Shevuot

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!1 — [No!] When do we say2 [that we do not find liability for a minute quantity,] only in the case of an edible do we say so.3 Is there not the case of vows?4 — Vows are like expressly defined oaths.5 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?6 — We mean, speaking and prohibiting; but this one speaks and sins.7 Is there not the nazirite?8 — We mean, bringing an offering for [breaking] his word;9 but this one brings an offering so that wine may again be permitted to him. Is there not sacred property?10 — We mean, prohibiting to himself only; but this one prohibits to the whole world.11 Is there not the case of vows?12 — 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’.13 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,14 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,15 are like expressly defined oaths. An objection was raised: Two Konamoth combine; two oaths do not combine.16 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.’17 — 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.18 — He said, ‘Eating of both [loaves] shall be to me konam.’19 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?20 — R. Phinehas said: Oaths are different; because they are divided in respect of sin offerings, they do not combine.21 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.22 Shall we say that the Sages hold there is a trespass offering for Konamoth?23 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.24 [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;25 this is the opinion of R. Meir. assumes that in the case of dust there must also be the legal minimum. small 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. offering for transgressing his word? But he who blasphemes the name of God, commits a sin by his very utterance. ended; Num. VI. 1-21. 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. liable unless he eats a ka-zayith (the size of an olive), according to the Sages. up the requisite amount of ka-zayith, but if he prohibits them by oaths, they do not combine. amount. as in the case of oaths. 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.] two loaves totalled the value of a perutah. there can be no redemption to permit the prohibited.