Shevuot — Daf 21b

אימא סיפא זו היא שבועת שוא שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה פטור זו היא למעוטי מאי מאי לאו למעוטי אכלתי ולא אכלתי דלא לקי

לא זו היא דעל שגגתה פטור מקרבן אבל אכלתי ולא אכלתי על שגגתה חייב קרבן ור"ע היא דמחייב לשעבר כלהבא

הא אמרת רישא ר' ישמעאל היא רישא רבי ישמעאל וסיפא רבי עקיבא כולה ר"ע ורישא לאו למעוטי אכלתי ולא אכלתי מקרבן אלא למעוטי אוכל ולא אכל ממלקות אבל קרבן מיחייב

ומאי שנא מסתברא קאי בלהבא ממעט להבא קאי בלהבא ממעט לשעבר:

שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל כל שהוא חייב כו': איבעיא להו ר"ע בכל התורה כולה כר"ש ס"ל דמחייב במשהו דתניא ר"ש אומר כל שהוא למכות ולא אמרו כזית אלא לענין קרבן

ובדין הוא דבעי איפלוגי בעלמא והאי דקא מיפלגי הכא להודיעך כוחן דרבנן דאף ע"ג דאיכא למימר הואיל ומפרש חייב סתם נמי חייב קא משמע לן דפטרי

או דלמא בעלמא כרבנן סבירא ליה והכא היינו טעמא הואיל ומפרש חייב סתם נמי חייב

ת"ש דאמרו לו לר"ע היכן מצינו באוכל כל שהוא חייב שזה חייב ואם איתא לימא להו אנא בכל התורה כולה כר"ש סבירא לי

לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי בכל התורה כולה כר"ש סבירא לי לדידכו אודו לי מיהא הואיל ומפרש חייב סתם נמי חייב ואמרו ליה רבנן לא

תא שמע ר"ע אומר נזיר ששרה פתו ביין ויש בה כדי לצרף כזית חייב ואי סלקא דעתך בעלמא כר"ש סבירא ליה למה לי לצרף

ועוד תנן שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים חייב ור' שמעון פוטר והוינן בה אמאי חייב מושבע מהר סיני הוא רב ושמואל ור' יוחנן דאמרי תרוייהו בכולל דברים המותרין עם דברים האסורין

ור"ל אמר אי אתה מוצא אלא אי במפרש חצי שיעור ואליבא דרבנן אי בסתם ואליבא דר' עקיבא דאמר אדם אוסר עצמו בכל שהוא

ואי ס"ד בעלמא כר' שמעון סבירא ליה כל שהוא נמי מושבע ועומד מהר סיני הוא אלא לאו שמע מינה בעלמא כרבנן סבירא ליה שמע מינה:

