Shevuot 22

תיפשוט דבעי רבא שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל עפר בכמה תפשוט עד דאיכא כזית כי קאמרינן במידי דבר אכילה קאמרינן

answer that which Rava asks with regard to one who says: On my oath I will not eat, and who then ate dirt. Rava’s question is: How much must he eat in order to be liable? Based on the Rabbis’ statement, you could answer that he is not liable unless there is an olive-bulk that he has eaten. The Gemara rejects this conclusion: When we say in the mishna that there are no cases where a person who eats less than a full measure is liable, we say it with regard to items that are edible.

והרי קונמות קונמות נמי כמפרש דמי

The Gemara asks: But aren’t konamot an example of a case where one is liable for eating even less than an olive-bulk? The Gemara answers: Konamot are also like a case where he specifies that any amount is forbidden for consumption.

אמר להן היכן מצינו במדבר ומביא קרבן שזה מדבר ומביא קרבן ולא והרי מגדף מדבר ואוסר קאמרינן והאי מדבר וחוטא הוא

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Where do we find one who speaks and is liable to bring an offering for it, as this oath taker merely speaks, i.e., takes an oath, and brings an offering for it? The Gemara asks: And do we not? But isn’t a blasphemer liable to bring an offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (see Karetot 7a)? The Gemara answers: We are speaking of one who speaks and in doing so generates a prohibition. And this one, the blasphemer, is merely one who speaks and sins but does not bring an offering.

והרי נזיר מביא קרבנו על דבורו קאמרינן והאי מביא קרבן לאשתרויי ליה חמרא הוא דקא מייתי

The Gemara challenges: But doesn’t a nazirite render wine forbidden to himself through speech, by making a vow? And he does bring an offering. The Gemara answers: We are speaking of one who brings an offering specifically for his speaking, and this one, the nazirite, brings an offering at the end of his naziriteship in order to permit wine to himself.

והרי הקדש אוסר לעצמו קאמרינן והאי אוסר על כל העולם כולו הוא

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t consecrated property a case where one renders an item forbidden via speech alone and brings an offering for its misuse? The Gemara answers: We are speaking of one who, by speaking, generates a prohibition for himself, and nevertheless brings an offering. And this one, who consecrates an item, generates a prohibition for the whole world.

הרי קונמות קסבר אין מעילה בקונמות

The Gemara challenges: Aren’t konamot an example of a case where one renders an item forbidden to himself by speech alone and brings an offering for using it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva holds that there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property with regard to konamot.

אמר רבא מחלוקת בסתם אבל במפרש דברי הכל בכל שהוא מאי טעמא מפרש נמי כבריה דמי

§ Rava says: The dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis is with regard to where one took the oath without specifying that he is liable for eating any amount. But in a case where he specifies that his oath applies to any amount, everyone agrees that he is liable for eating any amount. What is the reason for this? One who specifies this renders any amount significant like a whole entity.

ואמר רבא מחלוקת בשלא אוכל אבל בשלא אטעום דברי הכל בכל שהוא פשיטא מהו דתימא ליטעום נמי כדאמרי אינשי קא משמע לן

And Rava says: The dispute is with regard to a case where one takes an oath saying: On my oath I will not eat, but in a case where one says: On my oath I will not taste, all agree that he is liable for tasting any amount. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he is liable in that case? Tasting has no defined measure. The Gemara answers: Rava nevertheless taught it, lest you say that even if one takes an oath saying: I will not taste, he is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk, as people say: To taste, as a way of saying: To eat. Therefore, Rava teaches us that this is not the case.

אמר רב פפא מחלוקת בשבועות אבל בקונמות דברי הכל בכל שהוא מאי טעמא קונמות נמי כיון דלא קא מדכר שמא דאכילה כדמפרש דמי

§ Rav Pappa says: The dispute in the mishna is with regard to oaths, but with regard to konamot, all agree that one is liable for eating any amount. What is the reason for this? Indeed, with regard to konamot, since in the vow he did not explicitly mention eating, which has a defined measure, but only that the item is forbidden to him like an offering, it is as if he specified that he is liable for eating any amount.

מיתיבי שני קונמות מצטרפין שתי שבועות אין מצטרפות רבי מאיר אומר קונמות כשבועות ואי סלקא דעתך חייב בכל שהוא למה לי לצרף

The Gemara raises an objection from that which is taught in a baraita: Items that are forbidden by two konamot combine to produce a full measure for which one is liable; items forbidden by two oaths do not so combine. Rabbi Meir says: Items forbidden by konamot are like those forbidden by oaths. The Gemara explains the objection: And if it enters your mind that with regard to items forbidden by konamot, one is liable for eating any amount, why do I need them to combine?

