ב"ה
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Shvuot - Chapter 3
Shvuot - Chapter 3
1Whenever a person takes one of these four types of oaths under compulsion, he is exempt from all liability.1 This applies to a person who at the outset took a false oath because of factors beyond his control as we explained,2 one who took an oath and then was subjected to compulsion and was not given the opportunity to fulfill his oath,3 or he was compelled to take an oath by a man of force. Therefore one may4 take an oath when compelled to by robbers,5 potential murders, and tax collectors.6אכָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעָה מֵאַרְבַּע מִינֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּאֹנֶס, הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. וְאֶחָד הַנִּשְׁבָּע מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ בְּאֹנֶס כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע וְנֶאֱנַס וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּהוּ לְקַיֵּם שְׁבוּעָתוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעוֹ אַנָּס. לְפִיכָךְ נִשְׁבָּעִין לֶחָרָמִין וְלַהוֹרְגִין וְלַמּוֹכְסִין.
2To which tax collector did we refer?7 To a tax collector that assumed the position on his own, who takes money without the license of the king or who takes money with the king’s license, but takes more for himself than the fixed measure, as explained in Hilchot Gezelah.8בבְּאֵיזֶה מוֹכֵס אָמְרוּ? בְּמוֹכֵס הָעוֹמֵד מֵאֵלָיו, שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ מָמוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת מֶלֶךְ הַמְּדִינָה, אוֹ שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ בִּרְשׁוּת הַמֶּלֶךְ, אֲבָל מוֹסִיף לְעַצְמוֹ עַל הַדָּבָר הַקָּצוּב, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת גְּזֵלָה.
3When a person is compelled to take an oath, to be exempt, while taking the oath, he must have the intent in his heart for the oath to apply to something for which he is exempt.9 Although generally, words in a person’s heart are of no consequence,10 since he cannot express his intent because of the forces beyond his control, he can rely on the intent in his heart.גוְצָרִיךְ הַנִּשְׁבָּע בְּאֹנֶס לִהְיוֹת כַּוָּנָתוֹ בְּלִבּוֹ בְּעֵת הַשְּׁבוּעָה לְדָבָר הַפּוֹטְרוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁבַּלֵּב אֵינָן דְּבָרִים, הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו מִפְּנֵי הָאַנָּס, הֲרֵי זֶה סוֹמֵךְ עַל דְּבָרִים שֶׁבְּלִבּוֹ.
4What is implied? One took an oath to a man of force that he would not eat meat11 without qualifying his statement, it is permitted12 if in his heart, he had the intent that he was saying that he would not eat the meat of pigs, or that he would not eat meat that day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.דכֵּיצַד? כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע לָאַנָּס שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר סְתָם, וּבְלִבּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל הַיּוֹם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר - הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה.
5Similarly, one is not liable13 for oaths involving exaggerations or unintentional oaths. What is meant by oaths involving exaggerations? A person saw vast armies and tall walls and he took an oath that “I saw the armies of King So-and-So and they are as vast as those who left Egypt,” “I saw the wall of this-and-this city and it was as high as the heavens,”14 or the like. He is exempt, because he did not resolve within his heart that this was the measure of the subject in question, no more and no less. His intent was only to describe the height of the wall or the multitude of the people.15הוְכֵן שְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁל הֲבָאי וְשֶׁל שְׁגָגוֹת, פָּטוּר עֲלֵיהֶן. שְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁל הֲבָאי כֵּיצַד? כְּגוֹן שֶׁרָאָה חֲיָלוֹת גְּדוֹלִים וְחוֹמָה גְּבוֹהָה, וְנִשְׁבַּע שֶׁרָאִיתִי חֵיל פְּלוֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהֵם כְּיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְשֶׁרָאִיתִי חוֹמַת עִיר פְּלוֹנִית גְּבוֹהָה עַד לָרָקִיעַ, וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ - שֶׁזֶּה לֹא גָמַר בְּלִבּוֹ שֶׁהַדָּבָר כָּךְ בְּלֹא פָּחוֹת וְלֹא יָתֵר, וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן אֶלָא לְסַפֵּר גֹּבַהּ הַחוֹמָה אוֹ רֹב הָעָם.
