Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 20, 2017 | 讘壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shevuot 22

The debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis in the mishna聽– regarding whether or not an oath prohibiting eating would obligate one who ate even less than a minimum amount or not – is analyzed in detail.聽 Are oaths different than vows in this issue?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讬驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 注驻专 讘讻诪讛 转驻砖讜讟 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

answer that which Rava asks with regard to one who says: On my oath I will not eat, and who then ate dirt. Rava鈥檚 question is: How much must he eat in order to be liable? Based on the Rabbis鈥 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.

讜讛专讬 拽讜谞诪讜转 拽讜谞诪讜转 谞诪讬 讻诪驻专砖 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘诪讚讘专 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 砖讝讛 诪讚讘专 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 诪讙讚祝 诪讚讘专 讜讗讜住专 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 诪讚讘专 讜讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗

搂 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鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 谞讝讬专 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜 注诇 讚讘讜专讜 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 诇讗砖转专讜讬讬 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬

The Gemara challenges: But doesn鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚砖 讗讜住专 诇注爪诪讜 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讗讜住专 注诇 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 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.

讛专讬 拽讜谞诪讜转 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转

The Gemara challenges: Aren鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住转诐 讗讘诇 讘诪驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻专砖 谞诪讬 讻讘专讬讛 讚诪讬

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讘砖诇讗 讗讟注讜诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讟注讜诐 谞诪讬 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘讜注讜转 讗讘诇 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讜谞诪讜转 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讚讻专 砖诪讗 讚讗讻讬诇讛 讻讚诪驻专砖 讚诪讬

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖谞讬 拽讜谞诪讜转 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 砖转讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽讜谞诪讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇爪专祝

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?

讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讝讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讝讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讜转 住讜祝 住讜祝 讝讬诇 诇讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讜讝讬诇 诇讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪砖转讬讛谉 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐

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.

讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诪砖转讬讛谉 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 砖讗谞讬 砖讘讜注讜转 诪转讜讱 砖讞诇讜拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转

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 Pine岣s 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽讜谞诪讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讘讜注讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞诇讜拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讗诇讗 拽讜谞诪讜转 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讜转 讻拽讜谞诪讜转 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚专讘 驻谞讞住

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 Pine岣s that items forbidden by oaths are different.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 讬砖 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讻诇讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讬砖 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 讛拽讚砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬谉 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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鈥檛 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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讘讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转

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.

讗讬驻讜讱 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讜讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽讜谞诪讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转 讗诇讗 拽讜谞诪讜转 讗爪讟专讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讛讗 诪注讬诇讛 讗讬转 讘讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讻诇诇

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鈥檛 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?

诇讚讘专讬讛谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讻诇诇 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚拽讜谞诪讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转

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.

讜专讘谞谉 砖讘讜注讜转 讗讬讻讗 讚专讘 驻谞讞住 拽讜谞诪讜转 诇讬讻讗 讚专讘 驻谞讞住

And the Rabbis? They explain that with regard to items forbidden by oaths one should apply the reasoning of Rav Pine岣s 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 Pine岣s does not apply.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 注驻专 驻讟讜专 讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注驻专 讘讻诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讻诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讞专爪谉 讘讻诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪转讗讻讬诇 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讚注转讬讛 讗诪砖讛讜 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讞专爪谉 讘讻诪讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讻讝讬转 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪砖转讘注 讗讛转讬专讗 拽讗 诪砖转讘注 讜讚注转讬讛 讗诪砖讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 诪讛专 住讬谞讬 讛讜讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讻讜诇诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪讜转专讬谉 注诐 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗住讜专讬谉

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘诪驻专砖 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 讘住转诐 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 注爪诪讜 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗

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.

讜讛讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讚诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 诪讛专 住讬谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讞专爪谉 诇讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讚诪讬讗 讜讟注诪讗 讚驻专讬砖 讛讗 诇讗 驻专讬砖 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: But isn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注驻专 讘讻诪讛 转驻砖讜讟 讚注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讚讛讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讻注驻专 讚诪讬讗 讜讟注诪讗 讚驻专讬砖 讛讗 诇讗 驻专讬砖 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转

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.

诇讗 注驻专 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讘转 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗专讬讗 讛讜讗 讚专讘讬注 注讬诇讜讜讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讜讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 讜驻转 讻讜住诪讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 讜驻转 讻讜住诪讬谉 讜讗讻诇 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛专讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜砖转讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

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.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 驻讟讜专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 讗诐 讗讻诇转讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讛讜讗 讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讛专讬 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜砖转讛 讞讬讬讘 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞砖 诇讞讘专讬讛 谞讟注讜诐 诪讬讚讬 讜注讬讬诇讬 讜讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讜 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 诇砖讻谉 砖诪讜 砖诐 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 讜转讬专砖讱

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:23).

