שבועות 28 — parallel

28:1

even if only a minute quantity [is left, he should obtain absolution] also? — If you will, you may say [that he said], ‘I shall not eat,’ and if you will, you may say [that he said], ‘I shall not eat it.’ If you will, you may say [that he said], ‘I shall not eat;’ and since absolution is effective for the last ka-zayith, absolution is effective also for the first ka-zayith. And if you will, you may say [that he said], ‘I shall not eat it;’ now, if he left a ka-zayith, it is of sufficient consequence to have absolution obtained for it; but if not, it is not of sufficient consequence to have absolution obtained for it. An objection was raised: ‘He who vowed two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first, and set apart an offering for it, and then obtained absolution from the first — the second [vow] takes the place of the first’. Here we are discussing the case where he has not yet obtained atonement. But surely it has been taught: [Even if] he obtained atonement [he can still obtain absolution]! — It refers to the case where he had not yet shaved; and it is in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer, who holds that shaving is indispensable. — But surely it has [also] been taught: [Even if] he shaved [he can still obtain absolution]? R. Ashi said: You put a question from that which obtains in the case of naziriteship! [There is no comparison.] What caused the second [vow] not to take effect? The first! Well, it is no more! Amemar [however] said: Even if he ate it all, he may obtain absolution from it; for, if unwittingly, he lacks an offering; and if wilfully, he lacks stripes; but if he had already been bound to the pole, no; as Samuel said, for Samuel said: If they bound him to the pole, and he ran away from the Beth din, he is exempt. — But it is not really analogous; there he ran; here he did not run. Raba said: [If he said:] ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf, if I eat that one,’ and he ate the first unwittingly, and the second wilfully, he is exempt; [if he ate] the first wilfully, and the second unwittingly, he is liable; both unwittingly, he is exempt;17

—

28:2

both wilfully, then, if he [first] ate the conditional one, and then he ate the prohibited one, he is liable; but if he [first] ate the prohibited one, and then he ate the conditional one, [the ruling depends on] the controversy between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish: according to the one who holds an uncertain warning is a warning he is liable, and according to the one who holds it is not a warning, he is exempt. If he made them conditional upon each other: ‘I shall not eat this one, if I eat that one; I shall not eat that one, if I eat this one’; then, if he ate this one wilfully, [mindful of the oath] concerning it, but forgetful [of the oath] concerning the other; and [ate] the other wilfully, [mindful of the oath] concerning it, but forgetful [of the oath] concerning the first, he is exempt: [if he ate] this one unwittingly, [forgetful of the oath] concerning it, but mindful [of the oath] concerning the other, and [ate] the other unwittingly, [forgetful of the oath] concerning it, but mindful [of the oath] concerning the first, he is liable; both unwittingly, he is exempt; both wilfully, then, for the second he is liable; but for the first, [the ruling depends on] the controversy between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. R. Mari said: We have also learnt thus [in a Mishnah]: Four vows did the Sages permit: vows of urging. vows of hyperbole. vows made unwittingly, and vows accidentally unfulfilled. Vows made unwittingly: how? ‘Konam [this loaf to me], if I ate or drank [today]’, and he remembered that he had eaten or drunk; ‘[konam this loaf to me,] if I eat or drink [today]’, and he forgot, and ate or drank, he is permitted [to eat that loaf]; and it was taught with reference to this: just as vows made unwittingly are permitted, so oaths made unwittingly are permitted. Efa learnt [the laws of] oaths in the school of Rabbah. His brother Abbimi met him, and asked him: [If one said,] ‘I swear I have not eaten; I swear I have not eaten’, [and he had eaten,] what is the ruling? — He replied: He is liable only once. He said to him: You are mistaken, for surely a false oath went forth [from his mouth]. — [He asked him again: If one said,] ‘I swear I shall not eat nine [figs; I swear I shall not eat] ten [figs’, and he ate ten figs], what is the ruling? — He replied: He is liable for each [oath]. — He said to him: You are mistaken, for if he will not eat nine, he will not eat ten. [He asked him again: If one said,] ‘I swear I shall not eat ten [figs; I swear I shall not eat] nine [figs,’ and he ate ten], what is the ruling? — He replied: He is liable only once. He said to him: You are mistaken: ten he would not eat, but nine he would eat. Abaye said: Sometimes this ruling of Efa is possible, as the Master said, for Rabbah said: [If a man said,] ‘I swear I shall not eat figs and grapes [together in one day],’ then he said, ‘I swear I shall not eat figs;’25

—