שבועות 22 — Soncino English Talmud

¹decide that which Raba enquired: ‘"I swear I shall not eat dust", and he ate; what quantity [must he eat to make him liable]?’ — May you [then] decide that it must be the size of an olive! — [No!] When do we say [that we do not find liability for a minute quantity,] only in the case of an edible do we say so. Is there not the case of vows? — Vows are like expressly defined oaths. HE SAID TO THEM: BUT WHERE DO WE FIND THAT HE WHO SPEAKS BRINGS AN OFFERING, THAT THIS ONE SHOULD BRING AN OFFERING? Do we not [find such a case]? Is there not the blasphemer? — We mean, speaking and prohibiting; but this one speaks and sins. Is there not the nazirite? — We mean, bringing an offering for [breaking] his word; but this one brings an offering so that wine may again be permitted to him. Is there not sacred property? — We mean, prohibiting to himself only; but this one prohibits to the whole world. Is there not the case of vows? — He holds that there is no trespass offering for [breaking] vows. Raba said: The controversy [between R. Akiba and the Sages] is in the case of an undefined oath, but if he expressly states [a minute quantity], all agree that he is liable for a minute quantity. What is the reason? An expressly defined oath is on a par with a ‘creature’. And Raba said further: The controversy is only where he says, ‘I shall not eat,’ but if he says, ‘I shall not taste, all agree that he is liable for a minute quantity. This is self-evident! — I might have thought that ‘to taste’ should be taken in the way that people talk, therefore he teaches us [that it is taken literally]. R. Papa said: The controversy is in the case of oaths, but in Konamoth all agree that he is liable for a minute quantity. What is the reason? Vows, since the word ‘eating’ is not mentioned in them, are like expressly defined oaths. An objection was raised: Two Konamoth combine; two oaths do not combine. R. Meir says: Konamoth are like oaths. Now, if you say that [in vows] he is liable for a minute quantity, what need is there for combining? — He said, ‘Eating of this [loaf] shall be to me konam; and eating of that [loaf] shall be to me konam.’ — If so, why do they combine? In any case, if you go here, there is not the legal minimum, and if you go there, there is not the legal minimum. — He said, ‘Eating of both [loaves] shall be to me konam.’ Now, a similar expression in the case of oaths would be, if he said, ‘I swear I shall not eat of both [loaves];’ then why do they not combine? — R. Phinehas said: Oaths are different; because they are divided in respect of sin offerings, they do not combine. If so, ‘R. Meir says: Konamoth are like oaths.’ [Why?] Granted, oaths [do not combine], because they are divided in respect of sin offerings; but konamoth, why not? — Reverse it: R. Meir Says: oaths are like Konamoth [and combine]; and he does not agree with R. Phinehas. Rabina said: That which R. Papa said [that in Konamoth he is liable for a minute quantity] refers only to stripes; and that which we learnt in the Baraitha [that vows combine] refers to an offering, where we require [that the enjoyment should be] the value of a perutah. Shall we say that the Sages hold there is a trespass offering for Konamoth? Yet we learnt: [If he says,] ‘This loaf is sacred,’ and he eats it — either he or his neighbour — he trespasses; therefore there is redemption for it. [If he says,] ‘This loaf is to me sacred’, he trespasses [by eating it], but his neighbour does not trespass; therefore there is no redemption for it; this is the opinion of R. Meir.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ

^ᵃnote:For our Mishnah says: Where do we find that he who eats a minute quantity is liable? Apparently, therefore, it assumes that in the case of dust there must also be the legal minimum.
^ᵇnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᶜnote:But in the case of dust he may be liable even for a small quantity, and Raba's query remains.
^ᵈnote:If he says: ‘This loaf shall be konam (v. p. 106, n. 6) to me’, he prohibits himself, thereby, from partaking even of a small quantity of it.
^ᵉnote:Because he does not mention the term ‘eating’, — it is as if he had expressly prohibited even a minute quantity of it. It is only in oaths, where the term ‘eating’ is mentioned, that the question arises whether even a small amount is prohibited, or only the legal minimum, because elsewhere ‘eating’ implies a minimum of the size of an olive, ,hzfc vkhft.
^ᶠnote:Num. XV, 30; Lev. XXIV, 11; Ker. 7a: R. Akiba says the blasphemer brings an offering.
^ᵍnote:The Mishnah means: Where do we find that he, who by speaking, prohibits something to himself, should bring an offering for transgressing his word? But he who blasphemes the name of God, commits a sin by his very utterance.
^ʰnote:Who by his speech (vow) prohibits wine to himself, and brings an offering when the period of his naziriteship is ended; Num. VI. 1-21.
^ⁱnote:Where do we find that a man by prohibiting something to himself, and then breaking his word, brings an offering?
^ʲnote:Which is dedicated by his word; and if he breaks his word by making profane use of it, he brings a trespass offering.
