Study Shevuot folio 25B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
between these amora’im parallels the disagreement between R' Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis? As we learned in a Mishnah (27a): If one took an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva and he did not refrain, he is exempt from bringing an offering for an oath on an utterance. If one took an oath t
The Rabbis said to him: No, if you said that one is liable for breaking an oath concerning an optional action, where the Torah rendered one liable for a negative oath not to perform it like for a positive oath to perform it, shall you also say one is liable for breaking an oath concerning a mitzva,
The Talmud asks: Shall we say that Rav states his opinion in accordance with that of R' Yehuda ben Beteira, who holds that one can be liable for an oath that cannot be inverted, and Shmuel states his opinion in accordance with that of the Rabbis, who hold that one can be liable only if the oath ca
The Talmud rejects this: Everyone, i.e., both Rav and Shmuel, agrees with regard to the opinion of R' Yehuda ben Beteira that one is liable if he took an oath that so-and-so performed an action that he did not in fact perform. The Talmud explains: Now, given that R' Yehuda ben Beteira does not req
When they disagree it is with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis: Shmuel holds like the Rabbis, that one is exempt in the case of an oath that cannot be inverted. Accordingly, Shmuel ruled that one who takes an oath that so-and-so threw an item is exempt from bringing an offering if it is found th