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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 22, 2017 | 讚壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shevuot 24

The mishna has an inner contradiction about whether or not a general oath would include eating not kosher foods. Two different resolutions are brought. What are the reasons why one would say that an issur聽kollel聽would apply or not? Rava says that applies even in a case of one who swears. The gemara聽brings a mishna in kreitut聽which would seem to contradict Rava and 6 different explanations are brought as to why there is no contradiction.

讘讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪讗诇讬讜 讘讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

it is with regard to a prohibition that occurs on its own, like the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur, which is more inclusive than the prohibition against eating non-kosher food and therefore takes effect. But with regard to a prohibition that occurs by the act of a person himself, i.e., an oath or a vow, we do not say that because it is more inclusive it can take effect also with regard to items that are already forbidden by Torah law.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗 驻讟专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讻讜转 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻讝讬转 讗诇讗 诇拽专讘谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚驻讟专

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who understands the mishna to be dealing with the case of one who took an oath about less than a full measure, it is due to this reason that Rabbi Shimon deems exempt one who takes an oath prohibiting himself from eating non-kosher food, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Any amount is sufficient to render one liable to receive lashes, and the Sages stated the measure of an olive-bulk to determine only liability to bring an offering. According to Reish Lakish, Rabbi Shimon holds that one is already under oath from Mount Sinai even with regard to less than a full measure, and for that reason the oath does not take effect. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who understands the mishna to be referring to an oath that includes erstwhile permitted items, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing an offering for breaking his oath not to eat non-kosher food?

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 the reason that the first tanna holds that the individual is liable for violating his oath only due to the fact that the oath generates a more inclusive prohibition? In this matter Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning in that he does not hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where a preexisting prohibition is in place. This is in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats non-kosher meat on Yom Kippur is exempt from bringing an offering for eating on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is a more inclusive prohibition than that of eating non-kosher meat, as on that day one may not eat anything.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘诇讗讜 讜讛谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讛谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

From the verse: 鈥淥r if any one take an oath clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good鈥 (Leviticus 5:4), the Sages derived that one is liable to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance only when the oath is such that it could be inverted from the positive to the negative or vice versa. For example, one is liable for violating an oath to eat because one can also take an oath not to eat. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, you find a case where the oath can be negative or positive. Therefore, one is liable according to the Rabbis when he takes an oath that he will eat any amount, since he could also take an oath that he will not eat any amount. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, granted, that you can find a case of a negative oath, as the oath not to eat non-kosher animals takes effect when it includes other erstwhile permitted items. But how can you find a positive version of this oath? An oath to eat non-kosher animals cannot take effect, as eating non-kosher animals is prohibited by Torah law.

讗诇讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 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

Rather, do not distinguish between the former and the latter clauses of the mishna based on whether he specifies what he is eating. In both cases he takes an oath not to eat, without specifying. In the case where he eats something inedible, he is exempt, in accordance with that which Rava says, as Rava says that if one said: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate dirt, he is exempt, since eating an inedible substance is not considered to be eating. Eating non-kosher meat is considered to be eating; for that reason, the latter clause of the mishna states that one is liable for doing so if he took an oath not to eat. The oath takes effect with regard to the non-kosher items because, as Rabbi Yo岣nan noted, it includes items that would otherwise be permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 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 诇讜

Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna (22b) as well that eating non-kosher food is considered eating, as if one 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.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻诇 讜讛讚专 讗砖转讘注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: How can these cases be compared? There, since he initially ate the forbidden item and only then took an oath saying that he did not eat,

讞砖讜讘讬 讗讞砖讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讞砖讘讬讛

in taking the oath, he granted significance to the non-kosher food, and that is why his eating forbidden items is considered to be eating. But here, where he took an oath not to eat and then ate non-kosher food, did he thereby give significance to it? For this reason, no conclusive proof can be cited from the last case in the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan understands the mishna as referring to a case in which the oath takes effect because it is a more inclusive prohibition than the prohibition against eating non-kosher food, in that it adds additional prohibitions for the same individual. In this context, Rava says: What is the reasoning of the one who holds that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where there already is a prohibition in place?

诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝

Rava answers his own question: It is just as it is in the case of an expanded prohibition, which incorporates additional people into the list of those for whom the original item is forbidden. An expanded prohibition also takes effect despite the fact that there is already a prohibition in place.

讜诪讗谉 讚驻讟专 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专 讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讘讞讚讗 讞转讬讻讛 讘砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And with regard to the one who exempts another from liability in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, as he does not hold that it takes effect, why does he hold that an expanded prohibition does take effect? When he says that an expanded prohibition takes effect, that is with regard to a single piece, i.e., that the number of people who are prohibited from eating the same piece of meat is expanded. With regard to two distinct pieces, i.e., a case where the new prohibition expands the scope of prohibited items, as in an inclusive prohibition, we do not say that it takes effect.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诪讬讙讜 讚讞讬讬诇 讗注谞讘讬诐 讞讬讬诇 谞诪讬 讗转讗谞讬诐

And Rava says: According to the one who holds that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where another prohibition is already in place, the halakha should be as follows: When a person says: On my oath I will not eat figs, and then says: On my oath I will not eat figs and grapes, since the last oath takes effect with regard to the grapes, it also takes effect with regard to the figs, even though they were already forbidden by his previous oath.

驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪讗诇讬讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪注爪诪讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we say that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect only with regard to a prohibition that occurs on its own, like the prohibition against eating non-kosher food, but with regard to a prohibition that occurs by the act of a person himself we do not say that the more inclusive prohibition takes effect, Rava teaches us that there is no difference.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗专讘注 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讜讗 谞讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

Rava, son of Rabba, raises an objection from a mishna (Karetot 13b): It is possible for a person to perform one act of eating for which he is liable to bring four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering. And these are the prohibitions one can violate in this manner: A ritually impure person who ate forbidden fat that is the leftover from one of the sacrificial animals on Yom Kippur. If he did this and was unaware of the relevant prohibitions he is liable to bring four sin-offerings, as well as a guilt-offering for deriving benefit from the misuse of consecrated property.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖诐

Rabbi Meir says: Also, if it was Shabbat and he transferred the item from one domain to another in his mouth, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing labor on Shabbat as well. The Rabbis said to him: This is not a prohibition of the same type, since in the case of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 additional prohibition he does not violate it by eating.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讞诪砖 讻讙讜谉 砖讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转诪专讬诐 讜讞诇讘 诪讬讙讜 讚讞讬讬诇 讗转诪专讬诐 讞讬讬诇讗 谞诪讬 讗讞诇讘

Rava, son of Rabba, explains the objection that arises from the mishna: And if it is so that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect, then you find a case where one is liable for the violation of five prohibitions in one act of eating, such as where one says in the aforementioned situation: On my oath I will not eat dates and forbidden fat. Since the oath takes effect with regard to the dates, it also takes effect with regard to the forbidden fat. The fact that the mishna fails to mention such an oath indicates that a more inclusive prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition is already in place.

讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪讗诇讬讜 讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪注爪诪讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: The absence of an oath with a more inclusive prohibition in the mishna does not indicate anything. When the tanna teaches the scenario above, he lists only the potential prohibitions that occur on their own in one act of eating, but he does not teach prohibitions that occur by the act of the person himself.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated property, which does not occur on its own but only when an item is consecrated?

讘讘讻讜专 讚拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐

The Gemara answers: The case in the mishna is that of a first-born animal, whose sanctity is from the womb, i.e., begins automatically at birth.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讗诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖讗诇讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

If you wish, say instead, in response to the question, that when the tanna of the mishna teaches it, he includes only matters to which presenting a request for dissolution do not apply. An oath, to which a request for dissolution applies, is not taught.

讛专讬 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated property? Consecration can be dissolved by a Sage.

