Shavuot 29: קַיִּימוּ כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If someone takes an oath that something is different than what is known to be, this is a shevuas shav. For example, if someone takes an oath that a pillar of stone is gold, or that a certain man is in fact a woman, or that a certain woman is in fact a man, this is a shevuas shav.

It is interesting to note that although a person who takes such a shevuat shav will be liable to bring a sacrifice, had he taken a neder such as this, he would not be held responsible in any way, as we would assume that he is simply exaggerating, or speaking in a manner that is not serious.

A second new Mishna teaches us more about oaths said in vain. We are taught that vain oaths regarding oneself apply to both men and women, relatives and strangers, people who are qualified to testify and people who are not qualified to testify, inside of the beit din and outside of the beit din. If one transgresses, s/he is either lashed or s/he brings an offering. A person can put an oath on someone else if that someone answers, "amen" after the person has stated the oath.

Shavuot 28: אִישְׁתַּבַּשְׁתְּ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Building upon previous research establishing philosophical allegories as frameworks for healing relationships and the application of tzimtzum hermeneutics to patient narratives, this paper synthesizes traditional parabolic discourse with contemporary therapeutic practice through comparative analysis of Kafka, Benjamin, and Rebbe Nachman's parabolic thought. This study extends our prior work on Plato's Cave versus Ramchal's maze metaphors and mystical hermeneutics in medical encounters by examining how classical parabolic traditions provide interpretive frameworks for understanding patients as "living parables." Drawing on established foundations of patient-as-sacred-text methodology and covenantal therapeutic relationships, we demonstrate how traditional mashal structures parallel contemporary hermeneutic approaches to clinical practice. This analysis reveals how parabolic interpretation challenges reductionist biomedicine while offering robust philosophical foundations for integrative healing practice that honors both scientific rigor and spiritual depth.

Shavuot 27: עָלְתָה לוֹ שְׁנִיָּה תַּחְתֶּיהָ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Talmud often interrogates the problem of speech without sincere intent, a form of halakhic lip service. For example:

A person says, “I swear I will fast,” but says it jokingly or in anger.

Does the external form of the statement bind them, even if their heart was not in it?

Schick argues that these cases reveal the Talmud’s discomfort with legal automation—the idea that words alone, detached from context and sincerity, should generate obligation.

This leads to the idea of legal interpretation as psychoanalysis: the Beit Din must discern what was meant, not merely what was said.

Thought Without Speech: Can the Heart Alone Obligate?

The inverse question also arises: if someone intended to take a vow but never uttered it, is it binding?

The general rule in the Talmud is: “Devarim shebalev einam devarim” — “unspoken thoughts are not legally significant” (Kiddushin 49b).

We struggle between lip service and affairs of the heart.

Shavuot 26: ״בִּשְׂפָתַיִם״ וְלֹא בַּלֵּב

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

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.

Which leads us to the thorny issue of lip service from the semantic and metaphoric perspective.

Shavuot 25: אִם רִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ, רִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already noted the basic difference between a neder and a shevua that is commented on by the Gemara. While a neder acts on an object (e.g. a person declares that meat is forbidden to him), a shevua acts on the person (e.g. he accepts upon himself a prohibition that will keep him from eating meat).

The case of the Mishna on our daf, where someone takes a shevua that he will not sleep, will only work if it is an oath, since “sleep” is not an object, and it can only become forbidden by means of a shevua (which will create a prohibition on the person keeping him from sleeping).

We explore the physiology of sleep and insomnia as a mark of asceticism.