Shevuos Daf 26 חג השבועות דַף 26

A Baraisa elaborates on the machlokes in the Mishnah on Daf 25a. Although the passuk only mentions korban liability for violating a shevuah להרע או להיטיב – “to do bad or to do good,” a derashah includes shevuos which are neither (e.g., throwing stones into the sea). Rebbe Akiva further darshens that not only is one liable for a shevuah about the future (like “to do bad” or good), but even swearing לשעבר –about the past. Rebbe Yishmael says the Torah only obligates a korban for swearing להרע או להיטיב – to do bad or to do good, which are להבא – about the future, not for shevuos about the past. Rebbe Akiva argued that just as Rebbe Yishmael darshens to include shevuos which are neither “to do bad or good,” he should also darshen to include past-tense shevuos. Rebbe Yochanan explains the point of contention. Rebbe Yishmael darshens the Torah with the more restrictive כלל ופרט – generalizations and specifications, where the פרט defines the extent of the כלל. Rebbe Akiva darshens with the more inclusive ריבה ומיעט – amplifications and limitations, where the מיעוט merely excludes from the ריבוי.

A Baraisa darshens the juxtaposition of the words "האדם בשבועה" – “a person in an oath” (implying he is fully cognizant of his shevuah), which teaches: פרט לאנוס – to exclude one who faultlessly swore falsely, because he thought he was swearing the truth. An example is given from an incident of Rav Kahana and Rav Assi, who disagreed about what Rav had said in a shiur, and each swore "שבועתא דהכי אמר רב" – “An oath that Rav said this way!” When Rav later told them who was correct, the other asked if he had sworn falsely. Rav told him: לבך אנסך – your heart compelled you to swear, and you mistakenly believed you were swearing truthfully. On amud beis, Rava asked Rav Nachman where a false shevuah about the past is בשוגג (and liable to a korban). If he knowingly swore falsely, he is a מזיד, and there is no korban. If he unknowingly swore falsely, he is considered an אנוס!? Rav Nachman explained that the case is one who knew he was swearing falsely, but did not know this prohibition obligates a korban. Although the Rabbonon do not ordinarily hold שגגת קרבן שמה שגגה – a mistake regarding the korban obligation is considered a שוגג, they agree it is for this novel korban, which is uniquely obligated for a לאו.

Shmuel said: גמר בלבו – (even) if one decided in his mind to swear, צריך שיוציא בשפתיו – he must express it with his lips for it to be effective, because the passuk says: לבטא בשפתים – uttering with his lips. This is challenged from a Baraisa which explicitly darshens that a mental decision for a neder to bring a korban is sufficient to be binding!? The Gemara answers that specifically there, the passuk "כל נדיב לב" – everyone generous of heart teaches that a mental neder is binding. Shevuos cannot be derived from this case, because the above expression is written both regarding donations for the Mishkan’s materials, as well as for donating korbanos, so they are שני כתובין הבאין כאחד – two pesukim coming together to teach the same principle, which cannot be extrapolated elsewhere. According to the opinion that it can, the Gemara answers that the laws of chullin (i.e., shevuos) cannot be derived from kodashim.