## Shevuot Daf 3b

###### Shevuot 3b:1
[Shevuot 3b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:1)

הָא דּוּמְיָא דְּמַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים קָתָנֵי – מָה הָתָם כּוּלְּהוּ לְחִיּוּבָא, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כּוּלְּהוּ לְחִיּוּבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** the mishna **teaches** these cases **similar to** the different **shades of** leprous **marks,** which indicates that **just as there, all** four **of them** are shades **for** which there is **liability** to bring an offering, **so too here,** with regard to oaths and the cases of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, **all** four **of them** are cases **for** which there is **liability** to bring an offering.


###### Shevuot 3b:2
[Shevuot 3b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:2)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל; וְכִי לָא מְחַיֵּיב רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְשֶׁעָבַר – קׇרְבָּן; אֲבָל מַלְקוֹת חַיּוֹבֵי מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a different resolution: **Actually,** the mishna expresses the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael. And while Rabbi Yishmael does not deem one liable for** oaths **pertaining to the past,** that is only with regard to liability to bring **an offering; but he does deem one liable** to be administered **lashes.**


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

וְכִדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר דּוּמְיָא דִּשְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא; מָה שָׁוְא לְשֶׁעָבַר, אַף שֶׁקֶר נָמֵי לְשֶׁעָבַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rava, as Rava says: The Torah explicitly amplifies** the prohibition of taking **a false oath** to be **similar to** the prohibition of **an oath taken in vain,** to teach that one is flogged for its violation. It follows that **just as** an oath taken in **vain pertains to the past** and renders one liable to receive lashes, **so too,** taking **a false** oath that **pertains to the past** renders one liable to receive lashes.


###### Shevuot 3b:4
[Shevuot 3b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:4)

בִּשְׁלָמָא ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ – כִּדְרָבָא; ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וְאָכַל נָמֵי – לָאו שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא; אֶלָּא ״אוֹכַל״ וְלֹא אָכַל – אַמַּאי? לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted** that one who stated: On my oath **I ate,** but in fact he did not eat, **or** one who stated: On my oath **I did not eat,** but in fact he ate, is liable to receive lashes, as this is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rava.** And **also** if one stated: On my oath **I will not eat, and he ate** in violation of his oath, he is liable to receive lashes, as it **is a prohibition that involves an action,** and, in general, such prohibitions are punishable by flogging. **But** if one stated: On my oath **I will eat, and** in violation of his oath **he did not eat, why** should he be liable to receive lashes? It **is a prohibition that does not involve an action.** The generally accepted principle is that one is not liable to receive lashes for violating a prohibition without performing an action.


###### Shevuot 3b:5
[Shevuot 3b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:5)

קָסָבַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yishmael** disagrees with the generally accepted principle and **holds** that **one is flogged for** the violation of **a prohibition that does not involve an action.**


###### Shevuot 3b:6
[Shevuot 3b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:6)

אִי הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** then **a difficulty** arises between one statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan and** another statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Shevuot 3b:7
[Shevuot 3b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:7)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ***halakha*** is always **in accordance with** the ruling of **an unattributed mishna.** Since the mishna here is unattributed and assumes that one is flogged for taking a false oath, Rabbi Yoḥanan should rule that this is the *halakha*.


###### Shevuot 3b:8
[Shevuot 3b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:8)

וְאִתְּמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ הַיּוֹם״, וְעָבַר הַיּוֹם וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק הִיא, וְהַתְרָאַת סָפֵק לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** an amoraic dispute **was stated** with regard to one who said: On my **oath I will eat this loaf today, and the day passed and he did not eat it. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: He is not flogged** for taking a false oath. They disagree with regard to the reason that he is not flogged. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged due to** the fact **that it is a prohibition that does not involve an action,** as he violates the oath by failing to perform an action rather than by performing an action, **and** the principle is: With regard to **any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its** violation. **And Reish Lakish says: He is not flogged** because **it is an uncertain forewarning,** as one cannot forewarn him before he fails to fulfill the oath because as long as time remains in the day he can still later eat the loaf and fulfill the oath; **and an uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning.** Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not rule in accordance with the mishna here.


###### Shevuot 3b:9
[Shevuot 3b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:9)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְתָמָא אַחֲרִינָא אַשְׁכַּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves the difficulty: **Rabbi Yoḥanan found another unattributed** mishna which holds that one is not flogged for a prohibition that does not involve an action, and he rules in accordance with that mishna.


###### Shevuot 3b:10
[Shevuot 3b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:10)

הֵי סְתָמָא? אִילֵּימָא הַאי סְתָמָא – דִּתְנַן: אֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר בַּטָּהוֹר וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא – אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Which** other **unattributed** mishna did he find? **If we say** he found **this unattributed** mishna, **as we learned** (*Pesaḥim* 84a): **But one who leaves over** some of the meat **of a ritually pure** Paschal offering until the morning of the fifteenth of Nisan **and one who breaks** a bone **of a ritually impure** Paschal offering **are not flogged** with **the forty** lashes, that is difficult.


###### Shevuot 3b:11
[Shevuot 3b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:11)

בִּשְׁלָמָא שׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא, דִּכְתִיב ״וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בּוֹ״ – בְּכָשֵׁר וְלֹא בְּפָסוּל. אֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר בַּטָּהוֹר, מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִים עָלָיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
First, the Gemara explains how this mishna demonstrates Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: **Granted** that **breaking** a bone **of an impure** Paschal offering does not incur lashes, **as it is written: “Nor shall you break a bone in it”** (Exodus 12:46). The term “in it” indicates that the verse refers only **to a valid** Paschal offering, **but not to a disqualified** one, such as one that is impure. **But** in the case of **one who leaves over** some of the meat **of a pure** Paschal offering, **what is the reason** he is not flogged? **Is it not because it is** a violation of **a prohibition that does not involve an action, and for** a violation of **any prohibition that does not involve an action one is not flogged?**


###### Shevuot 3b:12
[Shevuot 3b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:12)

וּמִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב הִיא – דְּאָמַר לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא – וּמִשּׁוּם דְּבָא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה; הָא לָאו הָכִי, לָקֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now questions this explanation of the mishna: **But from where** is it apparent that this mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Ya’akov, who says** that for a violation of **a prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged? Perhaps** the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and** he holds that the reason the mishna rules that one is not flogged is **due to** the fact **that the verse comes to position** the **positive mitzva** of burning the leftover meat **after** the **prohibition** of leaving over the meat, and one is not flogged for a prohibition whose violation obligates one in a positive mitzva. **But were it not for this, one would be flogged,** despite the fact it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. Since the unattributed mishna is not necessarily in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov’s opinion, it cannot be the basis of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling.


###### Shevuot 3b:13
[Shevuot 3b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:13)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר, וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ״ – בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְלָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִים עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the source of Rabbi Yaakov’s and Rabbi Yehuda’s opinions: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: “And **you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn in fire”** (Exodus 12:10). **The verse comes to position** the **positive mitzva** of burning the leftover meat **after** the **prohibition** against leaving over the meat, **to say that one is not flogged for its** violation; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Ya’akov says: This is not for** that **reason; rather,** it is **due to** the fact **that it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, and for** a violation of **a prohibition that does not involve an action one is not flogged.**


###### Shevuot 3b:14
[Shevuot 3b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/3b:14)

אֶלָּא הַאי סְתָמָא אַשְׁכַּח: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״, וַאֲכָלָהּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Yoḥanan **found this unattributed** mishna, which teaches (27b): If one states: On my **oath I will not eat this loaf,** and immediately states: On my **oath I will not eat it, and** then **he ate it,**