Shevuot

he had made it important;1 but here, did he make it important? Raba said: What is the reason of the one who holds an inclusive prohibition [can take effect on a previous prohibition]? Because it is analogous to an extensive prohibition.2 And [the reason of] the one who exempts him, not holding this? Because he says, an extensive prohibition is applicable only to one piece, but not to two pieces.3 And Raba said further: According to the one who holds an inclusive prohibition [takes effect on a previous prohibition], if one says, ‘I swear I shall not eat figs,’ and then says, ‘I swear I shall not eat figs and grapes,’ because it takes effect on the grapes,4 it takes effect also on the figs. [But] this is self evident! — I might have thought that [in the case of] a prohibition which comes of its own accord we say it takes effect [on a previous prohibition], but [in the case of] a prohibition which is imposed by himself, we do not say this; therefore he teaches us [that even in this case it takes effect]. Raba the son of Rabbah raised an objection: [We learnt:] One may eat one portion [a ka-zayith] and yet be liable for it four sin offerings and one guilt offering, thus: An unclean person who ate heleb, which was nothar of holy food, on the Day of Atonement.5 R. Meir said: Also if it was Sabbath, and he carried it out in his mouth, he is liable.6 They [the Sages] said to him: It is not in the same category.7 Now, if it is [as you say],8 it is possible to have five;9 for example, if he said: ‘I swear I shall not eat dates and heleb,’ because it takes effect on the dates, it takes effect also on the heleb?’ — The Tanna mentions only [the case of] a prohibition which comes of its own accord, but a prohibition imposed by himself he does not mention.10 But [he mentions] holy food!11 — [It refers to] a firstborn, which is holy from the womb. If you will, you may say, the Tanna mentions only that which does not come within the category of absolution, but an oath which comes within the category of absolution he does not mention.12 — But [he mentions] holy food!13 — Well, we have established that it refers to a firstborn. If you will, you may say, the Tanna mentions only [the case where] a fixed sacrifice [is brought], but where a sliding scale sacrifice is brought he does not mention.14 But [he mentions] an unclean person who ate holy food, for which a sliding scale sacrifice is brought! — [It refers to] a prince; and it is in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer, who says a prince brings a goat. 15 R. Ashi said: The Tanna mentions only that which takes effect on the legal minimum,16 but an oath which takes effect on less than the legal minimum,17 he does not mention. But [he mentions] holy food!18 — Because we require that it should be the value of a perutah. 19 And R. Ashi of Avirya said in the name of R. Zera: The Tanna mentions only that for which, for wilful transgression, kareth is inflicted, but that for which, for wilful transgression, there is only a negative prohibition,20 he does not mention. But he mentions a guilt offering, in the case of which, for wilful transgression, there is only a negative prohibition! 21 — shall not eat’ (without specifying carrion), and he eats carrion, he may perhaps not be liable for the oath; as he might not have contemplated including carrion in the oath. objects in the present prohibition; e.g., carrion is prohibited; when the Day of Atonement arrives, it prohibits not only carrion, but also previously permitted foods; the incidence of the Day does not make the carrion prohibited in any way except as food, but it includes in its prohibition other foods apart from this carrion. An extensive prohibition (;hxun ruxht) adds something to this present prohibited object, making it more extensively prohibited; e.g., heleb (forbidden fat) of an offering is prohibited to be eaten, but may be offered on the altar; when it becomes nothar (by being kept beyond the time limit for its offering), it is prohibited to be offered on the altar. The prohibition of nothar takes effect on the heleb (which was permitted so far as the altar is concerned), so that it may not now be offered on the altar; and since the prohibition of nothar takes effect on the heleb (so far as the altar is concerned), it ipso facto takes effect on it so far as human consumption is concerned also; so that a man eating it now is liable both for heleb and nothar. this one piece; e.g., heleb, permitted for the altar, on becoming nothar is prohibited; this same piece of fat is now more extensively prohibited; previously it was prohibited for human consumption only, now it is prohibited for the altar also. But an inclusive prohibition does not add any prohibition to this one piece; it merely includes other pieces in its prohibition; therefore, he holds, it does not take effect on a previous prohibition. unclean; and one guilt offering for his trespass in deriving enjoyment from holy food. He is liable for all these, if we hold that inclusive and extensive prohibitions can take effect on previous prohibitions. The heleb of an animal is prohibited; when he sanctifies the animal, the whole of it becomes prohibited to him: this second prohibition is an inclusive one, because the permitted portions of the animal are now included in the prohibition; and because the prohibition can take effect on the permitted portions, it takes effect also on the heleb; when it becomes nothar, a further prohibition is extended to this heleb itself, making it prohibited to the altar; this extensive prohibition therefore takes effect on it as far as human consumption is concerned also. When the person becomes unclean, holy foods previously permitted to him now become prohibited; this inclusive prohibition, because it can take effect on previously permitted holy foods, takes effect also on this heleb. The Day of Atonement is another inclusive prohibition (prohibiting all kinds of food), and therefore it takes effect on the heleb also. prohibited on the Day of Atonement also); v. Ker. 14a. example to a case where four sin offerings are brought, without including any prohibition imposed by himself. explains to the Sage (or three laymen) that, had he known of certain eventualities which later transpired, he would not have uttered it. admits that for transgressing an oath a prince also brings a sliding scale sacrifice. food while unclean, are punishable by kareth.