waters shall no more become a flood”** (Genesis 9:15). **And it is written** with regard to that negative commitment: **“As this is as the waters of Noah unto Me; as I have taken an oath** that the waters of Noah shall no more pass over the earth” (Isaiah 54:9). **But from where do we** derive the fact that **yes** can be **an oath?** The Gemara answers: **It is** based on **logical reasoning; from** the fact **that no** can be **an oath, yes too** can be **an oath.**


###### Shevuot 36a:14
[Shevuot 36a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:14)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְהוּא דְּאָמַר ״לָאו״ ״לָאו״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר ״הֵן״ ״הֵן״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי; דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יִכָּרֵת כׇּל בָּשָׂר עוֹד מִמֵּי הַמַּבּוּל״, ״וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עוֹד הַמַּיִם לְמַבּוּל״; וּמִדְּ״לָאו״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי, ״הֵן״ נָמֵי תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: And** a negative expression **is** an oath only in a case **where one said no, no,** stating the term **two times, or** it is in a case **where one said yes, yes,** stating the term **two times, as it is written: “All flesh shall not be excised any more by floodwaters”** (Genesis 9:11), and it is again written: **“And the waters shall no more become a flood”** (Genesis 9:15). **And from** the fact **that no** is an oath only when stated **two times, yes, too,** is an oath only when stated **two times.**


###### Shevuot 36a:15
[Shevuot 36a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:15)

הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכוּלָּן – חַיָּיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **One who curses** God **employing any of** these names or appellations of God is **liable** to be executed; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis deem** him **exempt.**


###### Shevuot 36a:16
[Shevuot 36a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ [אִישׁ] כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם ה׳ מוֹת יוּמָת״! יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל שֵׁם הַמְיוּחָד בִּלְבַד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכִּינּוּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְגוֹ׳״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַל שֵׁם מְיוּחָד בְּמִיתָה, וְעַל הַכִּינּוּיִין בְּאַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** that it is written: **“Each and every man who shall curse his God shall bear his sin”** (Leviticus 24:15). **Why** must **the verse state** this? **Wasn’t it already stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death”** (Leviticus 24:16)? One **might** have thought that **one would be liable only for** cursing **the ineffable name** of God **alone. From where** is it derived **to include** liability for one who curses **the appellations** of God? It is derived as **the verse states: “Each and every man who shall curse his God,”** indicating that one is liable **in any case,** even for cursing an appellation. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis say: For** cursing **the ineffable name** of God, one is liable to be executed **with** a court-imposed **death** penalty, as it is stated explicitly in the verse. **And for** cursing one of the **appellations** of God, one is liable **for** violating **a prohibition,** but he is not liable to be executed.


###### Shevuot 36a:17
[Shevuot 36a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:17)

וְהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְכוּ׳. מַאן חֲכָמִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And one who curses his father and his mother** employing any of these names or appellations of God is liable to be executed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis deem him exempt. The Gemara asks: **Who are the Rabbis** whose opinion is cited here?


###### Shevuot 36a:18
[Shevuot 36a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:18)

רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״בְּנׇקְבוֹ שֵׁם יוּמָת״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שֵׁם״? לִימֵּד עַל הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּקַלְּלֵם בַּשֵּׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei says:** It is stated with regard to one who blasphemes God: **“When he blasphemes a name, he shall be put to death”** (Leviticus 24:16). **Why** must **the verse state “a name,”** when it is stated at the beginning of the verse: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death”? This extraneous word “name” **taught with regard to one who curses his father or his mother that he is not liable** to be executed through stoning **until he curses them in the name** of God.


###### Shevuot 36a:19
[Shevuot 36a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:19)

וְהַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵירוֹ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **One who curses himself or another** employing any of these names or appellations of God violates a prohibition. **Rabbi Yannai says: And everyone agrees** that this is the *halakha*. Even the Rabbis, who hold that one who blasphemes God or curses his parents is liable only if he employs the Tetragrammaton, agree here that one is liable to receive lashes when he curses employing an appellation.


###### Shevuot 36a:20
[Shevuot 36a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:20)

עַצְמוֹ – דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ מְאֹד״ – כִּדְרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״, ״פֶּן״ וְ״אַל״ – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וַחֲבֵירוֹ – דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to cite sources for these prohibitions. The prohibition against cursing **oneself** is derived **as it is written: “Only observe for yourself, and keep your soul diligently”** (Deuteronomy 4:9). This is **in accordance with** that **which Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Everywhere** in the Torah **that** the terms **observe, lest, or do not are stated, it is nothing other than a prohibition.** One who curses himself does not keep, i.e., take care of, himself and consequently violates the prohibition. **And** cursing **another** is derived **as it is written: “Do not curse the deaf”** (Leviticus 19:14), which applies to others just as it does to one who is deaf.


###### Shevuot 36a:21
[Shevuot 36a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:21)

״יַכְּךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים״, וְכֵן ״יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים״ – זוֹ הִיא אָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה. יָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר הָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּדִתְנַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כַּנֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: **The Lord God shall strike you** (see Deuteronomy 28:22), **and likewise** if one says: **God shall strike you** if you do not come to testify, **that is a curse that is written in the Torah.** The Gemara relates: **Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and he sat and stated the mishna** verbatim **as we learned** it. Rav Yehuda **said to him: Employ a euphemism** and formulate it in the third person rather than the second person: God shall strike him instead of you, so that it will not sound as though you are cursing your teacher.


