Shevuot 23
וְתִירוֹשׁ חַמְרָא הוּא, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״.
And since the Hebrew word tirosh mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written with regard to it: “And you shall eat,” this indicates that drinking is an activity included in eating.
וְדִלְמָא עַל יְדֵי אֲנִיגְרוֹן? דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲנִיגְרוֹן – מַיָּא דְּסִילְקֵי, אַכְּסִיגְרוֹן – מַיָּא דְּכוּלְּהוּ סִילְקִי.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse is referring to consuming wine by means of an anigeron, as Rabba bar Shmuel says: Anigeron is a stew of beet greens and wine, and aksigeron is a stew of all types of cooked vegetables. If so, the wine in the verse is not drunk but eaten.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, מֵהָכָא: ״וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ, בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר״; יַיִן חַמְרָא הוּא, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״.
Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Cite from here, a verse written with regard to money with which one has redeemed second tithe: “And you shall bestow the money for whatsoever your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine [uvayyayin], or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul asks of you; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26). The Hebrew word yayin mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written: “And you shall eat.”
וְדִלְמָא הָכָא נָמֵי עַל יְדֵי אֲנִיגְרוֹן?
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps here this verse is also referring to consuming wine by means of an anigeron.
״שֵׁכָר״ כְּתִיב, מִידֵּי דִּמְשַׁכַּר.
The Gemara rejects this: “Strong drink” is written in the verse, referring to something intoxicating, and wine mixed into a stew is not intoxicating.
וְדִלְמָא דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית? דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית וְשָׁתָה דְּבַשׁ וְחָלָב, וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְעָבַד – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the intoxicating substance referred to in the verse is pressed figs from Ke’ila, as it is taught in a baraita: A priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk and then entered the Temple and performed the sacrificial rites is liable for violating the prohibition against conducting the Temple service while intoxicated.
אֶלָּא גָּמַר ״שֵׁכָר״–״שֵׁכָר״ מִנָּזִיר; מָה לְהַלָּן יַיִן, אַף כָּאן יַיִן.
Rather, one derives the meaning of “strong drink” in this verse by means of a verbal analogy from the verse about a nazirite: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink: He shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried” (Numbers 6:3). Just as there, the strong drink that is forbidden to the nazirite is referring to a type of wine, so too here, the verse is referring to wine.
אָמַר רָבָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה, אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁתִיָּה לָאו בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה – מִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת?!
§ Rava said: We learn in the mishna as well that drinking is included in eating. The mishna teaches: If one said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate and drank, he is liable to bring only one offering. Granted, if you say that drinking is included in eating, that is why it was necessary for the tanna to teach us that he is liable to bring only one offering. But if you say that drinking is not included in eating, there is no reason for the tanna to teach that it is only one violation. If one says: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate and performed some kind of labor, would it be necessary to teach us that the person is liable to bring only one offering? He never took an oath prohibiting labor.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מַאי, שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה?! אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״, וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם. כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ – אִיתְּסַר לֵיהּ בִּשְׁתִיָּה; כִּי אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ – אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? אִילּוּ אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי, מִי מִיחַיַּיב תַּרְתֵּי?!
Abaye said to him: What, rather, is your conclusion; that drinking is included in eating? Say the latter clause of the mishna: 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. According to you, Rava, once he said: I will not eat, drinking became forbidden to him, so when he said: I will not drink, why is he rendered liable to bring a separate offering? If he had said: I will not drink, two times, would he be liable to bring two offerings?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״, וַהֲדַר אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״; דִּשְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה אִיתַהּ, אֲכִילָה בִּכְלָל שְׁתִיָּה לֵיתַהּ.
Rava said to him: There, in the mishna, it is actually a case where he said: I will not drink, and then said: I will not eat. Although it is so that drinking is included in eating, it is not so that eating is included in drinking, and the oath not to drink went into effect independently of the oath not to eat. Therefore, he is liable to bring two offerings.
אֲבָל אָמַר שְׁבוּעָה ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״, וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, מַאי – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת; לִיתְנֵי: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת – וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ לְחוֹדֵיהּ!
