Parshas Bamidbar - Chag HaShavuos 5785
- Torah Tavlin
- May 29
- 3 min read
שבועות דף כה.
"א"ר יוחנן האומר שבועה שלא אישן ג' ימים מלקין אותו וישן לאלתר"
The Gemara quotes ר' יוחנן that says if one swears, “I will not sleep for three days”, we give him מלקות and he may sleep right away. רש"י explains: This is a שבועת שוא, because it is impossible to stay up for three days straight.
The [הל' שבועות פ"ה, ה"כ] רמב"ם paskens like ר' יוחנן. If one swears not to sleep for three days, or swears not to eat for seven days (ז' ימים), this is a שבועת שוא and we don’t say he should torture himself and not eat or not sleep until he can’t survive and then be forced to eat or sleep, but rather מלקין אותו מיד for uttering a שבועת שוא and he may now eat or sleep immediately. The ר"ן says it’s תמוה that the above רמב"ם puts these two cases together, as they are not comparable. When one swears that he will not sleep for three days, it’s a שבועת שוא because he will בעל כרחו fall asleep, so it’s אי אפשר לקיימו and as a result, we are מלקין אותו מיד. But if one swears he will not eat for 30 days, he could control himself and not eat and when he is about to die, his שבועה will be נדחה because of סכנת נפשות and he will be able to eat מן הדין. So, it’s not a שבועת שוא! However, he concludes that the halacha is like the רמב"ם that "שלא אוכל" is a שבועת שוא, but for a different reason. Since he swears not to eat for seven days, he’s swearing to kill himself (suicide) which is נשבע לעבור על דברי תורה. This constitutes a שבועת שוא. ועיין ט"ז יו"ד רל"ו who says the same svara.
The [שם] כסף משנה brings the ר"ן and defends the רמב"ם. He explains: a שבועה that “I will not eat”, is comparable to swearing, “I will not sleep,” because both are אי אפשר לקיימו. The fact that the ר"ן says he can fast until it’s a סכנה and then eat, but still, since he will ultimately eat, it is considered a שבועה שוא because it’s א"א לקיימו. The [ס' כא] קהלת יעקב explains the underlying lomdus between the רמב"ם and the ר"ן, as there are halachic ramifications if a שבועה is classified as א"א לקיימו or a שבועה לעבור על ד"ת. The רמב"ם holds: even a שבועה that על פי דברי תורה one can’t be מקיים, is still called a שבועת שוא because the bottom line is, it won’t be completed. It’s therefore א"א לקיים. So, even though when he ultimately eats, it’s ע"פ דין, but since למעשה the שבועה can never be fulfilled, it’s a שבועת שוא. The ר"ן holds that only a שבועה that במציאות can’t be מקויים is not חל and is considered a שבועת שוא. But not eating, which במציאות could be מקויים (he can starve himself) just the halacha doesn’t allow it, is just considered a שבועה לבטל ד"ת, but not a שוא.[ועיין מנח"ח מצוה ל' אות ג'] [בגליון פרנקל רמב"ם] רע"א points out that when the [יו"ד ס' רלו,ד'] שו"ע brings this halacha, it says: "נשבע שלא יאכל ז' ימים" but does not say "שלא יאכל כלום" like the רמב"ם does. If so, according to this גירסה in שו"ע when the swearer is in danger of dying, he may eat פחות מכשיעור and wait בכדי אכילת פרס and eat again. This way he will survive. Consequently, this should not be considered a שבועת שוא.
The גמרא [יבמות קכא:] says that it is possible to fast for three consecutive days and survive and brings a ראיה from the pasuk in Megillas Esther (ד-טז), when the queen asked all the Yidden to fast for her to be successful when she goes to the king: "וצומו עלי ואל תאכלו ואל תשתו שלשת ימים". So, we see that it is possible to fast for three days straight. The ערוך לנר [שם] says this Gemara goes against a מדרש on this pasuk that says: since it’s impossible to fast for three days, they must have eaten at night. רב [מכילתין] asks: How could מרדכי be גוזר תענית, it was פסח and אסור to fast? The יערות דבש asks: Why is רב only concerned with עונג יו"ט and not the ביטול עשה of אכילת מצה? The ערוך לנר answers, that to be considered fasting one can eat up to a כותבת, which is larger than a כזית. But to be יוצא אכילת מצה, one need only eat a כזית. So, they were able to be יוצא מצה by eating a כזית, yet were considered fasting because it was less than a כותבת. עיי"ש.