###### Shevuot 36a:22
[Shevuot 36a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:22)

יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: ״גַּם אֵל יִתׇּצְךָ לָנֶצַח, יַחְתְּךָ וְיִסָּחֲךָ מֵאֹהֶל, וְשֵׁרֶשְׁךָ מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים סֶלָה״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כַּנֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, the Gemara relates: **A certain one of the Sages sat before Rav Kahana, and he sat and said** the verse: **“God will likewise break you forever; He will take you up and pluck you from the tent, and uproot you from the land of the living, Selah”** (Psalms 52:7). Rav Kahana **said to him: Employ a euphemism** and formulate it in the third person rather than the second person, so that it will not sound as though you are cursing your teacher.


###### Shevuot 36a:23
[Shevuot 36a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:23)

תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי מַתְנִיתִין, אֲבָל בִּקְרָאֵי אֵימָא לָא מְכַנֵּינַן; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **two** incidents to relate the same concept? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to relate the second incident as well. **Lest you say** that **this statement** applies only to **the mishna,** as in the Oral Torah, where the content, not the formulation, is significant, emending the text in the interest of euphemism is permitted; **but with regard to verses** in the Bible, where the formulation, i.e., each word, is significant, **say** that **we do not employ a euphemism.** Therefore, the Gemara **teaches us** that it is permitted to employ a euphemism even when reciting verses.


###### Shevuot 36a:24
[Shevuot 36a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:24)

״אַל יַכְּךָ״, וִ״יבָרֶכְךָ״, וְ״יֵיטִיב לָךְ״ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one says to the witnesses: God **shall not strike you, or:** God **shall bless you, or:** God **shall benefit you** if you come and testify, **Rabbi Meir deems** him **liable,** as one may infer from that statement that if he fails to testify God will strike him, or will not bless or benefit him. **And the Rabbis deem** him **exempt** because the curse is not explicitly stated.


###### Shevuot 36a:25
[Shevuot 36a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:25)

וְהָא לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִכְּלָל לָאו אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵן! אֵיפוֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** it so that **Rabbi Meir does not accept** the principle: **From a negative** statement **you** can **infer a positive** statement, and in an agreement, he requires the parties to explicitly state both the positive and the negative stipulations? The Gemara says: **Reverse** the attribution of the opinions and say that it is the Rabbis who hold that the witness is liable and it is Rabbi Meir who deems him exempt.


###### Shevuot 36a:26
[Shevuot 36a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:26)

כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק, תְּנָא כְּדִתְנַן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲנַן תְּנַן הָכִי, וְכִי אֲתָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק תָּנֵי הָכִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דַּוְקָא תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **When Rabbi Yitzḥak came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he taught** the mishna **as we learned** it and did not reverse the attribution of the opinions. **Rav Yosef said: Now that we have learned** the mishna in **this** formulation, **and when he came, Rabbi Yitzḥak taught** the mishna in **this** formulation, **conclude from it** that the formulation that **we learned** in the mishna was taught **specifically** in that manner and that is the correct formulation.


###### Shevuot 36a:27
[Shevuot 36a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:27)

אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא! כִּי לֵית לֵיהּ – בְּמָמוֹנָא; אֲבָל בְּאִיסּוּרָא אִית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** the question remains **difficult,** as Rabbi Meir does not accept the principle: From a negative statement you can infer a positive statement. The Gemara answers: **When** Rabbi Meir **does not accept** that principle, it is only **in** cases involving **monetary matters; but in** cases involving **ritual matters,** e.g., an oath of testimony discussed in the mishna, **he accepts** the principle, and the witness is liable even in that case.


###### Shevuot 36a:28
[Shevuot 36a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:28)

הֲרֵי סוֹטָה – דְּאִיסּוּרָא הוּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But *sota* is** a case involving **ritual,** and not monetary **matters,** and the verse states only what will befall the *sota* if she did not commit adultery: “And if you did not go astray to defilement, while under your husband, you shall be absolved [*hinnaki*]” (Numbers 5:19), and the verse does not state what will befall the woman if she committed adultery.


###### Shevuot 36a:29
[Shevuot 36a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/36a:29)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּר חֲכִינַאי: ״הִנָּקִי״ כְּתִיב; טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״הִנָּקִי״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – מִכְּלַל לָאו אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵן לָא אָמְרִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A difficulty is raised: According to Rabbi Meir, who does not accept the principle: From a negative statement you can infer a positive statement, both the positive and the negative eventualities should have been written in the verse. **And Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥakhinai says** to resolve the difficulty: ***Hinnaki* is written,** meaning: You shall be absolved. But since it is written without the letter *yod*, it is interpreted as though *ḥinnaki* is written, meaning: You shall be strangulated, which is the eventuality if she committed adultery. The Gemara concludes: **The reason** that this verse is not difficult is **that *hinnaki* is written** and *ḥinnaki* is interpreted; **but** if **that** were **not** the case, **we do not say: From a negative** statement **you** can **infer a positive** statement. Apparently, even in ritual matters, Rabbi Meir does not accept the principle.