Shevuot

only when the [more inclusive] prohibition comes of its own accord, but when the prohibition is imposed by himself, we do not say this.1 Granted, according to Resh Lakish, it is for this reason that R. Simeon exempts him;2 for we learnt, R. Simeon says: A minute quantity [imposes liability] for stripes; and it was not said that a ka-zayith is necessary except for [imposing liability for] a sacrifice. But, according to R. Johanan,3 what is R. Simon's reason for exempting him? — Is not the reason [that the Sages make him liable] because it is a more inclusive prohibition? R. Simeon is consistent in his view that a more inclusive prohibition cannot take effect; for it has been taught, R. Simeon Says: He who eats carrion on the Day of Atonement is exempt.4 Granted, according to Resh Lakish, it is possible to have it negative and positive;5 but, according to R. Johanan, granted that negative is possible, but how is positive possible?6 — Well then, [the Mishnah may be explained] in accordance with Raba's view, for Raba said: [If a man says,] ‘I swear I shall not eat’, and he ate dust, he is exempt.7 R. Mari said: We have also learnt thus:8 ‘I VOW THAT MY WIFE SHALL NOT BENEFIT FROM ME IF I HAVE EATEN TO-DAY,’ AND HE HAD EATEN CARRION, TREFA, FORBIDDEN ANIMALS, AND REPTILES, HIS WIFE IS PROHIBITED TO HIM. [Hence, eating carrion is also called eating!] — How now? There, since first he ate, and then he swore, though carrion was already prohibited to him before the Day, because the prohibition of the Day is more inclusive (including, as it does, also permitted foods). This more inclusive prohibition comes of its own accord, and is therefore powerful enough to fall even on previously prohibited food; but if the more inclusive prohibition comes by the action or word of the man himself (as in the case of an oath), it cannot fall on a previous prohibition. Resh Lakish, therefore, who makes this distinction, cannot explain the Mishnah as R. Johanan does. consequently the oath cannot fall on a small quantity. meat and carrion;’ why does R. Simeon exempt him? cannot fall on the prohibition of carrion. (v. infra 25a). According to Resh Lakish, the oath in the Mishnah for which the Sages make him liable is: ‘I swear l shall not eat a small portion of carrion.’ This may be reversed: ‘I swear l shall eat a small portion of carrion;’ and he is liable for transgressing it, for he has not sworn to annul a precept (only a ka-zayith is prohibited in the Torah). Had he sworn to eat a ka-zayith of carrion, i.e., to annul a precept, and transgressed his oath, he would have been exempt; infra 27a. properly killed meat and carrion.’ The positive of this oath is not possible; if he says. ‘I swear I shall eat properly killed meat and carrion,’ his oath cannot be carried out, so far as the carrion is concerned, because it is an oath to annul a precept (for a ka-zayith of carrion is prohibited by the Torah). ate foods which are not fit, etc., he is exempt) refers to an undefined oath, and the second clause (‘l swear I shall not eat’, and he ate carrion, etc., he is liable) refers to a defined oath (i.e., ‘I swear I shall not eat properly killed meat and carrion, etc.’). This explanation raises a difficulty for R. Johanan, because the second oath is not reversible. The Gemara now says that both clauses refer to an undefined oath; in the first case he is exempt, because he ate dust (the phrase ‘foods not fit to be eaten’ refers to dust and similar inedibles); and in the second case he is liable, because he ate carrion (which is edible, but prohibited by the Torah). According to R. Johanan, in the second case when he says, ‘I shall not eat,’ he is liable if he eats carrion, because his oath is inclusive, including as it does all foods (permitted also); and because it can take effect on the permitted, it takes effect on the prohibited also. This oath (being undefined) is reversible: ‘l shall eat’, and can be fulfilled by eating permitted food; therefore if he transgresses it, he is liable.