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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 21, 2017 | 讙壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shevuot 23

How do we know that the word “food”includes drinking?聽 Does our mishna support that understanding?聽 Why in the cases in the mishna聽where one detailed a number of things that are forbidden, do we assume that one meant to create a separate oath for each one and not that the person meant聽to exclude other things from the oath?聽 How does an expressive oath differ from an oath denying that one has an item of another聽in one’s possession?聽 The debate regarding an oath that combines forbidden and permitted items聽discussed previously in now discussed more in depth.


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

讜转讬专讜砖 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇转

And since the Hebrew word tirosh mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written with regard to it: 鈥淎nd you shall eat,鈥 this indicates that drinking is an activity included in eating.

讜讚诇诪讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚住讬诇拽讬 讗讻住讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 住讬诇拽讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讛讻讗 讜谞转转讛 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讜讘讬讬谉 讜讘砖讻专 讬讬谉 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇转

Rather, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Cite from here, a verse written with regard to money with which one has redeemed second tithe: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26). The Hebrew word yayin mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall eat.鈥

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps here this verse is also referring to consuming wine by means of an anigeron.

砖讻专 讻转讬讘 诪讬讚讬 讚诪砖讻专

The Gemara rejects this: 鈥淪trong drink鈥 is written in the verse, referring to something intoxicating, and wine mixed into a stew is not intoxicating.

讜讚诇诪讗 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讜注讘讚 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the intoxicating substance referred to in the verse is pressed figs from Ke鈥檌la, as it is taught in a baraita: A priest who ate pressed figs from Ke鈥檌la 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.

讗诇讗 讙诪专 砖讻专 砖讻专 诪谞讝讬专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬讬谉

Rather, one derives the meaning of 鈥渟trong drink鈥 in this verse by means of a verbal analogy from the verse about a nazirite: 鈥淗e 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鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 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 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 砖转讬讛 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讜注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 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 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讬转住专 诇讬讛 讘砖转讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讚砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬转讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻诇诇 砖转讬讛 诇讬转讗

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.

讗讘诇 讗诪专 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 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 专讬砖讗 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 诇讬转谞讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讞讜讚讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讙诇讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讛讱 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 讙专讬讚转讗 讛讬讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 驻讟讜专 讛讗 专讗讜讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 拽讗诪专

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.

讚诇诪讗 讚讗诪专 转专转讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛

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.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讻讜壮 讜讚诇诪讗 诇诪讬驻讟专 谞驻砖讬讛 诪讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 拽讗转讬

搂 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.

讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讜讚诇诪讗 诇讻讜住

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.

讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讜讚诇诪讗 驻转 讞讟讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 诇讻讜住

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.

讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讜砖诇 讻讜住诪讬谉

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.

讜讚诇诪讗 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转

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.

讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐 讜讻谉 砖诇 讻讜住诪讬谉 驻转 驻转 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讞诇拽

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.

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 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讚讗诪专转 诪讬讬转专讗 诇讬讛 驻转 驻转 诇讞讬讜讘讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇诪讬诪专 讚诇诪讗 诇诪讬驻讟专 谞驻砖讬讛 诪诪砖拽讬谉 讗讞专讬谞讬 拽讗转讬

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讜谞讞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讗诇讜 讜讚诇诪讗 讗诇讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 砖转讬谞讗

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.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讜 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 讜讟驻讬 诪讛讻讬 砖转讬谞讗

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.

讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 诪诪讬谉 讗诇讜 讜讚诇诪讗 诪讬谉 讗诇讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讛讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 砖转讬谞讗

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.

讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讗诇讜 讜诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

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.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讘诪住专讛讘 讘讜 讞讘讬专讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜 讘讜讗 讜砖转讛 注诪讬 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讚讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 注诪讱 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rav A岣, 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讻诇讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讜讟讛 诪讻讜诇诐 诪爪讟专驻转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻专讟讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇诇讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讻诇诇讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rav A岣 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

讛讻讗 诪讗讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇诇讗 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗驻专讟讗 讚讛讗 讗讬 诪砖转讘注 讜讛讚专 诪砖转讘注 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬 讛讻讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬转讗 讘讻诇诇讗 讗驻专讟讬 讗诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 讛讜讗

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.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 驻讟讜专 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 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 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚讞讬讬讘

搂 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.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讘住转诐 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪驻专砖

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.

