שבועות 24 — parallel

24:1

only when the [more inclusive] prohibition comes of its own accord, but when the prohibition is imposed by himself, we do not say this. Granted, according to Resh Lakish, it is for this reason that R. Simeon exempts him; for we learnt, R. Simeon says: A minute quantity [imposes liability] for stripes; and it was not said that a ka-zayith is necessary except for [imposing liability for] a sacrifice. But, according to R. Johanan, what is R. Simon's reason for exempting him? — Is not the reason [that the Sages make him liable] because it is a more inclusive prohibition? R. Simeon is consistent in his view that a more inclusive prohibition cannot take effect; for it has been taught, R. Simeon Says: He who eats carrion on the Day of Atonement is exempt. Granted, according to Resh Lakish, it is possible to have it negative and positive; but, according to R. Johanan, granted that negative is possible, but how is positive possible? — Well then, [the Mishnah may be explained] in accordance with Raba's view, for Raba said: [If a man says,] ‘I swear I shall not eat’, and he ate dust, he is exempt. R. Mari said: We have also learnt thus: ‘I VOW THAT MY WIFE SHALL NOT BENEFIT FROM ME IF I HAVE EATEN TO-DAY,’ AND HE HAD EATEN CARRION, TREFA, FORBIDDEN ANIMALS, AND REPTILES, HIS WIFE IS PROHIBITED TO HIM. [Hence, eating carrion is also called eating!] — How now? There, since first he ate, and then he swore,

—

24:2

he had made it important; but here, did he make it important? Raba said: What is the reason of the one who holds an inclusive prohibition [can take effect on a previous prohibition]? Because it is analogous to an extensive prohibition. And [the reason of] the one who exempts him, not holding this? Because he says, an extensive prohibition is applicable only to one piece, but not to two pieces. And Raba said further: According to the one who holds an inclusive prohibition [takes effect on a previous prohibition], if one says, ‘I swear I shall not eat figs,’ and then says, ‘I swear I shall not eat figs and grapes,’ because it takes effect on the grapes, it takes effect also on the figs. [But] this is self evident! — I might have thought that [in the case of] a prohibition which comes of its own accord we say it takes effect [on a previous prohibition], but [in the case of] a prohibition which is imposed by himself, we do not say this; therefore he teaches us [that even in this case it takes effect]. Raba the son of Rabbah raised an objection: [We learnt:] One may eat one portion [a ka-zayith] and yet be liable for it four sin offerings and one guilt offering, thus: An unclean person who ate heleb, which was nothar of holy food, on the Day of Atonement. R. Meir said: Also if it was Sabbath, and he carried it out in his mouth, he is liable. They [the Sages] said to him: It is not in the same category. Now, if it is [as you say], it is possible to have five; for example, if he said: ‘I swear I shall not eat dates and heleb,’ because it takes effect on the dates, it takes effect also on the heleb?’ — The Tanna mentions only [the case of] a prohibition which comes of its own accord, but a prohibition imposed by himself he does not mention. But [he mentions] holy food! — [It refers to] a firstborn, which is holy from the womb. If you will, you may say, the Tanna mentions only that which does not come within the category of absolution, but an oath which comes within the category of absolution he does not mention. — But [he mentions] holy food! — Well, we have established that it refers to a firstborn. If you will, you may say, the Tanna mentions only [the case where] a fixed sacrifice [is brought], but where a sliding scale sacrifice is brought he does not mention. But [he mentions] an unclean person who ate holy food, for which a sliding scale sacrifice is brought! — [It refers to] a prince; and it is in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer, who says a prince brings a goat. R. Ashi said: The Tanna mentions only that which takes effect on the legal minimum, but an oath which takes effect on less than the legal minimum, he does not mention. But [he mentions] holy food! — Because we require that it should be the value of a perutah. And R. Ashi of Avirya said in the name of R. Zera: The Tanna mentions only that for which, for wilful transgression, kareth is inflicted, but that for which, for wilful transgression, there is only a negative prohibition, he does not mention. But he mentions a guilt offering, in the case of which, for wilful transgression, there is only a negative prohibition! —

—