The Gemara considers people whose oaths are forgotten in part or completely. Are they liable? If one swore about what s/he believed was the truth, s/he is not liable. To examine forgetting the entirety or a part of the whole, the rabbis consider a person who swears not to eat wheat bread, and remembers that there was one type of bread he could not eat but not the grain itself. Is he liable or not? One might not know the transgression and/or one might not know the punishment. Further, we know that in transgressions involving idolatry, one brings an offering only for those crimes punished by karet.
If a person swore not to eat a loaf of bread but later was in danger of starving and ate the loaf, forgetting his/her oath, is s/he liable? Is there a difference if s/he remembered the oath and regretted making it? Rava says that if s/he would have refrained had s/he known that s/he transgressed, he must bring an offering. A person who would have transgressed regardless need not bring an offering since s/he would have eaten it anyway.
What if one only thinks the oath? Is it necessary to speak the oath aloud be liable if the oath is broken? A baraita notes that an oath is not in the heart alone. If a person resolved in his heart to say an oath but never spoke it aloud, some rabbis say that he is not liable. However, the rabbis determine that an oath must be spoken. One is not necessarily liable if his oath was intended to be about one thing but he actually spoke another. For other transgressions including those regarding teruma, donations to the mishkan, etc., a Torah verse teaches that vocalizing the oath is not required.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment