Today's Daf Yomi
December 26, 2017 | 讞壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Shevuot 28
If an oath is made with a condition, what are the halachot if the condition is fulfilled accidentally, meaning that when the person fulfilled the condition, the person didn’t remember that the condition was made?聽 What if the person remembered the condition but forgot when he/she ate the forbidden item?聽 What if a person said that each item if forbidden if he/she eats the other item.聽 various permutations are brought as to what the person did intentionally and what was unintentional.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 谞诪讬
Even if he had left any amount it would also be possible for him to dissolve the oath, as he had not yet broken his oath.
讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇谞讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诪讬讙讜 讚诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讗诇讛 讗讻讝讬转 讘转专讗 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讗诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讻讝讬转 拽诪讗
Rav Ashi answers: If you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: I will not eat this loaf, and if you wish, say that it is referring to a case where he took an oath , saying: I will not eat it. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath , saying: I will not eat this loaf. Since a request for dissolution is still effective even for the last olive-bulk of the loaf, it is effective also for the first olive-bulk.
讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇谞讛 讗讬 砖讬讬专 讻讝讬转 讞砖讬讘 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 注诇讬讛
And if you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: I will not eat it. If he left an olive-bulk, that is a sufficiently significant quantity for which to request dissolution of the oath. But if he did not leave that much, it is not a sufficiently significant quantity for which to request dissolution of the oath.
诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 砖谞讚专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讜诪谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讬讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛
Rava assumes that once one has eaten the entire loaf, it is no longer possible to dissolve the oath. The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: With regard to one who took two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first term and separated an offering for it, and afterward requested and received dissolution of the first vow from a halakhic authority, the second term was counted for him in the observance of the first term and he is not required to be a nazirite further. Although the first term of naziriteship was entirely finished, a halakhic authority could still dissolve the vow.
讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖诇讗 讻讬驻专
The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he has not yet atoned, i.e., he has not yet brought the offerings that one brings at the conclusion of naziriteship.
讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讬驻专 讘砖诇讗 讙诇讞 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 诪注讻讘讗
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one can still dissolve his vow of naziriteship after he has atoned? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he has brought the offerings but has not yet shaved his hair, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Shaving is indispensable to the completion of naziriteship.
讜讛转谞讬讗 讙诇讞 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讝讬专讜转 拽讗 专诪讬转 诪讬 讙专诐 诇砖谞讬讛 砖诇讗 转讞讜诇 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗讬谞讛
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one can still dissolve his vow of naziriteship after he has shaved? Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing naziriteship to oaths? What caused the second naziriteship to not take effect until now? It was the first naziriteship, and once it has been dissolved, it is no longer a factor. Since the observance of the naziriteship term is the same whether it is counted for the second or the first, the first term of naziriteship can be regarded as not yet having started and that is why it can be dissolved. By contrast, in the case of the oath, once he ate the loaf, his oath is no longer extant at all.
讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讻诇讛 讻讜诇讛 谞砖讗诇 注诇讬讛 讗讬 讘砖讜讙讙 诪讞讜住专 拽专讘谉 讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讞讜住专 诪诇拽讜转 讗讘诇 讻驻转讜讛讜 注诇 讛注诪讜讚 诇讗 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻驻转讜讛讜 注诇 讛注诪讜讚 讜专抓 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专
Ameimar said, in contrast to the opinion of Rava: Even if he ate the entire loaf he may still request dissolution of the oath. If he ate it unwittingly, i.e., he forgot the oath, it is a situation where he has not yet brought the offering he is liable to bring. If he ate it intentionally, it is a situation where he has not yet received lashes. But if he was already tied to the stake in order to receive lashes, he can no longer request that his oath be dissolved, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: If one had already been tied to the stake in order to receive lashes, and he ran away from the court and escaped, he is exempt from receiving lashes, as being tied to the stake is regarded as the beginning of receiving the lashes; once he has escaped, he is treated as though he were already flogged.
讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 专抓 讛讻讗 诇讗 专抓
The Gemara rejects this: And that is not so. Even if he was tied to the stake he can still have his oath dissolved. There, with regard to his exemption from receiving lashes after he ran away, the original flogging is over and there is no need to initiate a new one. Here, with regard to dissolving the oath, he did not run, and since he is still subject to lashes, he can still have his oath dissolved.
讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讜 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讘诪讝讬讚 驻讟讜专 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讜砖谞讬讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬讛谉 讘砖讜讙讙 驻讟讜专
搂 Rava says: If one says: On my oath I will not eat that loaf if I eat this one, and then he ate the first one, i.e., the loaf whose consumption was the condition for the oath taking effect, unwittingly, and ate the second intentionally, he is exempt. Since he fulfilled the condition unintentionally, the oath does not take effect, as it was without full intent. But if he ate the first intentionally, knowing that if he eats it it will be prohibited for him to eat the other loaf, and he then ate the second unwittingly, he is liable to bring an offering for breaking his oath unwittingly. If he ate them both unwittingly he is exempt, as the oath does not take effect when he fulfills the condition unwittingly.
砖转讬讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讻诇讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛 讞讬讬讘 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛 驻讟讜专
In a case where he ate both of them intentionally, if he ate the loaf whose consumption was his condition and then ate the forbidden loaf, he is liable to receive lashes. If he ate the forbidden loaf and then ate the loaf whose consumption was his condition, his liability is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish. According to the one who says that an uncertain forewarning is deemed a valid forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes. According to the one who says that an uncertain forewarning is not deemed a valid forewarning, he is exempt. Since when he was forewarned for eating the forbidden loaf it was uncertain whether it would actually become forbidden, that forewarning is not sufficient for him to be liable to receive lashes.
转诇讗谉 讝讜 讘讝讜 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 讜讗讻诇 讝讜 讘讝讚讜谉 注爪诪讛 讜讘砖讙讙转 讞讘讬专转讛 讜讝讜 讘讝讚讜谉 注爪诪讛 讜讘砖讙讙转 讞讘讬专转讛 驻讟讜专
If one took an oath with regard to two loaves such that he rendered them interdependent, this one on that one, saying: I will not eat that if I eat this, and: I will not eat this if I eat that, and he ate this one intentionally with regard to itself, i.e., at the time he ate it he was aware that he had taken an oath that would render it forbidden if he ate the other, but unwittingly with regard to the other, i.e., he did not remember that in eating it he rendered the second one forbidden, and then he ate that one intentionally with regard to itself but unwittingly with regard to the other, he is exempt, as both conditions were fulfilled only unintentionally.
讝讜 讘砖讙讙转 注爪诪讛 讜讘讝讚讜谉 讞讘讬专转讛 讜讝讜 讘砖讙讙转 注爪诪讛 讜讘讝讚讜谉 讞讘讬专转讛 讞讬讬讘
If he ate this one unwittingly with regard to itself, having forgotten that it would be forbidden if he ate the other, but intentionally with regard to the other, understanding that with his action he rendered the other forbidden, and that one unwittingly with regard to itself but intentionally with regard to the other, he is liable to bring offerings for unwittingly breaking his oaths, as the conditions were fulfilled intentionally and the oaths took effect.
砖转讬讛谉 讘砖讜讙讙 驻讟讜专
If he ate both of them unwittingly he is exempt, as both conditions were fulfilled only unintentionally.
砖转讬讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗砖谞讬讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗专讗砖讜谞讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖
If he ate both of them intentionally, he is liable to receive lashes for eating the second loaf, while for the first loaf his status depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish with regard to an uncertain forewarning.
讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗专讘注讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛转讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讚专讬 讝专讜讝讬谉 谞讚专讬 讛讘讗讬 谞讚专讬 砖讙讙讜转 谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉
Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna (Nedarim 20b) as well that if one takes an oath with a condition but then fulfills the condition only unwittingly, he is exempt: The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority: Vows of exhortation, vows of exaggeration, unwitting vows, and vows whose fulfillment is impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control.
谞讚专讬 砖讙讙讜转 讻讬爪讚 拽讜谞诐 讗诐 讗讻诇转讬 讜讗诐 砖转讬转讬 讜谞讝讻专 砖讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 砖讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 砖讻讞 讜讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 诪讜转专 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讻砖诐 砖谞讚专讬 砖讙讙讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讱 砖讘讜注讜转 砖讙讙讜转 诪讜转专讜转
The mishna elaborates (see Nedarim 25b): Unwitting vows, how so? If one says: A certain item is forbidden to me like an offering [konam] if I ate or if I drank, and he then remembers that he ate or drank, or if one says: This loaf is konam for me if I will eat or if I will drink, and he then forgets and eats or drinks, the item is permitted. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to that mishna: Just as unwitting vows are dissolved, so are unwitting oaths dissolved, since he fulfilled the condition while lacking awareness that he was doing so.
