Commentary for Shevuot 50:2

אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בשבועת הרשות שכן עשה בה לאו כהן תאמר בשבועת מצוה שכן לא עשה בה לאו כהן

should be liable [in the second case] as is the opinion of R. Judah b. Bathyra, [for] R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If, for an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable; for a precept, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable! - They replied to him: No! If you say that for an oath on an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has made negative equal to positive; but how can you say that for an oath [to fulfil] a precept [he is liable], since [Scripture] in that case, has not made negative equal to positive? - Now, shall we say that Rab agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra, and Samuel agrees with the Rabbis? - [No!] With reference to R. Judah b. Bathyra's view they do not disagree; since even negative and positive he does not require, will he require future and past? But they disagree as to the view of the Rabbis: Samuel agrees with the Rabbis, and Rab [says], the Rabbis do not make him liable [unless it is applicable] in both negative and positive [forms], for it is written distinctly: to do evil, or to do good; but for future and past, which is deduced [merely] from the amplification of the verse, they make him liable [even if the oath is not applicable in both future and past]. <br>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 50:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.