The Gemara asks: But according to this, if he said: On my oath I will not eat and I will not drink, and he then ate and drank, what is the halakha? Is it that he is liable to bring only one offering? If that is so, rather than teaching in the first clause of the mishna that one who said: On my oath I will not eat, and then ate and drank, is liable to bring only one offering, let the tanna teach the following: If one says: On my oath I will not eat and I will not drink, and he ate and drank, he is liable to bring only one offering. From that ruling it could be concluded that when one takes an oath: I will not eat, alone, all the more so is he liable to bring only one offering.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי; וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וַהֲדַר אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ – גַּלִּי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהָךְ אֲכִילָה דְּאָמַר, אֲכִילָה גְּרֵידְתָּא הִיא.
Rather, the mishna actually is as it is taught, that one who took an oath not to eat and drink, and then ate and drank, is liable to bring two offerings, even though drinking is included in eating. And here it is different. Since he said: I will not eat, and then said: I will not drink, he revealed his intention that the eating that he stated first is eating alone and does not include drinking.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל אֳוכָלִין שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לַאֲכִילָה, וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לִשְׁתִיָּה – פָּטוּר. הָא רְאוּיִן – חַיָּיב; וְאַמַּאי? הָא ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ קָאָמַר!
Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that drinking is included in eating. It teaches: 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. But if those liquids were fit for consumption, he would be liable. And why? The mishna teaches that he took an oath saying: On my oath I will not eat, without mentioning drinking, which indicates that drinking is included in eating.
דִּלְמָא דְּאָמַר תַּרְתֵּי: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״.
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where he said both: On my oath I will not eat and: On my oath I will not drink. The mishna did not spell out the second oath because its primary interest was in teaching that eating or drinking that which is inedible or not potable is not considered eating or drinking.
שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל, וְאָכַל פַּת חִטִּין כּוּ׳. וְדִלְמָא לְמִיפְטַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ מֵאַחְרָנְיָיתָא קָאָתֵי?
§ The mishna teaches that if one 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 one. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps when he details each type of bread it comes to ensure that he exempts himself from having other foods included in the oath, not to indicate that each type of bread is a separate oath.
הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין״. וְדִלְמָא לָכוֹס?
The Gemara answers: If that was his intention, then he could have just said: Wheat, barley, and spelt, without mentioning bread each time. From the fact that he mentioned bread each time, it can be understood that his intention was that each be considered a separate oath. The Gemara rejects this: But if he did not mention bread, perhaps his oath could be interpreted to prohibit chewing [lakhos] whole kernels of these grains, and he consequently mentioned bread to limit the oath to bread.
דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״פַּת חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין״. וְדִלְמָא ״פַּת חִטִּין״ – לֶאֱכוֹל, ״שְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין״ – לָכוֹס?
The Gemara suggests: If his intention was to ensure that his oath does not extend to other foods, he could have just said: Bread made from wheat, or barley, or spelt, and in that way his oath would be limited to just bread. The Gemara rejects this: If he had said it that way, perhaps his oath could be interpreted to prohibit him from eating wheat bread and from chewing whole kernels of barley or spelt.
דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״פַּת חִטִּין וְשֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין וְשֶׁל כּוּסְּמִין״.
The Gemara suggests: If his intention was to ensure that his oath does not extend to other foods, he could have just said: Bread made from wheat, and from barley, and from spelt, thereby limiting his oath to types of bread.
וְדִלְמָא עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת?
The Gemara rejects this: But if he had said it that way, perhaps his oath could be interpreted to prohibit only bread made from a mixture of all these grains.
אֵימָא ״וְכֵן שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים וְכֵן שֶׁל כּוּסְּמִין״; ״פַּת״ ״פַּת״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְחַלֵּק.
The Gemara suggests: If the specification in the mishna serves merely to ensure that his oath does not extend to other foods, have him say: Bread made from wheat and so from barley and so from spelt. Why do I need to repeat: Bread, bread, each time? Conclude from it that the point of repeating the word bread each time is to individuate each statement as a separate oath.
״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין הַרְבֵּה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, דְּאָמְרַתְּ מְיַיתְּרָא לֵיהּ ״פַּת״ ״פַּת״ לְחִיּוּבָא; אֶלָּא הָכָא, מַאי הֲוָה לְמֵימַר? דִּלְמָא לְמִיפְטַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִמַּשְׁקִין אַחֲרִינֵי קָאָתֵי!