砖讘讜注讜转 砖讙讙讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unwitting oaths? Is it not a case like this, where he takes an oath with a condition and then fulfills the condition of the oath unwittingly? Conclude from that mishna that there is support for Rava鈥檚 opinion.
注讬驻讗 转谞讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讘讬 专讘讛 驻讙注 讘讬讛 讗讘讬诪讬 讗讞讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 讛专讬 讬爪讗讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇砖拽专
搂 It is related that the Sage Eifa learned tractate Shevuot in the academy of Rabba. His brother Avimi met him and tested him concerning the halakhot of oaths. Avimi said to him: If one says: On my oath I did not eat, and then again: On my oath I did not eat, what is the halakha? Eifa said to him: He is liable only once if he ate. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue. Since the oaths are about the past, it is not a question of whether the second oath takes effect. Each time, a false oath was issued, and each was a separate transgression.
砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转砖注 讜注砖专 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 讗讬 转砖注 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 注砖专 诇讗 讗讻讬诇
Avimi asked him further: If one said: On my oath I will not eat nine pieces and on my oath I will not eat ten, what is the halakha? Eifa replied: He is liable for each and every one of the oaths, as the scope of the second oath is broader than that of the first. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue: If he may not eat nine, he may not eat ten. The oath not to eat ten cannot take effect, since it is an action already prohibited by the oath not to eat nine.
砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注砖专 讜转砖注 诪讛讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 注砖专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讛讗 转砖注 诪讬讛讗 讗讻讬诇
Avimi asked him further: If one said: On my oath I will not eat ten and on my oath I will not eat nine, what is the halakha? Eifa replied: He is liable for only one oath. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue. According to the first oath, it is ten that he may not eat, but he may still eat nine, so the second oath takes effect, in that it prohibits him from eating nine.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚注讬驻讗 讻讚诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 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
Abaye said: There are times when you find that the ruling of Eifa with regard to an oath not to eat ten followed by an oath not to eat nine applies, as in the case mentioned by the Master. As Rabba says: In the case of one who says: On my oath I will not eat figs and grapes together, and then says: On my oath I will not eat figs,
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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 28
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 谞诪讬
Even if he had left any amount it would also be possible for him to dissolve the oath, as he had not yet broken his oath.
讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇谞讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诪讬讙讜 讚诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讗诇讛 讗讻讝讬转 讘转专讗 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讗诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讻讝讬转 拽诪讗
Rav Ashi answers: If you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: I will not eat this loaf, and if you wish, say that it is referring to a case where he took an oath , saying: I will not eat it. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath , saying: I will not eat this loaf. Since a request for dissolution is still effective even for the last olive-bulk of the loaf, it is effective also for the first olive-bulk.
讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇谞讛 讗讬 砖讬讬专 讻讝讬转 讞砖讬讘 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 注诇讬讛
And if you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: I will not eat it. If he left an olive-bulk, that is a sufficiently significant quantity for which to request dissolution of the oath. But if he did not leave that much, it is not a sufficiently significant quantity for which to request dissolution of the oath.
诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 砖谞讚专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讜诪谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讬讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛
Rava assumes that once one has eaten the entire loaf, it is no longer possible to dissolve the oath. The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: With regard to one who took two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first term and separated an offering for it, and afterward requested and received dissolution of the first vow from a halakhic authority, the second term was counted for him in the observance of the first term and he is not required to be a nazirite further. Although the first term of naziriteship was entirely finished, a halakhic authority could still dissolve the vow.
讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖诇讗 讻讬驻专
The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he has not yet atoned, i.e., he has not yet brought the offerings that one brings at the conclusion of naziriteship.
讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讬驻专 讘砖诇讗 讙诇讞 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 诪注讻讘讗
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one can still dissolve his vow of naziriteship after he has atoned? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he has brought the offerings but has not yet shaved his hair, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Shaving is indispensable to the completion of naziriteship.
