Commentary for Shevuot 52:1

איזו היא שגגת שבועת ביטוי לשעבר אי דידע מזיד הוא אי דלא ידע אנוס הוא

<br> What is unwitting transgression of oath of utterance in the past? If he knew, it is wilful transgression; if he did not know, it is accidental transgression? - He replied to him: [It is possible in the case of] one who says, 'I know that this oath is prohibited, but I do not know whether one is liable to bring an offering for it or not.' According to whom will this be? According to Monobaz, who holds that ignorance of [liability for] an offering is termed ignorance! - You may [however] say that it will be even in accordance with the view of the Rabbis; for the Rabbis disagree with Monobaz only in the rest of the Torah where there is no innovation, but here where there is an innovation - for in the whole Torah we do not find that [the unwitting transgression of] a negative precept [for the wilful transgression of which kareth is not inflicted] should make him liable for an offering, for we deduce it from the ruling concerning idolatry; yet here, it does make him liable to bring [an offering] even the Sages admit. <br>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 52:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.