§ The mishna teaches: 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 says: On my oath I will not drink wine, or oil, or honey, and he drank all of them, he is liable to bring an offering for each and every one. The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the case of the bread, the ruling of the mishna is understood, as you said that the word bread before barley, and the word bread before spelt are superfluous and serve to extend his liability so that each is considered an independent oath. But here, where there is no superfluous language, what was there to say? Perhaps the oath comes to ensure that he exempts himself so that the oath does not extend to other liquids. Since that is a possibility, he should not be liable for breaking three separate oaths when he drank all three liquids.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמוּנָּחִין לְפָנָיו עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה אֵלּוּ״. וְדִלְמָא אֵלּוּ הוּא דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא, אַחֲרִינֵי שָׁתֵינָא?
Rav Pappa said: We are dealing here with a situation where all three liquids are placed before him. Under the circumstances, if he merely wished to indicate that his oath is limited to these liquids, he could have said: On my oath I will not drink these. Since he instead specified the liquids in the oath, it was in order to indicate that each should be considered as a separate oath. The Gemara challenges: But had he said: I will not drink these, perhaps his oath would be interpreted as meaning: It is these liquids, which are before me right now, that I will not drink, but I will drink other wine, oil, and honey.
אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ״. דִּלְמָא כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא; בְּצִיר מֵהָכִי וּטְפֵי מֵהָכִי שָׁתֵינָא?
The Gemara answers: Rather, if he merely wished to indicate that his oath is limited to these types of liquids, it would be a case where he said: On my oath I will not drink liquids such as these. The Gemara challenges: Had he said it that way, perhaps it could be interpreted as referring to the volume of the liquids: I will not drink liquids such as these, but I will drink less than this or more than this.
אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה מִמִּין אֵלּוּ״. וְדִלְמָא מִין אֵלּוּ הוּא דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא, הָא אִינְהוּ גּוּפַיְיהוּ שָׁתֵינָא?
The Gemara answers: Rather, if he merely wished to indicate that his oath is limited to these types of liquids, it is a case where he said: On my oath I will not drink from these types of liquids. The Gemara challenges: But had he said it that way, perhaps his oath would be interpreted to mean: I will not drink these types of liquids in general, but I will drink these particular liquids in front of me.
אֵימָא ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה אֵלּוּ וּמִינַּיְיהוּ״.
The Gemara suggests: If the point of the specification of the liquids in the mishna was merely to ensure that his oath does not extend to other liquids, have him say: On my oath I will not drink these and liquids of their types. Since he instead specified: Wine, oil, and honey, one may conclude that his intention was to individuate each liquid as a separate oath.
רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר: בִּמְסַרְהֵב בּוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ עָסְקִינַן, דְּאָמַר לוֹ: ״בּוֹא וּשְׁתֵה עִמִּי יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ״. דְּהָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה עִמְּךָ״, ״יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ״ לְמָה לִי? לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: We are dealing with a case in which another is importuning him to drink, as he said to him: Come, drink wine, and oil, and honey with me; if he wanted him to desist, he should have said: On my oath I will not drink with you. Under these circumstances, why do I need him to specify: Wine, and oil, and honey? The specification of the liquids serves to indicate his intention to render himself liable for each and every one.
תְּנַן הָתָם: ״תֵּן לִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם״ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין״ – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (36b) with regard to an oath concerning a deposit, that if one says to his bailee: Give me my wheat, barley, and spelt that are in your possession, and the bailee lies and says: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable to bring only one guilt-offering. But if the bailee says: On my oath I do not have in my possession any wheat, barley, or spelt that belong to you, he is liable to bring a separate offering for each and every one.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ פְּרוּטָה מִכּוּלָּם מִצְטָרֶפֶת.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says with regard to that mishna that he is liable even if the value of all three species combines to amount to as little as one peruta.
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא; חַד אָמַר: אַפְּרָטֵי מִיחַיַּיב, אַכְּלָלֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב; וְחַד אָמַר: אַכְּלָלֵי נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב.
Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this. One said: When the bailee says: On my oath I do not have in my possession any wheat, barley, or spelt that belong to you, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering only for violating the specific oaths for individual types of grain, and he is not liable for violating a general oath that he does not have anything in his possession. Consequently, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the different types of grains can be combined to amount to one peruta is referring only to the oath in the first clause of the mishna where he did not specify the grains. And one said: He is also liable for violating a general oath, and in the latter clause of the mishna he is liable for violating four oaths: One general oath that he does not have anything in his possession and three specific oaths, one for each type of grain. Consequently, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement applies also to where he specifies the grains, and he is liable to bring one offering even when all three species combine to amount to only one peruta.
הָכָא מַאי?
The Gemara asks: Here, in the case of one who takes an oath that he will not eat wheat bread, barley bread, or spelt bread, what is the halakha? Is there a dispute as to whether he is considered to have taken a general oath alongside the specific oaths?
אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם מִיחַיַּיב אַכְּלָלָא וּמִיחַיַּיב אַפְּרָטָא, דְּהָא אִי מִשְׁתְּבַע וַהֲדַר מִשְׁתְּבַע – מִיחַיַּיב תַּרְתֵּי. הָכָא, אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אִיתָא בִּכְלָלָא, אַפְּרָטֵי אַמַּאי מִיחַיַּיב? מוּשְׁבָּע וְעוֹמֵד הוּא!
Rava said: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of an oath of a deposit, he is liable for the general oath and for the specific oath, since if a bailee takes an oath denying that he is in possession of a deposit and then takes another oath to the same effect, he is liable for taking two false oaths on a deposit. Here, with regard to an oath to prohibit oneself from eating, if it enters your mind that he is bound by a general oath, why would he be liable for the specific oaths? He is already under an oath due to the general oath, and an oath cannot take effect when the matter it prohibits is already forbidden by another oath.
שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְכוּ׳. הָא גוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא – אָמְרַתְּ: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל אֳוכָלִין שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לַאֲכִילָה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לִשְׁתִיָּה – פָּטוּר; וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים – חַיָּיב; מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא דְּפָטוּר, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא דְּחַיָּיב?
§ The mishna teaches that if one said: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate foods that are inedible, he is exempt. If he said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate the meat of unslaughtered carcasses, he is liable. The Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult. You said that if one 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. And then the mishna teaches that if one says: 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. What is different about the first clause that he is exempt and what is different about the latter clause that he is liable? Non-kosher animals are also unfit to be eaten.
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא; רֵישָׁא בִּסְתָם, וְסֵיפָא בִּמְפָרֵשׁ.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The first clause is where he took an oath not to eat without specifying what is included in it. Presumably, his oath did not include items that are not ordinarily eaten. And the latter clause is a case where he specifies what it is he will not eat, e.g., unslaughtered carcasses, and nevertheless eats them.
מְפָרֵשׁ נָמֵי גּוּפֵיהּ תִּיקְשֵׁי – אַמַּאי מוּשְׁבָּע מֵהַר סִינַי הוּא?
The Gemara asks: You may also raise a difficulty with regard to the case where he specifies that he will not eat non-kosher items: Why? He is under oath from Mount Sinai, and an oath does not take effect to prohibit that which is already forbidden.
רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמְרִי: בְּכוֹלֵל דְּבָרִים הַמּוּתָּרִין עִם דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִין.
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.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא אִי בִּמְפָרֵשׁ חֲצִי שִׁיעוּר – וְאַלִּיבָּא דְרַבָּנַן; אִי בִּסְתָם – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם אוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא.
And Reish Lakish says: You find that one is liable for eating non-kosher food as the result of an oath only if it is an oath where he specifies that it 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 Torah law, 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – דְּמוֹקֵים לָהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין כְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל; אֶלָּא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן?
The Gemara asks: Granted, it is understood why Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say like Reish Lakish, as he interprets the mishna so that it is in accordance with the opinion of everyone; but what is the reason that Reish Lakish does not say like the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan?
אָמַר לְךָ: כִּי אָמְרִינַן אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל –
The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could say to you: When we say that a more inclusive prohibition, which adds additional aspects to the prohibition for the same individual, can take effect where there already is a prohibition in place,