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 22

转讬驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 注驻专 讘讻诪讛 转驻砖讜讟 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

answer that which Rava asks with regard to one who says: On my oath I will not eat, and who then ate dirt. Rava鈥檚 question is: How much must he eat in order to be liable? Based on the Rabbis鈥 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.

讜讛专讬 拽讜谞诪讜转 拽讜谞诪讜转 谞诪讬 讻诪驻专砖 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘诪讚讘专 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 砖讝讛 诪讚讘专 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 诪讙讚祝 诪讚讘专 讜讗讜住专 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 诪讚讘专 讜讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗

搂 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鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 谞讝讬专 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜 注诇 讚讘讜专讜 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 诇讗砖转专讜讬讬 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬

The Gemara challenges: But doesn鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚砖 讗讜住专 诇注爪诪讜 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讗讜住专 注诇 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 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.

讛专讬 拽讜谞诪讜转 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转

The Gemara challenges: Aren鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住转诐 讗讘诇 讘诪驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻专砖 谞诪讬 讻讘专讬讛 讚诪讬

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讘砖诇讗 讗讟注讜诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讟注讜诐 谞诪讬 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讘讜注讜转 讗讘诇 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讜谞诪讜转 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讚讻专 砖诪讗 讚讗讻讬诇讛 讻讚诪驻专砖 讚诪讬

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖谞讬 拽讜谞诪讜转 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 砖转讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽讜谞诪讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇爪专祝

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?

讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讝讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讝讜 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讜转 住讜祝 住讜祝 讝讬诇 诇讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讜讝讬诇 诇讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪砖转讬讛谉 注诇讬 拽讜谞诐

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.

讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诪砖转讬讛谉 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 砖讗谞讬 砖讘讜注讜转 诪转讜讱 砖讞诇讜拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转

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 Pine岣s 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽讜谞诪讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讘讜注讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞诇讜拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讗诇讗 拽讜谞诪讜转 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讜转 讻拽讜谞诪讜转 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚专讘 驻谞讞住

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 Pine岣s that items forbidden by oaths are different.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 讬砖 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讻诇讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讬砖 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 讛拽讚砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬谉 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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鈥檛 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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讘讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转

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.

讗讬驻讜讱 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讜讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽讜谞诪讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转 讗诇讗 拽讜谞诪讜转 讗爪讟专讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讛讗 诪注讬诇讛 讗讬转 讘讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讻诇诇

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鈥檛 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?

诇讚讘专讬讛谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讻诇诇 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚拽讜谞诪讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转

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.

讜专讘谞谉 砖讘讜注讜转 讗讬讻讗 讚专讘 驻谞讞住 拽讜谞诪讜转 诇讬讻讗 讚专讘 驻谞讞住

And the Rabbis? They explain that with regard to items forbidden by oaths one should apply the reasoning of Rav Pine岣s 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 Pine岣s does not apply.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 注驻专 驻讟讜专 讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注驻专 讘讻诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讻诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讞专爪谉 讘讻诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪转讗讻讬诇 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讚注转讬讛 讗诪砖讛讜 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讞专爪谉 讘讻诪讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讻讝讬转 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪砖转讘注 讗讛转讬专讗 拽讗 诪砖转讘注 讜讚注转讬讛 讗诪砖讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 诪讛专 住讬谞讬 讛讜讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讻讜诇诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪讜转专讬谉 注诐 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗住讜专讬谉

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘诪驻专砖 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 讘住转诐 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 注爪诪讜 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗

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.

讜讛讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讚诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 诪讛专 住讬谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讞专爪谉 诇讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讚诪讬讗 讜讟注诪讗 讚驻专讬砖 讛讗 诇讗 驻专讬砖 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: But isn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注驻专 讘讻诪讛 转驻砖讜讟 讚注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讚讛讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讻注驻专 讚诪讬讗 讜讟注诪讗 讚驻专讬砖 讛讗 诇讗 驻专讬砖 讚注转讬讛 讗讻讝讬转

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.

诇讗 注驻专 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讘转 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗专讬讗 讛讜讗 讚专讘讬注 注讬诇讜讜讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讜讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 讜驻转 讻讜住诪讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 讜驻转 讻讜住诪讬谉 讜讗讻诇 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛专讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜砖转讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

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.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 驻讟讜专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 讗诐 讗讻诇转讬 讛讬讜诐 讜讛讜讗 讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讛专讬 讗砖转讜 讗住讜专讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜砖转讛 讞讬讬讘 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞砖 诇讞讘专讬讛 谞讟注讜诐 诪讬讚讬 讜注讬讬诇讬 讜讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讜 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 诇砖讻谉 砖诪讜 砖诐 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 讜转讬专砖讱

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:23).

Scroll To Top