Nedarim 49

אמר ליה כי משתבע אדעתא דידן משתבע ואנן לא מסקינן נפשין אשומשמני

He replied. One who swears, swears in our sense, and we do not think of an ant nest. Now, does one never swear in his own sense? But it was taught: When an oath is administered, he [the man swearing] is admonished: 'Know that we do not adjure you according to your own mind, but according to our mind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In Shebu. 29b. the reading is 'the mind of the Omnipresent'.] ');">¹</span>

ועל דעתא דנפשיה לא עביד איניש דמשתבע והתניא כשהן משביעין אותו אומרים לו הוי יודע שלא על תנאי שבלבך אנו משביעין אותך אלא על דעתינו ועל דעת בית דין לאפוקי מאי לאו לאפוקי דאסיק להו לאיסקונדרי ואסיק להון שמא זוזי

and the mind of the Court.' Now, what does this exclude? Surely the case of one who gave [his creditor] checkers [tokens in game] and [mentally] dubbed them coins; and since he is admonished, 'according to our intention,' it follows that [otherwise] one may swear in his own sense? — No. It excludes such an incident as Raba's cane. A man with a monetary claim upon his neighbour once came before Raba, demanding of the debtor, 'Come and pay me.' 'I have repaid you,' pleaded he. 'If so,' said Raba to him, 'go and swear to him that you have repaid.' Thereupon he went and brought a [hollow] cane, placed the money therein, and came before the Court, walking and leaning on it. [Before swearing] he said to the plaintiff: 'Hold the cane in your hand'. He then took a scroll of the Law and swore that he had repaid him all that he [the creditor] held in his hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his (the debtor's) possession i.e., all that he claimed of him. ');">²</span>

ומדקאמר על דעתינו מכלל דעביד אינש דמשתבע אדעתא דנפשיה

The creditor thereupon broke the cane in his rage and the money poured out on the ground; it was thus seen that he had [literally] sworn to the truth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the exhortation is needed to exclude such oaths, as the defendant may really believe that be is swearing truly. But no person regards his oath as true when he mentally attaches a particular meaning to his words. ');">³</span>

לא לאפוקי מקניא דרבא דההוא גברא דהוה מסיק בחבריה זוזי אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה ללווה זיל פרע לי אמר ליה פרעתיך אמר ליה רבא אם כן זיל אישתבע ליה דפרעתיה

But even so, does one never swear in his own sense? But it was taught: Thus we find that when Moses adjured the children of Israel in the plains of Moab, he said unto them, 'Know that I do not adjure you in your sense, but in mine, and in that of the Omnipresent', as it is written, Neither with you only etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIX, 13; i.e., not merely according to your thoughts. ');">⁴</span>

אזל ואייתי קניא ויהיב זוזי בגויה והוה מסתמיך ואזיל ואתי עליה לבי דינא אמר ליה למלוה נקוט האי קניא בידך נסב ספר תורה ואישתבע דפרעיה כל מה דהוה ליה בידיה

Now what did Moses say to Israel? Surely this: Lest you transgress my words<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So BaH. cur. edd. 'lest you do something'.] ');">⁵</span>

ההוא מלוה רגז ותברה לההוא קניא ואישתפך הנהו זוזי לארעא ואישתכח דקושטא אישתבע

and then say. 'We swore in our own sense'; therefore he exhorted them: [swear] in my sense. What does this exclude: surely the naming of idols 'god'? This proves that one does sometimes swear in his own sense. — No. Idols too are called 'god', as it is written, And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 12. ');">⁶</span>

ואכתי לא עביד דמישתבע אדעתא דנפשיה והתניא וכן מצינו במשה רבינו כשהשביע את ישראל בערבות מואב אמר להם הוו יודעים שלא על דעתכם אני משביע אתכם אלא על דעתי ועל דעת המקום שנאמר ולא אתכם לבדכם וגו' (דברים כט יג)

Then let him adjure then, to fulfil the commands? — That might imply the commands of the King. Then let him adjure then, to fulfil all the commands? — That might imply [the precept of] fringes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 38. ');">⁷</span>

מאי אמר להו משה לישראל לאו הכי קאמר להו דלמא עבידתון מילי ואמריתון על דעתינו משום הכי אמר להו על דעתי לאפוקי מאי לאו לאפוקי דאסיקו שמא לעבודת כוכבים אלוה מכלל דעביד איניש דמשתבע אדעתא דנפשיה

for a Master said, The precept of fringes is equal to all the [other] precepts of the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is written, and it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord. Ibid. 39. ');">⁸</span>

