Study Shabbat folio 69B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
קא משמע לן. מיתיבי: איזוהי שגגת שבועת ביטוי לשעבר — שאם אמר ״יודע אני ששבועה זו אסורה, אבל איני יודע אם חייבין עליה קרבן או לא״ — חייב! הא מני? מונבז היא.
Therefore, Abaye teaches us that this is not so. The Talmud raises an objection from a baraita: What is an unwitting violation of an oath on a statement relating to the past? What is an example of one who unwittingly swore falsely with regard to an incident that occurred in the past? It cannot be a case where he forgot the incident, as in that case he is exempt from bringing an offering. It is a case where if he said: I know that taking this false oath is prohibited, but I do not know whether or not one is liable to bring an offering for swearing falsely, he is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression. Apparently, with regard to an oath on a statement, unwitting with regard to the sacrifice renders the action unwitting. The Talmud rejects this: In accordance with whose opinion is this Mishnah? It is the opinion of Munbaz. In his opinion, one who commits a transgression while unaware whether or not one is liable to bring an offering if he performs that transgression unwittingly is considered to have performed the transgression unwittingly.
(לישנא אחרינא: מני? אילימא מונבז — פשיטא, השתא בכל התורה דלאו חידוש הוא אמר שגגת קרבן שמה שגגה, הכא דחידוש הוא — לא כל שכן?! אלא לאו רבנן היא, ותיובתא דאביי! תיובתא. )
There is another version of the discussion of Abaye’s statement where, after quoting the halakha with regard to an oath on a statement, the question was raised: In accordance with whose opinion is this Mishnah? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz, that is obvious: Now, if throughout the entire Torah where there is no novelty in the obligation to bring an offering, he said that unwitting with regard to an offering is considered unwitting; here, where there is a novelty and the offering in the case of an oath on a statement is more significant than other sin-offerings, certainly unwitting with regard to the offering should be considered unwitting. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye? The Talmud concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.