6What is meant by an oath taken inadvertently? With regard to a sh’vuat hapikadon or a sh’vuat ha’edut, it refers to a situation where the person forgot about the entrusted article or the testimony. He is entirely exempt, as we explained.16 With regard to an oath taken in vain, it refers to a situation where the person took an oath not to wear tefilin, but did not know that tefilin are a mitzvah.17 With regard to a false oath,18 it refers to a situation where the person took an oath that he did not eat and then remembered that he did in fact eat, he took an oath that he would not eat and then forgot and ate, he took an oath that he would not give any satisfaction to his wife because she stole his wallet or beat his son and afterwards, he found out that she did not steal it or beat him. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations.ושְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁל שְׁגָגוֹת כֵּיצַד? אִם שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת אוֹ הַפִּקָּדוֹן הִיא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁגַג בַּפִּקָּדוֹן וּבָעֵדוּת שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא הִיא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא יִלְבֹּשׁ תְּפִלִּין וְלֹא יָדַע שֶׁהַתְּפִלִּין מִצְוָה. וְאִם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר הִיא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁאָכַל, אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל וְשָׁכַח וְאָכַל, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵהָנֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּנְבָה כִּיסוֹ וְשֶׁהִכְּתָה אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא גָנְבָה וְשֶׁלֹּא הִכְּתָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה.
7If so, what is a sh’vuat bitui taken inadvertently for which one is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering with regard to the past?19 One took an oath that he did not eat although he knew that he in fact had eaten and he knew that it is forbidden to have taken this false oath, but he did not know that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. This is the inadvertent violation for which one is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering for taking a sh’vuat bitui with regard to the past.זאִם כֵּן, אֵיזוֹ הִיא שִׁגְגַת שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד לְשֶׁעָבַר? כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל, וְהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאָכַל וְשֶׁשְּׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר זוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע אֲסוּרָה, אֲבָל לֹא יָדַע שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן - זוֹ הִיא הַשְּׁגָגָה שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד בִּשְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי לְשֶׁעָבַר.
8What is meant by an inadvertent violation for which one is liable for an adjustable guilt offering for breaking an oath involving the future?20 For example, one took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and forgot and thought that he had taken an oath that he would eat bread from wheat and then ate it. In this instance, he became unaware of the content of the oath21 although he remembered the article concerning which he took the oath. This is an inadvertent violation of a sh’vuat bitui involving the future which obligates him to bring a sacrifice.22חוְכֵיצַד הִיא הַשְּׁגָגָה שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן לְהַבָּא? כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל פַּת חִטִּים, וְשָׁגַג וְדִמָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁיֹּאכַל פַּת חִטִּים וַאֲכָלָהּ, שֶׁזֶּה נֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַשְּׁבוּעָה הֵיאַךְ הָיְתָה, וַהֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֵר הַחֵפֶץ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע עָלָיו - זוֹ הִיא שִׁגְגַת שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי לְהַבָּא שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן.
9If, however, he took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and he ate bread from wheat thinking that it was made from barley, he is considered to have transgressed due to forces beyond his control and he is exempt. For he did not become unaware of the oath, but instead of the article concerning which he took the oath.23טאֲבָל אִם נִשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל פַּת חִטִּים, וְאָכַל פַּת חִטִּים עַל דַּעַת שֶׁהִיא פַּת שְׂעוֹרִים - הֲרֵי זֶה אָנוּס, וּפָטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁבוּעָה, וְלֹא נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָא חֵפֶץ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע עָלָיו.
10If he lost awareness of the oath he took and he lost awareness of the article concerning which he took the oath, he is not liable for a sacrifice. What is implied? For example, one took an oath that he would not eat bread from wheat and thought that he had taken an oath that he would eat bread from wheat and ate bread from wheat thinking it was barley. He is not liable, because he became unaware of both the oath and the article it concerned. It is considered as if he transgressed due to forces beyond his control he is exempt.24ינֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁבוּעָה הֵיאַךְ הָיְתָה, וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ חֵפֶץ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע עָלָיו - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. כֵּיצַד? כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל פַּת חִטִּים, וְדִמָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁיֹּאכַל פַּת חִטִּים, וְאָכַל פַּת חִטִּים, עַל דַּעַת שֶׁהִיא פַּת שְׂעוֹרִים - שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם שְׁבוּעָה וְחֵפֶץ בְּיָדוֹ, וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּאָנוּס וּפָטוּר.
11The following laws apply if a person took an oath concerning a loaf of bread, swearing that he would not eat it and then suffered discomfort because of it. Should he eat the loaf because of his discomfort, because he thought that it is permitted for him to eat it because of discomfort, he is considered to have transgressed inadvertently. He is exempt from bringing a sacrifice, because he is not repenting because of his new knowledge25. Instead, he knew that it was forbidden and ate it in error.יאנִשְׁבַּע עַל כִּכָּר שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכְלֶנָּה, וְנִצְטַעֵר עָלֶיהָ וַאֲכָלָהּ מִפְּנֵי הַצַּעַר, וְהוּא שׁוֹגֵג, שֶׁהֲרֵי דִּמָּה שֶׁמֻּתָּר לוֹ לְאָכְלָהּ מִפְּנֵי הַצַּעַר - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁב מִיְּדִיעָתוֹ אֶלָא יָדַע שֶׁאֲסוּרָה הִיא, וַאֲכָלָהּ בְּטָעוּת.