לא עבודת כוכבים איקרי אלוה דכתיב ובכל אלהי מצרים וגו'

But why did not Moses simply adjure the Israelites to fulfil the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of imposing an oath against idol worship, which, as shewn, is ambiguous. ');">⁹</span>

ולשבע יתהון דמקיימיתון מצוות משמע מצוַת המלך

— Because that would imply one Torah only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The written Law, but not the Oral law. The former is the Bible, more especially the Pentateuch, while the latter is the whole body of tradition and Rabbinical development thereof. It is generally assumed that the Oral Law was the matter In dispute between the Pharisees, who accepted it, and the Sadducees, who rejected it. Weiss, Dor, I, 116 seq.; Halevy, Doroth, I, 3, 360 seq. denies this ii to, and maintains that the Sadducees were purely a political party that rejected religious teaching altogether, and only later, through force of circumstances, attempted some interpretation of Scripture. ');">¹⁰</span>

ולשבע יתהון דמקיימיתון כל מצוות משמע מצוַת ציצית דאמר מר שקולה מצוַת ציצית כנגד כל מצוות שבתורה

Then why not adjure then, to fulfil the Toroth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of Torah. ');">¹¹</span>

ולשבע יתהון דמקיימיתון תורה משמע תורה אחת ולשבע יתהון דמקיימיתון תורות משמע תורת מנחה תורת חטאת תורת אשם ולשבע יתהון דמקיימיתון [תורות] ומצוות [תורות] משמע תורת המנחה מצוות משמע מצות המלך

— That might mean the Torah of the meal-offering, the Torah of the sin-offering, the Torah of the trespass-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each of which is referred to a 'torah': Lev. VI, 7, 18; VII, 1. ');">¹²</span>

ולשבע יתהון דמקיימיתון תורה כולה תורה כולה משמע עבודת כוכבים דתניא חמורה עבודת כוכבים שכל הכופר בה כאילו מודה בתורה כולה

Then why not impose an oath to fulfil the whole Torah? — The whole Torah might mean merely to refrain from idolatry, as it was taught: Idolatry is so grave a sin that the rejection thereof is as the fulfilment of the whole Torah. Then why not impose an oath to observe the prohibition against idolatry and the whole Torah; or to fulfil the six hundred thirteen precepts? — Moses used a general expression without troubling [to enumerate details].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text of the whole passage is in some disorder, the translation is of the text as emended by BaH; for further notes v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 159ff. ');">¹³</span>

ולשבע יתהון דמקיימיתון עבודת כוכבים ותורה כולה אי נמי שש מאות ושלוש עשרה מצוות אלא משה רבינו מילתא דלא טריחא נקט:

OR IF I DID NOT SEE A SERPENT LIKE THE BEAMS OF AN OLIVE-PRESS. Is this impossible? Was there not a serpent in the days of King Shapur<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shapur I, a contemporary of Samuel and King of Persia. ');">¹⁴</span>

אם לא ראיתי נחש כקורת בית הבד: ולא והא ההוא חויא דהוה בשני שבור מלכא רמו ליה תליסר אורוותא דתיבנא ובלע יתהון אמר שמואל בטרוף כולהו נחשי מיטרף טרפי אגבו טרוף קאמרינן

before which thirteen stables of straw were laced, and it swallowed then, all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question assumes that the comparison is in point of size. — Aruch reads: thirteen hides full of straw'. Rashi in Shebu. 29b explains that it was a man-eating serpent. hot coals were concealed in the straw, and these killed it. [This is reminiscent of the Apocryphal story of Daniel and the Dragon] ');">¹⁵</span>

ולתני טרוף מילתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן דקורת בית הבד גבו טרוף למאי נפקא מינה למקח וממכר לומר לך המוכר קורת בית הבד לחבירו אי גבו טרוף אין ואי לא לא:

— Samuel answered: He meant 'as smooth as a bean, etc.' But are not all serpents smooth? — We speak [of one who declared that] its back was smooth [not on]y the neck].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The backs of serpents are not smooth but somewhat scaly, caused by hard folds of skin, v. Lewysohn, Zoologie, p. 234. ');">¹⁶</span> Then let him [the Tanna] state 'smooth'? — He thereby informs us in passing that the beams of the olive-press must be smooth. How does this affect the law? — In respect of buying and selling: to tell you that if one sells the beams of an olive-press. the sale is valid only if they are smooth, but not otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A number of other interpretations have been given to the whole passage. Rashi translates: spotted like a beam. Ran: incised like a beam; and an alternative, based on the Jerusalemi: square like a beam, instead of circular. Asheri inclines to the last interpretation. ');">¹⁷</span>