讜讛转谞讬讗 讙诇讞 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讝讬专讜转 拽讗 专诪讬转 诪讬 讙专诐 诇砖谞讬讛 砖诇讗 转讞讜诇 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗讬谞讛
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one can still dissolve his vow of naziriteship after he has shaved? Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing naziriteship to oaths? What caused the second naziriteship to not take effect until now? It was the first naziriteship, and once it has been dissolved, it is no longer a factor. Since the observance of the naziriteship term is the same whether it is counted for the second or the first, the first term of naziriteship can be regarded as not yet having started and that is why it can be dissolved. By contrast, in the case of the oath, once he ate the loaf, his oath is no longer extant at all.
讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讻诇讛 讻讜诇讛 谞砖讗诇 注诇讬讛 讗讬 讘砖讜讙讙 诪讞讜住专 拽专讘谉 讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讞讜住专 诪诇拽讜转 讗讘诇 讻驻转讜讛讜 注诇 讛注诪讜讚 诇讗 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻驻转讜讛讜 注诇 讛注诪讜讚 讜专抓 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专
Ameimar said, in contrast to the opinion of Rava: Even if he ate the entire loaf he may still request dissolution of the oath. If he ate it unwittingly, i.e., he forgot the oath, it is a situation where he has not yet brought the offering he is liable to bring. If he ate it intentionally, it is a situation where he has not yet received lashes. But if he was already tied to the stake in order to receive lashes, he can no longer request that his oath be dissolved, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: If one had already been tied to the stake in order to receive lashes, and he ran away from the court and escaped, he is exempt from receiving lashes, as being tied to the stake is regarded as the beginning of receiving the lashes; once he has escaped, he is treated as though he were already flogged.
讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 专抓 讛讻讗 诇讗 专抓
The Gemara rejects this: And that is not so. Even if he was tied to the stake he can still have his oath dissolved. There, with regard to his exemption from receiving lashes after he ran away, the original flogging is over and there is no need to initiate a new one. Here, with regard to dissolving the oath, he did not run, and since he is still subject to lashes, he can still have his oath dissolved.
讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讜 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讘诪讝讬讚 驻讟讜专 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讜砖谞讬讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬讛谉 讘砖讜讙讙 驻讟讜专
搂 Rava says: If one says: On my oath I will not eat that loaf if I eat this one, and then he ate the first one, i.e., the loaf whose consumption was the condition for the oath taking effect, unwittingly, and ate the second intentionally, he is exempt. Since he fulfilled the condition unintentionally, the oath does not take effect, as it was without full intent. But if he ate the first intentionally, knowing that if he eats it it will be prohibited for him to eat the other loaf, and he then ate the second unwittingly, he is liable to bring an offering for breaking his oath unwittingly. If he ate them both unwittingly he is exempt, as the oath does not take effect when he fulfills the condition unwittingly.
砖转讬讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讻诇讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛 讞讬讬讘 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛 驻讟讜专
In a case where he ate both of them intentionally, if he ate the loaf whose consumption was his condition and then ate the forbidden loaf, he is liable to receive lashes. If he ate the forbidden loaf and then ate the loaf whose consumption was his condition, his liability is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish. According to the one who says that an uncertain forewarning is deemed a valid forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes. According to the one who says that an uncertain forewarning is not deemed a valid forewarning, he is exempt. Since when he was forewarned for eating the forbidden loaf it was uncertain whether it would actually become forbidden, that forewarning is not sufficient for him to be liable to receive lashes.
转诇讗谉 讝讜 讘讝讜 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讝讜 讜讗讻诇 讝讜 讘讝讚讜谉 注爪诪讛 讜讘砖讙讙转 讞讘讬专转讛 讜讝讜 讘讝讚讜谉 注爪诪讛 讜讘砖讙讙转 讞讘讬专转讛 驻讟讜专
If one took an oath with regard to two loaves such that he rendered them interdependent, this one on that one, saying: I will not eat that if I eat this, and: I will not eat this if I eat that, and he ate this one intentionally with regard to itself, i.e., at the time he ate it he was aware that he had taken an oath that would render it forbidden if he ate the other, but unwittingly with regard to the other, i.e., he did not remember that in eating it he rendered the second one forbidden, and then he ate that one intentionally with regard to itself but unwittingly with regard to the other, he is exempt, as both conditions were fulfilled only unintentionally.
