Shevuot 26

On today’s daf, a beraita further clarifies cases in which one would or would not be liable for breaking their oath:

The sages taught: “If a person takes an oath to a bad or good purpose, and all that the man has uttered with an oath is hidden from him. When he (later) knows of it … he shall confess that he sinned with regard to that matter and bring a guilt offering to the Lord …” (Leviticus 5:4–6) The phrase “the man … with an oath” serves to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control from liability. The term “and it is hidden” serves to exclude from liability one who broke his oath intentionally.

The phrase “a person … with an oath,” as Rashi explains, refers to a person who is fully aware about the truth of a matter at the time of their oath-taking. This naturally excludes a case in which the person was not fully aware of the circumstances about which they swore. On the other end of the spectrum, when a person deliberatelyviolates an oath, they’re exempt from bringing an offering because they aren’t viewed as deserving atonement. Instead, the one who deliberately violates an oath is punished with lashes.

The beraita continues with more exceptions:

The term “from him” teaches that one who was unaware of his oath, (i.e., forgot it) and subsequently broke it, is liable. One might have thought he was liable when he broke an oath because he was unaware that a particular item is forbidden as the object of his oath; therefore, the verse states: “… with an oath is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object of the oath.

This is an important distinction. If I take an oath not to consume wheat bread, forget I took the oath and then later consumed wheat bread, I’m obligated to bring an offering for violation. But if I took the same oath and ate what I thought was barley bread (but was actually wheat bread), I’m exempt from bringing a sacrifice. Why? Because in this  case I didn’t forget my oath (a violation which incurs liability), but did not know the content of the bread (a violation that does not incur liability).

The Gemara now seeks to clarify the circumstances of an exemption listed above:

This is as it was with Rav Kahana and Rav Asi who, when they were standing up in the presence of Rav, their teacher, at the conclusion of a lesson, disagreed with regard to exactly what he said. One sage said: “On my oath Rav said this,” and the other sage said: “On my oath Rav said that.” When they came before Rav to clarify what he had said, he stated his opinion in accordance with what one of them had said. The other said to Rav: “Did I then take a false oath?” Rav said to him: “Your heart compelled you.”

This example shows that the case of “circumstances beyond one’s control” cited in our beraita refers to an oath taken about a past action or utterance, in which the person sincerely believes that they are swearing correctly. In such a case, they weren’t “taking a false oath,” because they did not believe it was a falsehood at that time. 

Through close parsing of our verses in Leviticus, the rabbis have both clarified potentially unintuitive instances of obligation, as well as carving out various cases of exemption, through a narrowing of what “unknowingly violating” an oath consists of.

Read all of Shevuot 26 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on May 27, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.