Footnotes
1.
He is not liable even for reciting God’s name in vain (Radbaz). Sh ‘vuot 26a derives this concept from the prooftext: “When a soul will take an oath, expressing with his lips.... “The implication is that the oath must come from an expression made by the. person’s free will.
The Siftei Cohen 239:9 interprets the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 239:1) as implying that such an oath must be released before it can be violated. The Siftei Cohen himself differs and maintains that the oath is of no consequence at all.
2.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 10, which speaks of a person who took a false oath because of a memory lapse.
3.
For in all instances, a person is not liable when he is compelled to perform a transgression against his will. See Nedarim 27a.
4.
I.e., at the outset such license is granted.
5.
Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:3).
6.
I.e., the type of tax or customs duty collectors described in the following halachah.
7.
During the time the Greeks and the Romans ruled Eretz Yisrael, they would very frequently sell the right to tax the inhabitants of the Holy Land or to collect customs duty to an individuals or a group for a fee and allow that individual or group to tax the people as he pleased, whether the tax was justified or not. Similar practices continued in many of the lands to which the Jews were exiled. If, however, a tax was established according to a just law, one is obligated to pay and may not take a false oath. For “the law of the ruling authority is law” (Nedarim 28a).
8.
Chapter 5, Halachah 11.
9.
As illustrated· in the following halachah.
One might ask, for an oath to be effective, the person’s statements must reflect the intent in his heart, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 10. Why then must the person taking the oath have in mind a permitted situation? Seemingly, the very fact that he does not desire to take the oath should be sufficient to render it invalid. It can be explained that this situation is different, because this oath is being taken based on the·other person’s - the tax collector’s - request. Thus it is bound by the restrictions mentioned above in Chapter 2, Halachah 15.
10.
This is a general principle in Torah Law. See Hilchot Ishut 8:2; Hilchat Me’ilah 7:1; and Hilchot Mechirah 11:9.
11.
I.e., the man of force compelled him to take an oath that if he was evading customs duty, he would be forbidden to eat meat. He should have the intent that he is promising not to eat pig meat.
12.
The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 232:14) emphasizes that the license to take a false oath under compulsion is granted only when the gentile will not know that the oath has been violated. If, however, the gentle will know, license is not granted because this will lead to chillul hashem, the desecration of God’s name. For this reason, King Tzidkiayahu was punished for violating the oath he took to Nebuchadnetzar.
13.
I.e., he is not given lashes, nor is he required to bring a sacrifice for taking such an oath. Needless to say, however, it is forbidden to take such oaths. For by doing so, one takes God’s name in vain. If, however, one does not mention God’s name, it is permitted to make such a statement [Radbaz; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 239:1)].
14.
See Deuteronomy 1:28 which uses such exaggeration.
15.
One might think that he would be · 1iable for taking an oath in vain, because he is saying something that is obviously not true (as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 4). To refute this supposition, the Rambam explains that in this instance - as opposed to that stated above - the person is speaking facetiously. He knows he is exaggerating and does not intend that his words be taken literally. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 21, and notes.
16.
Chapter 1, Halachot 10, 13. As stated there, it is considered as if he transgressed because of forces beyond his control and hence, he is absolved entirely.
17.
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, one of the types of oaths taken in vain is an oath to neglect the observance of a mitzvah. In this instance, although the person took such an oath intentionally, his violation is considered inadvertent, because he did not know that tefillin are a mitzvah.
18.
I.e., a sh ‘vuat bitui. See Chapter 1, Halachah 6.
19.
For in the situations described in the previous halachah, he is not liable at all.
20.
For if he forgets his oath entirely, he is not liable at all as stated in Halachah 6.
21.
Sh ‘vuot 26a cites Leviticus 5:4: “which a person will express in an oath and it
became concealed from him.” Implied is that the oath becomes concealed and he loses his
awareness of it.
22.
The Rambam LeAm quotes opinions that maintain that if the person violated his oath, knowing it was forbidden to break the oath, but unaware that he is liable for a sacrifice, he is liable for the sacrifice as in the previous halachah. The Rambam, however, mentions another instance, because that situation is very rare.
23.
And as indicated by the above prooftext, it is the oath that must be. concealed and not the article concerning which the oath was taken.
24.
Sh ‘vuot 26a raises a question concerning this situation and leaves it unresolved. Since there is a doubt involved, one is not held liable for the sacrifice.
25.
A person is liable to bring a sacrifice when he would refrain from eating were he to know that the object from which he is partaking is forbidden by oath. In this instance, he did not forget the oath and his knowledge of it did not cause him to refrain from eating.
Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