דאמר אכילה מזו עלי קונם אכילה מזו עלי קונם אי הכי אמאי מצטרפות סוף סוף זיל להכא ליכא שיעורא וזיל להכא ליכא שיעורא דאמר אכילה משתיהן עלי קונם

The Gemara answers: They combine in a case where he said: Eating from this one is konam for me; eating from that one is konam for me. Since he explicitly mentions eating, he is not liable unless he eats an olive-bulk. The Gemara asks: If so, why do they combine to produce a full measure? Ultimately, since he took two separate vows, go to this item and there is not a full measure, and go to that item and there is not a full measure. The Gemara answers: They combined to produce one full measure when he said: Eating from both of them is konam for me.

דכוותה גבי שבועות דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל משתיהן אמאי אין מצטרפין אמר רב פנחס שאני שבועות מתוך שחלוקות לחטאות אין מצטרפות

The Gemara asks: In the corresponding situation with regard to oaths, where he said: On my oath I will not eat from both of them, why do they not combine? Rav Pineḥas said: Oaths are different. Since two items that are forbidden by a single oath are distinct with regard to sin-offerings, in that one is liable to bring a sin-offering for eating each one, so too eating a small amount from each does not combine in order to produce a full measure.

אי הכי רבי מאיר אומר קונמות כשבועות בשלמא שבועות הואיל וחלוקות לחטאות אלא קונמות אמאי לא איפוך רבי מאיר אומר שבועות כקונמות ולית ליה לדרב פנחס

The Gemara asks: If so, how did Rabbi Meir say that items forbidden by konamot are like those forbidden by oaths and do not combine to produce a full measure? Granted that items forbidden by oaths do not combine, since they are distinct with regard to sin-offerings, but why do items forbidden by konamot not combine? The Gemara answers: Reverse the language so that the baraita has Rabbi Meir say: Items forbidden by oaths are like items forbidden by konamot. Neither combines to produce a full measure, and Rabbi Meir does not accept the statement of Rav Pineḥas that items forbidden by oaths are different.

רבינא אמר כי קאמר רב פפא לענין מלקות כי תניא ההיא לענין קרבן דבעינן שוה פרוטה

Ravina said: When Rav Pappa says that one is liable for eating any amount of an item forbidden by konamot, that is with regard to the matter of lashes. When it is taught in the baraita that items forbidden by konamot combine to produce a full measure, that is with regard to the matter of an offering for misuse of consecrated property, where we require that one derive benefit equal to the value of one peruta from the forbidden item.

למימרא דסברי רבנן יש מעילה בקונמות והתניא ככר זו הקדש ואכלה בין הוא בין חבירו מעל לפיכך יש לה פדיון ככר זו עלי הקדש הרי הוא מעל חבירו לא מעל לפיכך אין לה פדיון דברי רבי מאיר

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the Sages hold that the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property extend to items forbidden by konamot? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one said: This loaf is consecrated, and subsequently ate it, then either he or another who ate it is liable for misusing consecrated property; consequently, since the loaf is consecrated, it is subject to redemption. If one said: This loaf is forbidden to me as if it were consecrated, i.e., it is konam for me, and then he ate it, he is liable for misusing consecrated property, but another is not liable for misusing consecrated property; consequently, since the loaf is not fully consecrated, it is not subject to redemption. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים בין הוא ובין חבירו לא מעל לפי שאין מעילה בקונמות

And the Rabbis say: Both he and the other are not liable for misusing consecrated property, because there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property with regard to konamot.

איפוך אחד זה ואחד זה לא מעל לפי שאין מעילה בקונמות דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים הוא מעל וחבירו לא מעל

The Gemara responds: Reverse the opinions and say as follows: Both this one and that one are not liable for misusing consecrated property, because there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property with regard to konamot. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is liable for misuse of consecrated property and the other is not liable for misuse of consecrated property.

אי הכי רבי מאיר אומר קונמות כשבועות אלא קונמות אצטרופי הוא דלא מצטרפי הא מעילה אית בהו והאמר רבי מאיר אין מעילה בקונמות כלל

The Gemara asks: If so, how is it that Rabbi Meir says in the previous baraita: Items forbidden by konamot are like those forbidden by oaths? Items forbidden by konamot do not combine to produce a full measure that renders one liable for misuse of consecrated property, but this indicates that misuse of consecrated property nevertheless applies to them. But doesn’t Rabbi Meir say, according to the reversal of the opinions, that with regard to konamot, there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property at all?

