Shevuot

urged to eat: our Mishnah [refers to the case where] he is not urged to eat;1 and the Baraitha2 [to the case where] he is urged to eat, and he says: ‘I shall not eat, I shall not eat’; so that when he swears,3 he means: ‘I swear I shall not eat’. R. Ashi said: Read [in the Baraitha]: ‘I swear I shall not eat of thine’.4 If so, what need is there to state it?5 — I might have thought his tongue became twisted,6 therefore he teaches us [that it is a definite negative]. Our Rabbis taught: Mibta7 is an oath; issar8 is an oath. What is the binding force of issar? If you say that issar is an oath, he is liable; and if not, he is exempt. If you say that issar is an oath! But you have just said that issar is an oath? Abaye said: Thus he means: Mibta is an oath; issar is tacked on to an oath.9 What is the binding force of issar? If you say, that which is tacked on to an oath is like a properly expressed oath, he is liable; and if not, he is exempt. And how do we know that mibta is an oath? Is it not because it is written: If any one swear, pronouncing with his lips.10 Then issar also [should be counted an oath], for it is written: Every vow and every oath of a bond?11 Then again, how do we know that issar has the force of being tacked on to an oath? Is it not because it is written: Or bound he,’ soul by a bond with an oath?12 Then mibta also [should have the force of being tacked on to an oath], for it is written: Whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath.13 But, said Abaye: That mibta is an oath we deduce from this: And if she be married to a husband while her vows are upon her, or the utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul:14 Now, oath is not mentioned; with what, then, did she bind herself? With mibta. Raba said: In reality, I can say to you, that which is tacked on to an oath is not like a properly expressed oath;15 and thus he [the Tanna] means: Mibta is an oath; issar is also an oath; and what is the binding force of issar? Scripture placed it between a vow and an oath [to teach us that] if he expressed it in the form of a vow, it is a vow; and if in the form of an oath, it is an oath.16 Where did [Scripture] place it [between a vow and an oath]? And if in her husband's house she vowed, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath.17 And they18 follow their own opinions, for it has been stated: That which is tacked on to an oath19 — Abaye said,it is like a properly expressed oath;20 and Raba said,it is not like a properly expressed oath. An objection was raised; [for it has been taught:] What is issar which is mentioned in the Torah? He who says: I take it upon me that I shall not eat meat, and that I shall not drink wine, as on the day that my father died, or, as on the day that So-and-So died, or, as on the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed, or, as on the day that I saw Jerusalem in its destruction; he is prohibited [from eating meat, etc.]; and Samuel said: only if he had already made a vow on that day.21 Now, it is well, according to Abaye, for just as that which is tacked on to a vow is a vow, so that which is tacked on to an oath is an oath; he had said: ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf’. as in the following case: If he prohibits one loaf to himself by oath; then he says of a second loaf: ‘This second loaf shall be like the first’, the second loaf is here tacked on to an oath. Similarly, if he says: ‘This loaf is issar to me’, the ruling is the same as in the case of a statement which is tacked on to an oath. If that is counted as a proper oath, then issar is also a proper oath. The Tanna is simply equating issar with a statement that is tacked on to an oath. and that he is in doubt whether that has the force of a properly expressed oath or not; but, says Raba, the Tanna holds definitely that a statement tacked on to an oath is not the same as a proper oath. I shall not eat this loaf’, it is an oath, and he is liable. anniversary of Gedaliah's murder (3rd Tishri); and now when he says, ‘I take it upon me that I shall not eat meat on that day’, he is tacking on the present prohibition to a previous vow; and he is prohibited from eating meat now, as if he had now made a vow; therefore a statement tacked on to a vow is like a proper vow; and similarly, a statement tacked on to an oath is like a proper oath.