^ᵏnote:Anything dedicated to the Temple is prohibited to all.
^ˡnote:E.g., by vowing not to partake of food, he prohibits the food to himself only. The questioner assumes that, since he expressed the prohibition in the form of a vow, he must bring a trespass offering also (if he breaks the vow), for vowing is similar to dedicating.
^ᵐnote:V. supra 21b.
^ⁿnote:Colloquially, ‘tasting’ means ‘eating’; and therefore we may think that if he says, ‘I shall not taste,’ he should not be liable unless he eats a ka-zayith (the size of an olive), according to the Sages.
^ᵒnote:I.e., where a man says: That loaf shall be to me Konam (v. Glos.).
^ᵖnote:If he prohibits two loaves to himself by vows, and he eats a small portion of each, the two portions combine to make up the requisite amount of ka-zayith, but if he prohibits them by oaths, they do not combine.
^ᵠnote:Although he utters it in the form of a vow, yet, since he mentions the word ‘eating’, there must be the requisite amount.
^ʳnote:If he mentions the word ‘eating’ for each loaf, he must eat the legal minimum of each loaf in order to be liable; just as in the case of oaths.
^ˢnote:Therefore if he eats the legal minimum of both together, it suffices for liability.
^ᵗnote:Why is it stated that two vows combine, and two oaths do not combine? What is the difference?
^ᵘnote:The two loaves are distinct in the case of oaths. If he said, ‘I swear I shall not eat of this one and of that one’, and he ate a ka-zayith of each in one spell of unawareness, he brings two offerings. Since, therefore, they are counted as separate, they do not combine if he ate less than a ka-zayith of each. But in the case of vows the two loaves are not treated as distinct, for according to the view that a trespass offering must be brought for the enjoyment of that which he prohibits to himself by Konam, he would be liable to only one offering for a number of enjoyments in one spell of unawareness (Rashi). [For a full discussion of this distinction between oaths and Konamoth, v. Mishnah le-Melek on Maim. Yad, Shebu'oth IV, 1.]
^ᵛnote:He receives stripes even for a minute quantity; and he brings a trespass offering if his combined enjoyments of the two loaves totalled the value of a perutah.
^ʷnote:For they say that two vows combine for a trespass offering.
^ˣnote:That which is dedicated to the Temple treasury (ohns ,ause) may be redeemed; Lev. XXVII, 27.
^ʸnote:For he has not dedicated it to the Temple, but has vowed that it shall be prohibited to him like a sacred thing; and there can be no redemption to permit the prohibited.

²And the Sages say: Neither he nor his neighbour trespasses [by eating it], for there is no trespass in Konamoth. — Reverse it: Neither he nor his neighbour trespasses, for there is no trespass in Konamoth: this is the opinion of R. Meir. And the Sages say: He trespasses, but his neighbour does not trespass. If so, ‘R. Meir says: Konamoth are like oaths’, implying that Konamoth do not combine, but there is trespass in them? Yet R. Meir says: There is no trespass in Konamoth at all! — According to the views of the Sages he is replying: As for me, I hold there is no trespass in Konamoth at all; but as for you, admit to me at least that Konamoth are like oaths [and do not combine]. And the Sages? — [They reply:] In oaths there is the reason of R. Phinehas; in Konamoth there is not the reason of R. Phinehas. Raba said: — [If a man says,] ‘I swear shall not eat,’ and he ate dust, he is exempt. Raba inquired: [If a man says.] ‘I swear I shall not eat dust,’ what amount [must he eat to make him liable]? [Shall we say:] Since he said, ‘I shall not eat,’ his intention was a kazayith, or, since it is not something that people eat, [his intention was] a minute quantity? — Let it stand. Raba inquired: [If a man says,] ‘I swear I shall not eat grape stones,’ what amount [must he eat to make him liable]? [Shall we say:] Since it can be eaten mixed [with the grapes], his intention was a ka-zayith, or, since, by itself, it is not eaten by people, his intention was a minute quantity? — Let it stand. R. Ashi inquired: If a nazirite said, ‘I swear I shall not eat grape stones,’ what amount [must he eat to make him liable]? [Shall we say:] Since a ka-zayith is prohibited in the Torah, therefore when he swears, he swears for that which is permitted, and his intention is for a minute quantity; or, since he says. ‘I shall not eat,’ his intention is a ka-zayith? — Come and hear: ‘I swear I shall not eat,’ and he ate carrion, trefa, forbidden animals, and reptiles, he is liable; and R. Simeon exempts him. And we asked: Why is he liable, since he stands adjured from Mount Sinai? Rab and Samuel and R. Johanan said: Because he included permitted things with the prohibited things. And Resh Lakish said: You cannot find [that he should be liable] except either, if he expressly stated half the legal quantity, in accordance with the view of the Sages, or, if his statement was undefined, in accordance with the view of R. Akiba, who holds that a man [in an undefined oath] prohibits to himself a minute quantity. Now, carrion, for which he stands adjured from Mount Sinai, is like grape stones to a nazirite; and yet, only if he expressly states [less than the legal quantity, is he liable], but if he does not expressly state this, his intention is for a ka-zayith. — It is proven. Well then, you may decide that which Raba enquired: [If a man says.] ‘I swear I shall not eat dust,’ what amount [must he eat to make him liable]? You may decide that it must be a ka-zayith; for carrion is like dust; and yet [he is liable] only if he expressly states [less than the legal quantity], but if he does not expressly state this, his intention is for a ka-zayith. — No! Dust is not edible at all; but carrion is edible, except that a lion is lying on it. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS,] ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT’ AND HE ATE AND DRANK, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT AND I SHALL NOT DRINK,’ AND HE ATE AND DRANK, HE IS LIABLE TWICE. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,’ AND HE ATE WHEAT BREAD, BARLEY BREAD, AND SPELT BREAD, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT WHEAT BREAD, BARLEY BREAD, AND SPELT BREAD,’ AND HE ATE, HE IS LIABLE FOR EACH ONE. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT DRINK,’ AND HE DRANK MANY LIQUIDS, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT DRINK WINE, OIL, AND HONEY,’ AND HE DRANK, HE IS LIABLE FOR EACH ONE. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,’ AND HE ATE FOODS WHICH ARE NOT FIT TO BE EATEN, AND DRANK LIQUIDS WHICH ARE NOT FIT TO BE DRUNK, HE IS EXEMPT. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,’ AND HE ATE CARRION, TREFA, FORBIDDEN ANIMALS, AND REPTILES, HE IS LIABLE. AND R. SIMEON EXEMPTS HIM. HE SAID, ‘I VOW THAT MY WIFE SHALL NOT BENEFIT FROM ME, IF I HAVE EATEN TODAY,’ AND HE HAD EATEN CARRION, TREFA, FORBIDDEN ANIMALS, OR REPTILES, HIS WIFE IS PROHIBITED TO HIM. GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abin said that Samuel said: [If a man says,] ‘I swear I shall not eat,’ and he drank, he is liable. If you will, it may be deduced by reason; and if you will, it may be deduced from Scripture. If you will, it may be deduced by reason; for a man will say to his friend, ‘Let us eat something,’ and they go in, and eat and drink. And if you will, it may be deduced from Scripture; drinking is included in eating, for Resh Lakish said: Whence do we know that drinking is included in eating? Because it is said: And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of thy coin, of thy wine . . .24^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᶻnote:This proves that the Sages hold that there is no trespass in vows!
^ᵃᵃnote:For the Sages hold there is trespass in vows.
^ᵃᵇnote:A trespass offering is brought for breaking a vow, but two vows do not combine for one trespass offering.
^ᵃᶜnote:Supra 22a.
^ᵃᵈnote:Because dust is not edible, and ‘eating’ normally refers to edibles.
^ᵃᵉnote:Because the legal minimum for eating is a ka-zayith.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., it remains unsolved.
^ᵃᵍnote:Assuming that in the case of dust he is liable for a minute quantity, is he here also liable for a minute quantity, or, since grape stones are not as inedible as dust (because they are eaten mixed with the grapes), a ka-zayith must be eaten for liability.
^ᵃʰnote:Assuming that in the case of other men (not nazirites) a ka-zayith is necessary (counting it as an edible), shall we say that a nazirite, knowing that a ka-zayith is in any case prohibited to him, intends, when taking the oath, to prohibit himself further (i.e., even a minute quantity)?
^ᵃⁱnote:Num. VI, 4: from the grape stones even to the grape skin he shall not eat.
^ᵃʲnote:For the term ‘eating’ denotes the minimum of a ka-zayith.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. supra 21b.
^ᵃˡnote:According to the Sages (in Resh Lakish's view); and we do not say, since a ka-zayith is in any case prohibited already by the Torah, his intention when swearing, must have been for a smaller quantity.
^ᵃᵐnote:Since it must not be eaten.
^ᵃⁿnote:Therefore the legal minimum for edibles is not applicable; and his intention may have been to prohibit even a minute quantity.
^ᵃᵒnote:The prohibition of the Torah lies on it like a lion, making it inaccessible.
^ᵃᵖnote:Though drink is included in the oath (for drinking is included in eating, as explained in the Gemara; v. infra), yet he is liable for only one punishment (stripes for wilful, and offering for unwitting transgression), for it is as if he had eaten twice in one spell of unawareness.
^ᵃᵠnote:Because they are two oaths.
^ᵃʳnote:Because ‘eating’ implies edibles.
^ᵃˢnote:Because, though prohibited by the Torah, they are edible.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. supra 21b.
^ᵃᵘnote:R. Simeon agreeing, for he has eaten edibles.
^ᵃᵛnote:Hence, drinking is included in eating.
^ᵃʷnote:Deut. XIV, 23.