לדבריהן דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי אין מעילה בקונמות כלל לדידכו אודו לי מיהת דקונמות כשבועות

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Meir says that items forbidden by konamot do not combine to produce a full measure, he is saying this to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement, as follows: According to my opinion with regard to konamot, there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property at all. According to your opinion, at least admit to me that items forbidden by konamot are like items forbidden by oaths and do not combine to produce a full measure.

ורבנן שבועות איכא דרב פנחס קונמות ליכא דרב פנחס

And the Rabbis? They explain that with regard to items forbidden by oaths one should apply the reasoning of Rav Pineḥas that since two items that are forbidden by a single oath are distinct with regard to sin-offerings, they do not combine in order to produce a full measure. With regard to konamot the reasoning of Rav Pineḥas does not apply.

אמר רבא שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל עפר פטור בעי רבא שבועה שלא אוכל עפר בכמה כיון דאמר שלא אוכל דעתיה אכזית או דלמא כיון דלאו מידי דאכלי אינשי הוא בכל שהוא תיקו

§ Rava says that if one said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate dirt, he is exempt, because eating dirt is not considered to be eating. Rava raises a dilemma: If one says: On my oath I will not eat dirt, how much dirt must he eat in order to be liable? Is the halakha that since he said: I will not eat dirt, his intention is that the prohibition applies to an olive-bulk? That is the standard measure for prohibitions with regard to eating. Or perhaps, since dirt is not something that people eat, he is liable for eating any amount. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רבא שבועה שלא אוכל חרצן בכמה כיון דמתאכיל על ידי תערובת דעתיה אכזית או דלמא כיון דלא בעיניה אכלי ליה אינשי דעתיה אמשהו תיקו

Rava raises a dilemma: If one says: On my oath I will not eat a grape seed, how much must he eat in order to be liable? Is the halakha that since it is ordinarily eaten in a mixture, i.e., as part of a grape, his intention is that the prohibition applies to a complete olive-bulk measure of grape seeds? Or perhaps, since people do not eat it by itself but always in a mixture, his intention is to be liable for eating any amount. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רב אשי נזיר שאמר שבועה שלא אוכל חרצן בכמה דכיון דכזית איסורא דאורייתא הוא כי קא משתבע אהתירא קא משתבע ודעתיה אמשהו או דלמא כיון דאמר שלא אוכל דעתיה אכזית

§ Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: In the case of a nazirite who says: On my oath I will not eat a grape seed, how much must he eat in order to be liable? A nazirite is prohibited from eating grape seeds (see Numbers 6:4). Is the halakha that since eating an olive-bulk is a prohibition by Torah law, when he takes an oath of this sort, he is taking the oath to prohibit that which is permitted to him and his intention in taking the oath is to prohibit eating any amount? Or perhaps, since he said: I will not eat a grape seed, his intention is that the prohibition applies to an olive-bulk, which is the standard measure for what is considered eating.

תא שמע שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים חייב ורבי שמעון פוטר והוינן בה אמאי חייב מושבע ועומד מהר סיני הוא רב ושמואל ורבי יוחנן דאמרי בכולל דברים המותרין עם דברים האסורין

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (22b): With regard to one who said: On my oath I will not eat, and then ate the meat of unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot, repugnant creatures or creeping animals, he is liable. And Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt. And we discussed it: Why is he liable for violating his oath when he eats non-kosher food? He is already under oath from Mount Sinai not to eat forbidden food, and an oath cannot take effect to prohibit that which is already forbidden. Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan all say that this is a case where he incorporates into the oath that he will not eat some permitted items, along with the statement concerning the forbidden items. Since the oath takes effect with regard to the permitted items, it extends also to the forbidden ones.

וריש לקיש אמר אי אתה מוצא אלא אי במפרש חצי שיעור ואליבא דרבנן אי בסתם ואליבא דרבי עקיבא דאמר אדם אוסר עצמו בכל שהוא

And Reish Lakish says: You find that one is liable for eating non-kosher food after taking an oath not to eat only if it is both a case where he specifies in the oath that his oath includes a half-measure and in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one is not liable for eating a half-measure unless it is specified in the oath. Since eating a half-measure is not prohibited by the Torah, the oath takes effect. Alternatively, you find that one is liable if he took the oath without specifying that the oath prohibits less than the usual measure and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that a person renders himself prohibited from eating any amount by taking an oath not to eat.