讝讜 讘砖讙讙转 注爪诪讛 讜讘讝讚讜谉 讞讘讬专转讛 讜讝讜 讘砖讙讙转 注爪诪讛 讜讘讝讚讜谉 讞讘讬专转讛 讞讬讬讘
If he ate this one unwittingly with regard to itself, having forgotten that it would be forbidden if he ate the other, but intentionally with regard to the other, understanding that with his action he rendered the other forbidden, and that one unwittingly with regard to itself but intentionally with regard to the other, he is liable to bring offerings for unwittingly breaking his oaths, as the conditions were fulfilled intentionally and the oaths took effect.
砖转讬讛谉 讘砖讜讙讙 驻讟讜专
If he ate both of them unwittingly he is exempt, as both conditions were fulfilled only unintentionally.
砖转讬讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗砖谞讬讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗专讗砖讜谞讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖
If he ate both of them intentionally, he is liable to receive lashes for eating the second loaf, while for the first loaf his status depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish with regard to an uncertain forewarning.
讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗专讘注讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛转讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讚专讬 讝专讜讝讬谉 谞讚专讬 讛讘讗讬 谞讚专讬 砖讙讙讜转 谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉
Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna (Nedarim 20b) as well that if one takes an oath with a condition but then fulfills the condition only unwittingly, he is exempt: The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority: Vows of exhortation, vows of exaggeration, unwitting vows, and vows whose fulfillment is impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control.
谞讚专讬 砖讙讙讜转 讻讬爪讚 拽讜谞诐 讗诐 讗讻诇转讬 讜讗诐 砖转讬转讬 讜谞讝讻专 砖讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 砖讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 砖讻讞 讜讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 诪讜转专 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讻砖诐 砖谞讚专讬 砖讙讙讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讱 砖讘讜注讜转 砖讙讙讜转 诪讜转专讜转
The mishna elaborates (see Nedarim 25b): Unwitting vows, how so? If one says: A certain item is forbidden to me like an offering [konam] if I ate or if I drank, and he then remembers that he ate or drank, or if one says: This loaf is konam for me if I will eat or if I will drink, and he then forgets and eats or drinks, the item is permitted. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to that mishna: Just as unwitting vows are dissolved, so are unwitting oaths dissolved, since he fulfilled the condition while lacking awareness that he was doing so.
砖讘讜注讜转 砖讙讙讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unwitting oaths? Is it not a case like this, where he takes an oath with a condition and then fulfills the condition of the oath unwittingly? Conclude from that mishna that there is support for Rava鈥檚 opinion.
注讬驻讗 转谞讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讘讬 专讘讛 驻讙注 讘讬讛 讗讘讬诪讬 讗讞讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 讛专讬 讬爪讗讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇砖拽专
搂 It is related that the Sage Eifa learned tractate Shevuot in the academy of Rabba. His brother Avimi met him and tested him concerning the halakhot of oaths. Avimi said to him: If one says: On my oath I did not eat, and then again: On my oath I did not eat, what is the halakha? Eifa said to him: He is liable only once if he ate. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue. Since the oaths are about the past, it is not a question of whether the second oath takes effect. Each time, a false oath was issued, and each was a separate transgression.
砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转砖注 讜注砖专 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 讗讬 转砖注 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 注砖专 诇讗 讗讻讬诇
Avimi asked him further: If one said: On my oath I will not eat nine pieces and on my oath I will not eat ten, what is the halakha? Eifa replied: He is liable for each and every one of the oaths, as the scope of the second oath is broader than that of the first. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue: If he may not eat nine, he may not eat ten. The oath not to eat ten cannot take effect, since it is an action already prohibited by the oath not to eat nine.
砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注砖专 讜转砖注 诪讛讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 注砖专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讛讗 转砖注 诪讬讛讗 讗讻讬诇
Avimi asked him further: If one said: On my oath I will not eat ten and on my oath I will not eat nine, what is the halakha? Eifa replied: He is liable for only one oath. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue. According to the first oath, it is ten that he may not eat, but he may still eat nine, so the second oath takes effect, in that it prohibits him from eating nine.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚注讬驻讗 讻讚诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 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
Abaye said: There are times when you find that the ruling of Eifa with regard to an oath not to eat ten followed by an oath not to eat nine applies, as in the case mentioned by the Master. As Rabba says: In the case of one who says: On my oath I will not eat figs and grapes together, and then says: On my oath I will not eat figs,