诪驻专砖 谞诪讬 讙讜驻讬讛 转讬拽砖讬 讗诪讗讬 诪讜砖讘注 诪讛专 住讬谞讬 讛讜讗

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.

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

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 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 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, it is understood why Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan?

讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇

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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 23

讜转讬专讜砖 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇转

And since the Hebrew word tirosh mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written with regard to it: 鈥淎nd you shall eat,鈥 this indicates that drinking is an activity included in eating.

讜讚诇诪讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚住讬诇拽讬 讗讻住讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 住讬诇拽讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讛讻讗 讜谞转转讛 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讜讘讬讬谉 讜讘砖讻专 讬讬谉 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇转

Rather, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Cite from here, a verse written with regard to money with which one has redeemed second tithe: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26). The Hebrew word yayin mentioned in the verse is wine, and it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall eat.鈥

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps here this verse is also referring to consuming wine by means of an anigeron.

砖讻专 讻转讬讘 诪讬讚讬 讚诪砖讻专

The Gemara rejects this: 鈥淪trong drink鈥 is written in the verse, referring to something intoxicating, and wine mixed into a stew is not intoxicating.

讜讚诇诪讗 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讜注讘讚 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the intoxicating substance referred to in the verse is pressed figs from Ke鈥檌la, as it is taught in a baraita: A priest who ate pressed figs from Ke鈥檌la 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.

讗诇讗 讙诪专 砖讻专 砖讻专 诪谞讝讬专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬讬谉

Rather, one derives the meaning of 鈥渟trong drink鈥 in this verse by means of a verbal analogy from the verse about a nazirite: 鈥淗e 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鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 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 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 砖转讬讛 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讜注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 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 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讬转住专 诇讬讛 讘砖转讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讚砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬转讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻诇诇 砖转讬讛 诇讬转讗

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.

讗讘诇 讗诪专 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 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 专讬砖讗 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 诇讬转谞讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讞讜讚讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讙诇讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讛讱 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 讙专讬讚转讗 讛讬讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 驻讟讜专 讛讗 专讗讜讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 拽讗诪专

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.

讚诇诪讗 讚讗诪专 转专转讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛

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.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讻讜壮 讜讚诇诪讗 诇诪讬驻讟专 谞驻砖讬讛 诪讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 拽讗转讬

搂 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.

讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讜讚诇诪讗 诇讻讜住

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.

讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讜讚诇诪讗 驻转 讞讟讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 诇讻讜住

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.

讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 驻转 讞讟讬谉 讜砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讜砖诇 讻讜住诪讬谉

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.

讜讚诇诪讗 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转

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.

讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐 讜讻谉 砖诇 讻讜住诪讬谉 驻转 驻转 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讞诇拽

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.

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 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讚讗诪专转 诪讬讬转专讗 诇讬讛 驻转 驻转 诇讞讬讜讘讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇诪讬诪专 讚诇诪讗 诇诪讬驻讟专 谞驻砖讬讛 诪诪砖拽讬谉 讗讞专讬谞讬 拽讗转讬

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讜谞讞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讗诇讜 讜讚诇诪讗 讗诇讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讬 砖转讬谞讗

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.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 讗诇讜 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 讜讟驻讬 诪讛讻讬 砖转讬谞讗

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.

讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 诪诪讬谉 讗诇讜 讜讚诇诪讗 诪讬谉 讗诇讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讛讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 砖转讬谞讗

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.

讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讗诇讜 讜诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

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.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讘诪住专讛讘 讘讜 讞讘讬专讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜 讘讜讗 讜砖转讛 注诪讬 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讚讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 注诪讱 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rav A岣, 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讻诇讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讜讟讛 诪讻讜诇诐 诪爪讟专驻转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻专讟讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇诇讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讻诇诇讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rav A岣 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

讛讻讗 诪讗讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇诇讗 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗驻专讟讗 讚讛讗 讗讬 诪砖转讘注 讜讛讚专 诪砖转讘注 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬 讛讻讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬转讗 讘讻诇诇讗 讗驻专讟讬 讗诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 讛讜讗

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.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 驻讟讜专 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 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 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚讞讬讬讘

搂 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.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讘住转诐 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪驻专砖

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.

诪驻专砖 谞诪讬 讙讜驻讬讛 转讬拽砖讬 讗诪讗讬 诪讜砖讘注 诪讛专 住讬谞讬 讛讜讗

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.

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

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 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 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, it is understood why Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan?

讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇

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,

Scroll To Top