שבועות 23 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Now, tirosh is wine, and yet it is written, ‘thou shalt eat’. Perhaps [Scripture means] when used in elaiogaron? For Raba b. Samuel said: Elaiogaron contains the juice of beets, oxygaron the juice of all kinds of boiled vegetable! — But, said R. Aha b. Jacob: [We deduce that drinking is included in eating] from the verse, And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink . . . [and thou shalt eat there]. Now, yayin is certainly wine; and yet it is written, ‘thou shalt eat’. Perhaps here also [Scripture means] in elaiogaron? — ‘Strong drink’ is written, implying that which can cause intoxication. Perhaps pressed figs from Keilah [are intended]; for it was taught: If he ate a pressed fig from Keilah, or drank honey, or milk, and entered the Temple, and ministered, he is liable? — Well then, we deduce [that drinking is included in eating] by analogy from ‘strong drink’ [used here and in connection with a nazirite]: just as there it implies wine, so here it implies wine. Raba said: We have also learnt thus: ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,’ AND HE ATE AND DRANK, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE. Granted, if you say that drinking is included in eating, it is necessary for the Tanna to teach us that [nevertheless] he is liable only once. But if you say that drinking is not included in eating, [if he says.] ‘I swear I shall not eat,’ and he ate, and did work, would it be necessary [for the Tanna] to teach us that he is liable only once? Abaye said to him: What then, drinking is included in eating! [If so,] read the second clause, ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT, AND I SHALL NOT DRINK,’ AND HE ATE AND DRANK, HE IS LIABLE TWICE. Now, since he said, ‘I shall not eat,’ he is already prohibited from drinking; then when he says, ‘I shall not drink,’ why should he be liable? If he had said, ‘I shall not drink’ twice, would be have been liable twice? — He replied to him: There [the Mishnah means] he [first] said, ‘I shall not drink,’ and then he said, ‘I shall not eat;’ for drinking is included in eating, but eating is not included in drinking. But if he said, ‘I swear I shall not eat and I shall not drink,’ and he ate and drank, he would be liable only once? If so, why does he teach in the first clause: ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,’ AND HE ATE AND DRANK, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE? Let him teach: ‘I swear I shall not eat and I shall not drink,’ he is liable only once; and most certainly [we should know, when he says:] ‘I shall not eat’ alone [he is liable only once]! We must therefore read the Mishnah as it stands; but here it is different. Since he said, ‘I shall not eat,’ and then he said, ‘I shall not drink,’ he revealed his mind that this ‘eating’ that he mentioned meant eating only. R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah also proves it: ‘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. [This implies that] if they are fit, he is liable. But why so? Surely he said [merely]: ‘I swear I shall not eat’! — Perhaps he said both: ‘I swear I shall not eat; I swear I shall not drink.’ ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,’ AND HE ATE WHEAT BREAD, etc. But perhaps he wished to exempt himself from other kinds? — [In that case,] he should have said: ‘[I shall not eat] wheat, barley, and spelt.’ But perhaps, [that would have meant] ‘to chew’? — He could have said, ‘[I shall not eat] the bread of wheat, barley, and spelt.’ — But perhaps, [that would have meant] the bread of wheat to eat, and barley and spelt to chew? — He could have said: ‘[I shall not eat] the bread of wheat, and of barley, and of spelt’.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:Heb. arh, (not the usual ihh) is used in the verse.
^ᵇnote:A sauce of oil and garum to which wine is sometimes added; this is a food, and therefore Scripture calls it ‘eating’; but drinking is perhaps not included in eating.
^ᶜnote:Deut. XIV, 26.
^ᵈnote:‘Strong drink’ is taken as explanatory of wine; hence it must be taken in its ordinary connotation, and not as an admixture to a sauce.
^ᵉnote:A town in the lowland district of Judea.
^ᶠnote:Strong drink may not be explanatory of wine, but a separate noun denoting pressed figs from the town of Keilah, which are intoxicating.
^ᵍnote:If a priest conducts the service in the Temple when intoxicated, he transgresses the command in Lev. X, 9.
^ʰnote:A nazirite must abstain only from wine products (Naz. 4a); the term, ‘strong drink’ in the case of a nazirite (Num. VI, 3) refers only to wine; hence the term ‘strong drink’ in Deut. XIV, 26 refers also to wine; and Scripture says: ‘thou shalt eat’; hence drinking is included in eating.