והא נבילה דמושבע ועומד מהר סיני הוא דכי חרצן לגבי נזיר דמיא וטעמא דפריש הא לא פריש דעתיה אכזית שמע מינה

The Gemara comments: But isn’t a carcass an item for which one is already under oath from Mount Sinai? In that respect it resembles a grape seed for a nazirite, and yet the reason that Reish Lakish says he is liable according to the Rabbis is that he specified that the oath prohibits him from eating even a half-measure, indicating that if he did not specify, his intention is that the oath refer to an olive-bulk. Conclude from it that a nazirite who takes an oath not to eat a grape seed is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk.

אלא תפשוט דבעי רבא שבועה שלא אוכל עפר בכמה תפשוט דעד דאיכא כזית דהא נבילה כעפר דמיא וטעמא דפריש הא לא פריש דעתיה אכזית

The Gemara asks: But according to this, resolve the dilemma that Rava raises with regard to one who says: On my oath I will not eat dirt, asking how much he must eat in order to be liable? Resolve the dilemma by saying that he is not liable unless he eats an olive-bulk, since a carcass resembles dirt, and the reason he is liable is that he specified that the oath prohibits him from eating even a half-measure, indicating that if he did not specify, his intention is that the oath refers to an olive-bulk.

לא עפר לאו בר אכילה הוא כלל נבילה בת אכילה ואריא הוא דרביע עילווה

The Gemara answers: No, the dilemma cannot be resolved based on this comparison. Dirt is entirely inedible. A carcass, by contrast, is edible, but a lion crouches on it, i.e., eating it is prohibited by the Torah. Therefore, one cannot derive the halakha concerning dirt from the halakha concerning a carcass.

מתני׳ שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל ושתה אינו חייב אלא אחת שבועה שלא אוכל ושלא אשתה ואכל ושתה חייב שתים שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל פת חטין ופת שעורין ופת כוסמין אינו חייב אלא אחת שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין ופת שעורין ופת כוסמין ואכל חייב על כל אחת ואחת שבועה שלא אשתה ושתה משקין הרבה אינו חייב אלא אחת שבועה שלא אשתה יין ושמן ודבש ושתה חייב על כל אחת ואחת

MISHNA: If one said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate and drank, he is liable to bring only one offering, because an oath to refrain from eating includes refraining from drinking. If he said: On my oath I will not eat and I will not drink, and then he ate and drank, he is liable to bring two offerings. If he said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate wheat bread and barley bread and spelt bread, he is liable to bring only one offering. If he said: On my oath I will not eat wheat bread or barley bread or spelt bread, and then he ate all of them, he is liable to bring an offering for each and every one. If he said: On my oath I will not drink, and then he drank several kinds of liquids, he is liable to bring only one offering. If he said: On my oath I will not drink wine or oil or honey, and then he drank all of them, he is liable to bring an offering for each and every one.

שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל אוכלין שאינן ראוין לאכילה ושתה משקין שאינן ראוין לשתיה פטור שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים חייב ורבי שמעון פוטר אמר קונם אשתי נהנית לי אם אכלתי היום והוא אכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים הרי אשתו אסורה

If he said: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate foods that are inedible or drank liquids that are not potable, he is exempt. If he said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate the meat of unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot, repugnant creatures or creeping animals, he is liable. And Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt, since he is already under oath from Mount Sinai not to eat them and an oath cannot take effect where another oath is in force. But if he said: It is konam for my wife to derive benefit from me if I ate today, and he had eaten carcasses or tereifot, repugnant creatures or creeping animals, his wife is prohibited from deriving benefit from him.

גמ׳ אמר רבי חייא בר אבין אמר שמואל שבועה שלא אוכל ושתה חייב איבעית אימא סברא ואיבעית אימא קרא

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Shmuel says: If one said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he drank, he is liable. If you wish, you may propose a logical argument for this ruling, and if you wish, you may cite a verse to explain it.

איבעית אימא סברא דאמר ליה אינש לחבריה נטעום מידי ועיילי ואכלי ושתו ואיבעית אימא קרא שתיה בכלל אכילה דאמר ריש לקיש מנין לשתיה שהיא בכלל אכילה שנאמר ואכלת לפני ה׳ אלהיך במקום אשר יבחר לשכן שמו שם מעשר דגנך ותירשך

The Gemara explains: If you wish, you may propose a logical argument for this ruling: It is clear that drinking is included in eating from the fact that a person will say to another: Let’s have a taste of something, and they go in and eat and drink. And if you wish, cite a verse as the source for this ruling, as Reish Lakish says: From where is it derived that drinking is included in eating? It is derived from that which is stated: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, of your tirosh, and of your oil” (Deuteronomy 14:23).