שבועות 22:1 — Soncino English Talmud

decide 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.