^ⁱnote:That drinking is included in eating.
^ʲnote:Because he ate and drank in one spell of unawareness.
^ᵏnote:What need is there for the Tanna to teach us that he is liable only once?
^ˡnote:Since drinking is included in eating.
^ᵐnote:That he first says, ‘I shall not eat’, and then, ‘I shall not drink,’
^ⁿnote:Why he is liable twice, though drinking is already included in eating.
^ᵒnote:And he supplemented his oath to include drinking.
^ᵖnote:That drinking is included in eating.
^ᵠnote:This would prove that drinking is included in eating.
^ʳnote:From this passage there is no proof that drinking is included in eating, for the Mishnah may mean this: ‘I swear I shall not eat,’ and he ate foods which are not fit,’ etc.; and ‘I swear I shall not drink,’ and he drank liquids which are not fit, etc. But the Mishnah abbreviates.
^ˢnote:If he says, ‘I swear I shall not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread,’ and he ate, he is liable for each one. Why? Perhaps he enumerates these kinds of bread in order to exclude other kinds, such as, bread of oats, rye, or millet, which he does not desire to prohibit; for, if he had said, ‘I swear I shall not eat,’ without particularising, he would have been prohibited from all kinds. But, in reality, it is only one oath, not three.
^ᵗnote:But since he mentions the word BREAD each time, he implies that they are three separate oaths.
^ᵘnote:Grains of wheat, barley, and spelt; but bread would not have been prohibited; therefore he must mention the word BREAD.
^ᵛnote:But because he mentions the word BREAD on each occasion, he implies that they are three separate oaths.

²But perhaps [that would have meant] mixed? — Say, [he could have said: ‘I shall not eat the bread of wheat,] and also of barley, and also of spelt’. Why is BREAD repeated? Obviously, in order to separate. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT DRINK;’ AND HE DRANK MANY LIQUIDS. HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE, etc. Granted there, as you say, the word BREAD, being superfluous, makes him liable; but here, what could he have said? Perhaps he wishes to exempt himself from other liquids? — R. Papa said: Here we are discussing [the case of] where they are lying before him; so that he could have said: ‘I swear I shall not drink these.’ But perhaps [that would have meant], ‘These I shall not drink, but others [of the same kind] I shall drink’? — Well, he could have said, ‘I swear I shall not drink [liquids] just like these.’ Perhaps [that would have meant], ‘Just like these I shall not drink, but less than these, or more than these, I shall drink’? Well then, he could have said, ‘I swear I shall not drink of these kinds.’ Perhaps [that would have meant], ‘These kinds I shall not drink, but these themselves I shall drink’? — Say [he could have said], ‘I shall not drink these and their kinds.’ R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: We are discussing [a case] where his friend is urging him, saying to him, ‘Come and drink with me wine, oil, and honey;’ so that he could have said, ‘I swear I shall not drink with you.’ What need is there [to enumerate] wine and oil and honey? [Obviously, therefore,] to make him liable for each one. We learnt there: [If a man says to another.] ‘Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt of mine in your possession.’ [and the other replies,] ‘I swear that there is nothing of yours in my possession;’ he is liable only once. [But if he says,] ‘I swear that I have not of yours in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt;’ he is liable for each one. And R. Johanan said: Even if there is only a perutah of all of them together, they combine. Now, R. Aha and Rabina disagree; one says, he is liable for the particularisations, but he is not liable for the generalisations; and the other says, he is liable also for the generalisations. Now here, how will it be? — Raba said: How now? There he is liable for the generalisation, and he is liable for the particularisation, for if he swears once, and then swears again, he is liable twice. But here, if it should enter your mind that they are included in the generalisation, why should he be liable for the particularisations, since he already stands adjured? ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT’, etc. This itself is contradictory! You say: ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT’, AND HE ATE FOODS WHICH ARE NOT FIT TO BE EATEN, AND DRANK DRINKS WHICH ARE NOT FIT TO BE DRUNK, HE IS EXEMPT. And then you teach: I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,’ AND HE ATE CARRION, TREFA, FORBIDDEN ANIMALS, AND REPTILES, HE IS LIABLE. What is the difference between the first clause, where he is exempt, and the second, where he is liable? — This is no question: the first clause relates to an undefined oath, and the second to a defined oath. [In the case of] a defined oath itself it may also be asked: Why? Surely he is adjured from Mount Sinai! — Rab and Samuel and R. Johanan said: Because he included permitted foods with the prohibited foods. And Resh Lakish said: You cannot find [that he should be liable] except either if he expressly states half the legal quantity, in accordance with the view of the Rabbis; or, if his oath is undefined, in accordance with the view of R. Akiba, who says, a man [in an undefined oath] prohibits to himself even a minute quantity. Granted, R. Johanan does not agree with Resh Lakish, because he wishes to expound our Mishnah in accordance with the views of all; but why does not Resh Lakish agree with R. Johanan? — He may reply to you: We say that a more inclusive prohibition [falls on a less inclusive one]^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ʷnote:That he should not eat bread made of all three together.
