Если кто-то поклялся воздерживаться от (исполнения) мицвы, но не сделал этого, он не несет ответственности. Если он поклялся выполнить его, но не сделал этого, он не несет ответственности [из-за клятвы провозглашения, но он несет ответственность из-за тщетной клятвы.] Ибо согласно Р. Иегуде б. Betheira он должен нести ответственность [по причине клятвы произнесения.] (Для) Р. Иегуда б. Бетейра сказала: «Теперь, если с чем-то необязательным, за что он не одет с горы Синай, он несет ответственность за это».—мицва, за которую он одет с горы Синай, не означает, что он должен нести за это ответственность! Они сказали ему: нет, это так с клятвой на что-то необязательное, где не делать приравнивается к действию, [написано «делать плохо или делать добро», подразумевая что-то, что может быть сделано или не сделано] В противоположность клятве мицвы, где неисполнение не приравнивается к действию, так что, если он клянется воздерживаться от выполнения и не делает этого, он не должен нести ответственность. [Галаха не соответствует Р. Иегуде.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
נשבע לבטל את המצוה – because of the oath on a statement [to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story], but he is flogged because of an oath taken in vain.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
Mishnah six discusses swearing to either break or fulfill a commandment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
שהיה בדין שיהיה חייב. כדברי ר' יהודה בן בתירא – meaning to say, that whereas according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, he is liable because of an oath on a statement for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: “Now if concerning matters of free choice, etc.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
The subject of this mishnah is swearing with regards to positive and negative commandments, a subject that the Mishnah dealt with briefly in mishnah four.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
שלא עשה בה לאו כהן – and in the Biblical verse it is written (Leviticus 5:4): “[Or when a person utters with his lips an oath] to bad or good purpose,” which implies a matter which has a positive (i.e., yes) and a negative (i.e., no), but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
If he swore to annul a commandment, and did not annul it, he is exempt. [If he swore] to fulfill [a commandment], and did not fulfill it, he is exempt. For it would have been logical [in the second instance] that he should have been liable, as is the opinion of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. If a person swears not to fulfill a positive commandment, for instance he swears not to eat matzah on Passover, and he does eat it, he is not obligated for having broken his oath. The positive commandment of matzah takes precedence over his oath. Similarly, if a person swears to break a negative commandment, such as eating forbidden foods, and he then does observe the commandment by not eating the food, he is also exempt. These cases are agreed upon by all of the Sages. The dispute in our mishnah is about a person who swears to observe a commandment and then does not. For instance he swears to eat matzah on the first night of Passover and then he does not. According to the Sages in section one, he is not obligated for having broken his oath. Since he was already obligated to eat matzah on Passover, his oath did not add upon him any new obligation. It is as if it had no effect and therefore if he breaks the oath by not eating matzah he will not be liable for having broken the oath. Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra disagrees with this ruling, as we will learn in section two.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
[For] Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, “Now, if for [swearing with regards to] an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable [should he not fulfill his oath], for [swearing with regards to] a commandment, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable [should he not fulfill his oath]! They said to him: “No! If you say that for an oath with regards to an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has in that case made negative equal to positive [for liability]; But how can you say that for an oath [to fulfill] a commandment [he is liable], since [Scripture] has not in that case made negative equal to positive, for if he swore to annul [a commandment], and did not annul it, he is exempt! Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra analogizes swearing on a commandment to swearing on an optional, non-commandment activity. His argument is that just as a person is liable if he makes an oath about an optional activity and then breaks the oath, even though he had no prior obligation to perform this activity, all the more so he should be obligated if he makes and then breaks an oath with regards to a commandment, which he had a prior obligation to observe. This type of argument is called a “kal vechomer” argument. It takes a “light” law (the kal) and says that if the law is such in this case all the more so must it be in the “serious” law (the chomer). Swearing on an optional activity is “light” and swearing on a commandment is “heavy”. If one is obligated for the “light” all the more so is he obligated for the “heavy”. The Sages respond that the two cases are too dissimilar to be comparable. In the case of swearing about optional activities, the oath is valid whether he swore in the positive (“I swear to eat”) or in the negative (“I swear not to eat”). However, in the case of swearing about a commandment there is a difference between positive and negative swearing. As we learned in section one, all of the Sages agree that if one swears not to perform a commandment he is exempt. Since the two cases are already dissimilar, the Sages conclude that even if he swears positively with regards to a commandment he is exempt.