讛讗 讗讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘讘讻讜专

The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 we already establish that the case in the mishna is that of a firstborn animal, whose sanctity cannot be dissolved?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 拽专讘谉 拽讘讜注 拽专讘谉 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 诇讗 拽转谞讬

If you wish, say instead that when he teaches that case, he lists only those prohibitions for which one is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering. If one breaks his oath he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, and the tanna of the mishna does not teach about the liability to bring other offerings.

讛专讬 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讚拽专讘谉 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the mishna list the transgression of an impure person who ate consecrated items, i.e., the sacrificial animals mentioned in the mishna, which is a prohibition for which one brings a sliding-scale offering?

讘谞砖讬讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞砖讬讗 诪讘讬讗 砖注讬专

The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a king who eats the leftover of a sacrificial animal while impure, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: A ritually impure king who ate consecrated items brings a male goat as a sin-offering, rather than the sliding-scale offering brought by a commoner.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讞讬讬诇讗 讻砖讬注讜专 砖讘讜注讛 讚讞讬讬诇讗 讗驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rav Ashi said there is a different answer: When the tanna teaches this case, he lists only matters that apply when one eats the measure of an olive-bulk, whereas the case of an oath, which applies to eating even less than the standard measure, is not taught in the mishna.

讛专讬 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from the misuse of consecrated property, which applies to eating even less than an olive-bulk?

讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

The Gemara answers: We require that one derive the value of one peruta of benefit in order to be liable, so that is also a prohibition to which standard measures apply.

讜专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讜讬专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讝讚讜谞讜 诇讗讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And Rav Ashi of Avireya said that Rabbi Zeira said: When the tanna teaches this case, he lists only prohibitions for which intentional violation of them renders one liable to receive karet, and he does not teach prohibitions for which intentional violation of them renders one liable to receive lashes.

讜讛专讬 讗砖诐 讚讝讚讜谞讜 诇讗讜 讜拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the guilt-offering for the misuse of consecrated property, which is listed in the mishna, a prohibition for which intentional violation of it renders one liable to receive only lashes, not karet? And nevertheless the tanna of the mishna teaches it.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 24

讘讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪讗诇讬讜 讘讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

it is with regard to a prohibition that occurs on its own, like the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur, which is more inclusive than the prohibition against eating non-kosher food and therefore takes effect. But with regard to a prohibition that occurs by the act of a person himself, i.e., an oath or a vow, we do not say that because it is more inclusive it can take effect also with regard to items that are already forbidden by Torah law.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗 驻讟专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讻讜转 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻讝讬转 讗诇讗 诇拽专讘谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚驻讟专

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who understands the mishna to be dealing with the case of one who took an oath about less than a full measure, it is due to this reason that Rabbi Shimon deems exempt one who takes an oath prohibiting himself from eating non-kosher food, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Any amount is sufficient to render one liable to receive lashes, and the Sages stated the measure of an olive-bulk to determine only liability to bring an offering. According to Reish Lakish, Rabbi Shimon holds that one is already under oath from Mount Sinai even with regard to less than a full measure, and for that reason the oath does not take effect. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who understands the mishna to be referring to an oath that includes erstwhile permitted items, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing an offering for breaking his oath not to eat non-kosher food?

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 the reason that the first tanna holds that the individual is liable for violating his oath only due to the fact that the oath generates a more inclusive prohibition? In this matter Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning in that he does not hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where a preexisting prohibition is in place. This is in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats non-kosher meat on Yom Kippur is exempt from bringing an offering for eating on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is a more inclusive prohibition than that of eating non-kosher meat, as on that day one may not eat anything.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘诇讗讜 讜讛谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讛谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

From the verse: 鈥淥r if any one take an oath clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good鈥 (Leviticus 5:4), the Sages derived that one is liable to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance only when the oath is such that it could be inverted from the positive to the negative or vice versa. For example, one is liable for violating an oath to eat because one can also take an oath not to eat. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, you find a case where the oath can be negative or positive. Therefore, one is liable according to the Rabbis when he takes an oath that he will eat any amount, since he could also take an oath that he will not eat any amount. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, granted, that you can find a case of a negative oath, as the oath not to eat non-kosher animals takes effect when it includes other erstwhile permitted items. But how can you find a positive version of this oath? An oath to eat non-kosher animals cannot take effect, as eating non-kosher animals is prohibited by Torah law.