אמרו לו לרבי עקיבא היכן מצינו כו': ולא והרי נמלה בריה שאני

והרי הקדש הא בעינן שוה פרוטה

והרי מפרש מפרש נמי כבריה דמי

והרי עפר אלא

How [then] will you explain the latter clause: This1 is the vain oath for the wilful transgression of which stripes are incurred, and for the unwitting transgression of which he is exempt.2 ‘This is [the vain oath, etc.]’ What does ‘this’ exclude? Surely, it excludes ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’, that he is not liable for stripes!3 — No! ‘This is [the oath . . .] for the unwitting transgression of which he is exempt [from a sacrifice]’ but ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’, makes him liable for a sacrifice for unwitting transgression; and this will be in accordance with the opinion of R. Akiba who holds that he is liable for [an oath] in the past as in the future.4 But you have said that the first statement is in accordance with R. Ishmael's view. Is the first statement, then, in accordance with R. Ishmael's view, and the second in accordance with R. Akiba's view! — [No!] It is entirely in accordance with R. Akiba's view; and the first statement is not intended to exclude ‘[I swear] I have eaten’, ‘[I swear] I have not eaten’ from a sacrifice, but to exclude ‘[l swear] I shall eat’, and he did not eat, from stripes; but for a sacrifice he is liable.5 Why should you prefer this?6 — It is reasonable that, since he is discussing the future, he should exclude the future; but, discussing the future, shall he exclude the past? 7 I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT , AND HE ATE A MINUTE QUANTITY, HE IS LIABLE; [THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA.] It was queried [by the scholars]: Does R. Akiba agree in the whole Torah with R. Simeon who imposes liability for a minute quantity, for it has been taught: ‘R. Simeon says. For a minute quantity stripes are incurred;8 and it was not said that the size of an olive is necessary except for a sacrifice.’9 And by right they10 should disagree also elsewhere, but the reason their disagreement is stated here is to show you the power of the Sages, for, although it is possible to say, since if he had expressly stated [a minute quantity] he would have been liable,11 he should also be liable even if his statement is undefined,12 we are informed, nevertheless, that they exempt him.13 Or, elsewhere, does R. Akiba agree with the Sages,14 and here, this is the reason:15 since if he expressly states [a minute quantity] he is liable, he is liable also if his statement is undefined? Come and hear: THEY SAID TO R. AKIBA: WHERE DO WE FIND THAT HE WHO EATS A MINUTE QUANTITY IS LIABLE, THAT THIS ONE SHOULD BE LIABLE? And if it is so [that he agrees with R. Simeon elsewhere also], let him answer them: l agree in the whole Torah with R. Simeon? — [It is possible that] he is replying according to the views of the Rabbis16 themselves: As for me, I agree with R. Simeon in the whole Torah; but as for you, agree with me at least that, since if he expressly states [a minute quantity] he is liable, he should be liable also if his statement is undefined. And the Rabbis replied to him: No! Come and hear: R. Akiba says, A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine, and there is sufficient in both together to make up the size of an olive, is liable.17 Now if you were to hold that everywhere he agrees with R. Simeon,18 what need is there for combining?19 And again, we learnt: ‘I swear I shall not eat’, and he ate carrion, trefa, forbidden animals, and reptiles, he is liable;20 and R. Simeon exempts him.21 And we asked: Why is he liable,22 since he had already been adjured on Mount Sinai? Rab and Samuel and R. Johanan said: [He is liable because] he had included permitted things with the prohibited things.23 And Resh Lakish said: You cannot find [that he should be liable] except either, if he expressly stated half the legal quantity,24 and it will be in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, or, [even] if his statement was undefined, and it will be in accordance with R. Akiba's view,25 who holds that a man [in an undefined oath], prohibits to himself [even] a minute quantity. Now if you were to say that elsewhere R. Akiba also agrees with R. Simeon,26 then for a minute quantity he also stands adjured from Mount Sinai! Hence, we deduce from this [must we not?] that elsewhere he agrees with the Rabbis.27 It is proven. THEY SAID TO R. AKIBA: WHERE DO WE FIND [THAT HE WHO EATS A MINUTE QUANTITY IS LIABLE, etc.]. Can we not? Is there not the ant?28 A creature is different.29 Is there not sacred property?30 — But we require it should be the value of a perutah.31 Is there not the expressly defined oath?32 An expressly defined oath is like a creature.33 Is there not dust?34 May you then, with R. Akiba's view. unwitting transgression; but (we may deduce) ‘I swear I shall eat’, and he did not eat — for this he does not incur stripes for witting transgression. Both statement and deduction are future. wittingly he incurs stripes. however, witting transgression is punishable by stripes even for a minute quantity, and consequently unwitting transgression is punishable by a sacrifice even for a minute quantity. Akiba holding with R. Simeon that for a minute quantity he is liable. he has broken his oath. of the legal minimum enjoined by the Torah for prohibited foods. therefore his present oath cannot ‘fall’ on the first oath; it is merely like an oath to fulfil a mizwah, (infra 22b). Mount Sinai); but he said: ‘I swear I shall not eat’, thus including even permitted things; and since the oath can fall on the permitted things, it falls also on the prohibited, for this oath is more inclusive than the oath taken at Mount Sinai (including as it does even permitted things); and when the second oath is more inclusive than the first, it has the power to fall on the first. R. Simeon, however, holds that even a more inclusive second oath cannot fall on the first. that a more inclusive second oath falls on the first oath; but they make him liable here only if he said: ‘I swear I shall not eat a small quantity of carrion’, because for a small quantity (less than the size of an olive) there is no previous oath (from Mount Sinai), and this oath therefore takes effect. Only in the case of such an oath will he be liable, according to the Sages (who disagree with R. Akiba). And according to R. Akiba, he is liable even if he says: ‘I swear I shall not cat’, because he thereby prohibits to himself even a minute quantity of carrion, and for a minute quantity there is no previous oath (from Mount Sinai). of an olive. definite minimum. a minute quantity, if he expressly states it in the oath, for he has rendered the minute quantity of sufficient importance to prohibit it to himself. since it is not edible, the normal minimum for edibles is not applicable.