^ˣnote:Making them into three oaths.
^ʸnote:In the enumeration of the different kinds of bread.
^ᶻnote:For each kind separately.
^ᵃᵃnote:In the Case where he enumerates the liquids, and is liable for each one separately.
^ᵃᵇnote:That is why he enumerates these; but there is really only one oath.
^ᵃᶜnote:But since be enumerates them, be is swearing three oaths.
^ᵃᵈnote:The same quantity.
^ᵃᵉnote:Deposited temporarily in the other's care.
^ᵃᶠnote:A trespass offering for the false oath ( iusepv ,guca); Lev, V, 21-26.
^ᵃᵍnote:Infra 36b.
^ᵃʰnote:To make him liable to bring one trespass offering. The oath must be a denial of liability of at least the value of a perutah for a trespass offering to be brought.
^ᵃⁱnote:As to the meaning of the Mishnah and R. Johanan's comment.
^ᵃʲnote:When he says. ‘I swear that I have not of yours in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt,’ the first part is a generalisation (‘I swear that I have not of yours in my possession’), then there are three particularisations. When the Mishnah says, he is liable for each one, does it mean three trespass offerings or four? R. Aha and Rabina disagree: one says, three; he is liable for the particularisations alone, and not for the generalisation; and we do not say that the first part, ‘I swear that I have not of yours in my possession,’ should be taken as an additional oath; and R. Johanan's comment that they combine to the value of a perutah refers to the previous statement in the Mishnah: ‘I swear that there is nothing of yours in my possession’ (with no particulars mentioned at all); but where particulars are mentioned, they do not combine; there must be the value of a perutah in each. And the other Amora says, when the Mishnah states he is liable for each, it means four, the generalisation also being taken as an oath; and R. Johanan's comment refers to this too, that for the first of the four oaths (the generalisation) he is liable to bring a trespass offering even if there is only the value of a perutah in the wheat, barley, and spelt combined.
^ᵃᵏnote:In our Mishnah: ‘I swear I shall not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread,’ he is liable for each one. Will R. Aha and Rabina disagree here also, one of them holding (taking the generalisation as a separate oath) that he is liable for four oaths?
^ᵃˡnote:There is no comparison at all.
^ᵃᵐnote:In the case of denying a deposit, if the trustee denies it on oath several times, he brings a trespass offering for each denial; infra 36b.
^ᵃⁿnote:If we should assume that the generalisation, ‘I swear I shall not eat,’ is taken as an additional oath, and as prohibiting all foods, then, when he adds ‘wheat, barley, and spelt’, these three oaths cannot take effect, for they are already assumed to have been included in the generalisation; and a later oath cannot ‘fall’ on a previous oath.
^ᵃᵒnote:Is not carrion, etc., food unfit to be eaten?
^ᵃᵖnote:‘I swear I shall not eat’ implies only foods which are fit to be eaten, and excludes carrion.
^ᵃᵠnote:‘I swear I shall not eat carrion, etc,’
^ᵃʳnote:His oath cannot take effect, since there is already a previous oath (administered at Mount Sinai) not to eat carrion.
^ᵃˢnote:He said: ‘I swear I shall not eat properly killed meat and carrion, etc.;’ and because the oath can take effect on the permitted food it takes effect also on the prohibited; v. supra 21b.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. supra 21b.
^ᵃᵘnote:R. Akiba and the Sages who agree that a more inclusive oath can fall on a less inclusive one.