讗诇讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 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

Rather, do not distinguish between the former and the latter clauses of the mishna based on whether he specifies what he is eating. In both cases he takes an oath not to eat, without specifying. In the case where he eats something inedible, he is exempt, in accordance with that which Rava says, as Rava says that if one said: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate dirt, he is exempt, since eating an inedible substance is not considered to be eating. Eating non-kosher meat is considered to be eating; for that reason, the latter clause of the mishna states that one is liable for doing so if he took an oath not to eat. The oath takes effect with regard to the non-kosher items because, as Rabbi Yo岣nan noted, it includes items that would otherwise be permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 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 诇讜

Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna (22b) as well that eating non-kosher food is considered eating, as if one 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.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻诇 讜讛讚专 讗砖转讘注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: How can these cases be compared? There, since he initially ate the forbidden item and only then took an oath saying that he did not eat,

讞砖讜讘讬 讗讞砖讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讞砖讘讬讛

in taking the oath, he granted significance to the non-kosher food, and that is why his eating forbidden items is considered to be eating. But here, where he took an oath not to eat and then ate non-kosher food, did he thereby give significance to it? For this reason, no conclusive proof can be cited from the last case in the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan understands the mishna as referring to a case in which the oath takes effect because it is a more inclusive prohibition than the prohibition against eating non-kosher food, in that it adds additional prohibitions for the same individual. In this context, Rava says: What is the reasoning of the one who holds that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where there already is a prohibition in place?

诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝

Rava answers his own question: It is just as it is in the case of an expanded prohibition, which incorporates additional people into the list of those for whom the original item is forbidden. An expanded prohibition also takes effect despite the fact that there is already a prohibition in place.

讜诪讗谉 讚驻讟专 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专 讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讘讞讚讗 讞转讬讻讛 讘砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And with regard to the one who exempts another from liability in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, as he does not hold that it takes effect, why does he hold that an expanded prohibition does take effect? When he says that an expanded prohibition takes effect, that is with regard to a single piece, i.e., that the number of people who are prohibited from eating the same piece of meat is expanded. With regard to two distinct pieces, i.e., a case where the new prohibition expands the scope of prohibited items, as in an inclusive prohibition, we do not say that it takes effect.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诪讬讙讜 讚讞讬讬诇 讗注谞讘讬诐 讞讬讬诇 谞诪讬 讗转讗谞讬诐

And Rava says: According to the one who holds that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where another prohibition is already in place, the halakha should be as follows: When a person says: On my oath I will not eat figs, and then says: On my oath I will not eat figs and grapes, since the last oath takes effect with regard to the grapes, it also takes effect with regard to the figs, even though they were already forbidden by his previous oath.

驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪讗诇讬讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪注爪诪讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we say that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect only with regard to a prohibition that occurs on its own, like the prohibition against eating non-kosher food, but with regard to a prohibition that occurs by the act of a person himself we do not say that the more inclusive prohibition takes effect, Rava teaches us that there is no difference.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗专讘注 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讜讗 谞讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

Rava, son of Rabba, raises an objection from a mishna (Karetot 13b): It is possible for a person to perform one act of eating for which he is liable to bring four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering. And these are the prohibitions one can violate in this manner: A ritually impure person who ate forbidden fat that is the leftover from one of the sacrificial animals on Yom Kippur. If he did this and was unaware of the relevant prohibitions he is liable to bring four sin-offerings, as well as a guilt-offering for deriving benefit from the misuse of consecrated property.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖诐

Rabbi Meir says: Also, if it was Shabbat and he transferred the item from one domain to another in his mouth, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing labor on Shabbat as well. The Rabbis said to him: This is not a prohibition of the same type, since in the case of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 additional prohibition he does not violate it by eating.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讞诪砖 讻讙讜谉 砖讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转诪专讬诐 讜讞诇讘 诪讬讙讜 讚讞讬讬诇 讗转诪专讬诐 讞讬讬诇讗 谞诪讬 讗讞诇讘

Rava, son of Rabba, explains the objection that arises from the mishna: And if it is so that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect, then you find a case where one is liable for the violation of five prohibitions in one act of eating, such as where one says in the aforementioned situation: On my oath I will not eat dates and forbidden fat. Since the oath takes effect with regard to the dates, it also takes effect with regard to the forbidden fat. The fact that the mishna fails to mention such an oath indicates that a more inclusive prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition is already in place.

讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪讗诇讬讜 讗讬住讜专 讛讘讗 诪注爪诪讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: The absence of an oath with a more inclusive prohibition in the mishna does not indicate anything. When the tanna teaches the scenario above, he lists only the potential prohibitions that occur on their own in one act of eating, but he does not teach prohibitions that occur by the act of the person himself.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated property, which does not occur on its own but only when an item is consecrated?

讘讘讻讜专 讚拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐

The Gemara answers: The case in the mishna is that of a first-born animal, whose sanctity is from the womb, i.e., begins automatically at birth.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讗诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖讗诇讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

If you wish, say instead, in response to the question, that when the tanna of the mishna teaches it, he includes only matters to which presenting a request for dissolution do not apply. An oath, to which a request for dissolution applies, is not taught.

讛专讬 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated property? Consecration can be dissolved by a Sage.

讛讗 讗讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘讘讻讜专

The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 we already establish that the case in the mishna is that of a firstborn animal, whose sanctity cannot be dissolved?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 拽专讘谉 拽讘讜注 拽专讘谉 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 诇讗 拽转谞讬

If you wish, say instead that when he teaches that case, he lists only those prohibitions for which one is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering. If one breaks his oath he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, and the tanna of the mishna does not teach about the liability to bring other offerings.

讛专讬 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讚拽专讘谉 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the mishna list the transgression of an impure person who ate consecrated items, i.e., the sacrificial animals mentioned in the mishna, which is a prohibition for which one brings a sliding-scale offering?

讘谞砖讬讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞砖讬讗 诪讘讬讗 砖注讬专

The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a king who eats the leftover of a sacrificial animal while impure, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: A ritually impure king who ate consecrated items brings a male goat as a sin-offering, rather than the sliding-scale offering brought by a commoner.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讞讬讬诇讗 讻砖讬注讜专 砖讘讜注讛 讚讞讬讬诇讗 讗驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rav Ashi said there is a different answer: When the tanna teaches this case, he lists only matters that apply when one eats the measure of an olive-bulk, whereas the case of an oath, which applies to eating even less than the standard measure, is not taught in the mishna.

讛专讬 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from the misuse of consecrated property, which applies to eating even less than an olive-bulk?

讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

The Gemara answers: We require that one derive the value of one peruta of benefit in order to be liable, so that is also a prohibition to which standard measures apply.

讜专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讜讬专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讝讚讜谞讜 诇讗讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And Rav Ashi of Avireya said that Rabbi Zeira said: When the tanna teaches this case, he lists only prohibitions for which intentional violation of them renders one liable to receive karet, and he does not teach prohibitions for which intentional violation of them renders one liable to receive lashes.

讜讛专讬 讗砖诐 讚讝讚讜谞讜 诇讗讜 讜拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the guilt-offering for the misuse of consecrated property, which is listed in the mishna, a prohibition for which intentional violation of it renders one liable to receive only lashes, not karet? And nevertheless the tanna of the mishna teaches it.

Scroll To Top