Shevuot

But perhaps [that would have meant] mixed?1 — 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.2 ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT DRINK;’ AND HE DRANK MANY LIQUIDS. HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE, etc. Granted there,3 as you say, the word BREAD, being superfluous, makes him liable;4 but here,5 what could he have said? Perhaps he wishes to exempt himself from other liquids?6 — 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.’7 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 these8 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.’9 [and the other replies,] ‘I swear that there is nothing of yours in my possession;’ he is liable only once.10 [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.11 And R. Johanan said: Even if there is only a perutah of all of them together, they combine.12 Now, R. Aha and Rabina disagree;13 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.14 Now here,15 how will it be? — Raba said: How now?16 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.17 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? 18 ‘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?19 — This is no question: the first clause relates to an undefined oath,20 and the second to a defined oath.21 [In the case of] a defined oath itself it may also be asked: Why? Surely he is adjured from Mount Sinai!22 — Rab and Samuel and R. Johanan said: Because he included permitted foods with the prohibited foods.23 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.24 Granted, R. Johanan does not agree with Resh Lakish, because he wishes to expound our Mishnah in accordance with the views of all;25 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] perutah for a trespass offering to be brought. 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. Aha and Rabina disagree here also, one of them holding (taking the generalisation as a separate oath) that he is liable for four oaths? denial; infra 36b. 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. permitted food it takes effect also on the prohibited; v. supra 21b.