Study Shevuot folio 21B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אימא סיפא: זו היא שבועת שוא שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה פטור. זו היא למעוטי מאי? מאי לאו למעוטי ״אכלתי״ ו״לא אכלתי״ – דלא לקי?
The Talmud asks: Say the latter clause of the Mishnah (29a): Which oath is an oath taken in vain? It is when one takes an oath to deny that which is known to people to be true, like one says with regard to a stone column that it is made of gold. This is an oath taken in vain, for which one is liable to receive lashes if he takes the oath intentionally, and for which he is exempt if he takes it unwittingly. When the Mishnah says: This is an oath taken in vain, it is to exclude what? What, isn’t that phrase added to the Mishnah to exclude one who takes an oath saying: I ate, or: I did not eat, teaching that he is not flogged?
לא; זו היא דעל שגגתה פטור מקרבן, אבל ״אכלתי״ ו״לא אכלתי״ על שגגתה חייב קרבן; ורבי עקיבא היא, דמחייב לשעבר כלהבא.
The Talmud responds: No, the Mishnah adds: This is an oath, to teach that for violating the prohibition against taking an oath in vain unwittingly, one is exempt from bringing an offering; but one who takes an oath saying: I ate, or: I did not eat, is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting violation. And this is in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, who deems one liable to bring an offering for oaths referring to the past just like one is liable for oaths referring to the future.
הא אמרת רישא רבי ישמעאל היא! רישא רבי ישמעאל וסיפא רבי עקיבא?! כולה רבי עקיבא, ורישא לאו למעוטי ״אכלתי״ ו״לא אכלתי״ מקרבן, אלא למעוטי ״אוכל״ ולא אכל ממלקות, אבל קרבן מיחייב.
The Talmud asks: But didn’t you say that the first clause of that Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yishmael? How can the first clause follow R' Yishmael’s opinion and the latter clause follow R' Akiva’s conflicting opinion? The Talmud answers: The entire Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, and the first clause does not serve to exclude one who took an oath saying: I ate, or: I did not eat, from the liability to bring an offering. Rather, it serves to exclude one who took an oath saying: I will eat, and who subsequently did not eat, from the liability to receive lashes. But he is still liable to bring an offering.