daf bit: Shevuot 3

[cellio]

(Yes, Makkot was a short tractate -- only 25 pages.)

Tractate Shevuot is about oaths and begins with a mishna saying: oaths are of two kinds, subdivided into four. (The rabbis are big on numbers and divisions of things.) The g'mara gives an example: two are "I shall eat" and "I shall not eat"; four are "I have eaten" and "I have not eaten". Rabba says that the latter, if false, are clearly punishable by lashes, for the speaker knowingly transgressed (saying he had not eaten when he did, for instance). But, the g'mara asks, if he says "I will eat" and he does not eat, why should he be liable, asks an anonymous tanna? Can you be liable for inaction? R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish do not hold him liable; if he says "I swear I shall eat this loaf today" and he does not, they do not hold him liable to lashes. R. Yishmael, however, says he is liable in all four cases. (3a-b)

I don't see a resolution in the g'mara here, but it looks like this discussion goes on for many more pages in many threads, so it might come back later.

I believe based on discussions in the previous tractate, but am not certain, that the reason one might not be liable for not eating (after saying "I will eat") is because it is hard to give a proper warning. If someone said "I will not eat" and you see him picking up food, you can warn him of the punishment if he eats. If he says "I will eat" and he passes up food now, you don't know that he isn't going to eat later; "I will eat" does not bind him to a particular time. So if it's a minute before the end of the day and he hasn't eaten you can warn him, but that's about it.

This tractate is called "oaths" but two of these examples sound like vows to me rather than oaths. (There's another tractate, Nedarim, that addresses vows.) Is there a technical distinction between the two that is consistent with today's text?

Comments

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

I would think that an oath about a future action is not only intent, but also a meta-intent: that the person will not change their mind easily and if they do they authorize their being treated as an oathbreaker (whatever that means in their culture). Otherwise, why not just state "I intend..." ?