שבועות 27:2 — Soncino English Talmud

unless the verse clearly specifies together. [According to R. Josiah, then, how do we know that the verse concerning oaths refers to optional matters?] — You may say that it will be even in accordance with the view of R. Josiah. He agrees with R. Akiba who expounds [the verse on the principle of] amplification and limitation; so that, granted if you say the verse refers to optional matters, it may exclude a precept; but if you say it refers [also] to precepts, what can it exclude? R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA SAID: NOW, IF FOR AN OPTIONAL MATTER, etc. Well did the Rabbis reply to R. Judah b. Bathyra. And R. Judah b. Bathyra? He may reply to you: Is there not [the case of] doing good to others, which, though it is not applicable [negatively] in doing evil to others, is yet included by the Divine Law? Similarly, therefore, in [the case of] fulfilling a precept, though it is not applicable [negatively] in annulling a precept, it may be included by the Divine Law. And the Rabbis? — There it is applicable [negatively in such a case as], ‘I shall not do good [to others];’ but here, is it applicable [negatively] in, ‘I shall not fulfil [the precept]’? MISHNAH. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT THIS LOAF;’ ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT IT;’ ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT IT;’ AND HE ATE IT, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE. THIS IS THE OATH OF UTTERANCE, FOR WHICH ONE IS LIABLE, FOR ITS WILFUL TRANSGRESSION, STRIPES; AND FOR ITS UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION, A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. FOR A VAIN OATH ONE IS LIABLE FOR WILFUL TRANSGRESSION, STRIPES; AND FOR UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION ONE IS EXEMPT. GEMARA. Why does he state: I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT [THIS LOAF]; I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT IT? — This he teaches us: The reason is because he said, ‘[I swear] I shall not eat;’ then he said, ‘[I swear] I shall not eat it,’ therefore he is liable only once; but if he said, ‘[I swear] I shall not eat it;’ and then he said, ‘[I swear] I shall not eat,’ he is liable twice; as is Raba's view, for Raba said: [If he said,] ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf,’ as soon as he ate a ka-zayith of it, he is liable; [but if he said, ‘I swear] I shall not eat it,’ he is not liable until he eats it all. ‘I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT IT,’ AND HE ATE IT, HE IS LIABLE ONLY ONCE, etc. Why is this further [oath] necessary? — This he teaches us: that there is no liability, but the oath remains, so that if room is found, it takes effect. For what practical purpose? — For that which Raba said, for Raba said: If he obtained absolution from the first, the second takes effect in its place. Shall we say that [the following] supports him? [For it has been taught:] He who vowed two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first, and set apart the offering for it, and then obtained absolution from the first — then the second [vow] takes the place of the first! — How now! There the [second vow of] naziriteship is at least in existence, so that when he would have finished counting for the first, he would have had to begin counting for the second, even if there had been no absolution; but here, would the second oath have any existence at all [were it not for the absolution from the first]? Raba said: If he swore concerning a loaf, and was eating it; then, if he left a ka-zayith of it, he may obtain absolution from it; but if he has eaten it all, he cannot obtain absolution from it. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: How is this? If he said, ‘I shall not eat,’ then from the first ka-zayith he has already transgressed the prohibition? And if he said: ‘I shall not eat it’, then why mention ka-zayith,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:From the first half of the verse we know that each one separately is intended; for when Scripture intends the vav as a conjunction the word together (usjh) is added; e.g., Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together (Deut. XX, 10). The second half of the verse is, according to R. Jonathan, not necessary for the deduction that each one separately is intended, and is utilised by him for another deduction (cursing after death; v. Sanh. 85b).
^ᵇnote:According to R. Jonathan, vav may be disjunctive, and ut is not necessary (in chyhvk ut grvk) to separate the phrases, so that it may be utilised, because it is superfluous, to include doing good to others; hence, because we require to deduce that doing good to others is included, it follows that the verse refers to optional matters (v. supra). But according to R. Josiah, ut is necessary to separate the phrases, for vav is conjunctive; so that we cannot deduce the inclusion of doing good to others from ut ; how, then, do we know that the verse refers to optional matters?
^ᶜnote:That the verse refers to optional matters.
^ᵈnote:For, on the principle of amplification and limitation, only one thing is excluded; and that which most logically should be excluded is swearing to annul a precept; swearing to fulfil a precept is automatically excluded, because every oath must be possible of application both negatively and positively.
^ᵉnote:V. Mishnah supra 27a.
^ᶠnote:In the case of doing good to others.
^ᵍnote:E.g., ‘I shall not give a present to a wealthy man’ (‘I shall not give charity’ would be annulling a precept).
^ʰnote:In the case of fulfilling a precept.
^ⁱnote:Let him use the same form twice: ‘I swear I shall not eat; I swear I shall not eat.
^ʲnote:Because when he swears, ‘I shall not eat,’ he prohibits even a ka-zayith of it to himself; the second oath, ‘I swear I shall not eat it’ (implying all of it) can therefore not take effect on the first oath.
^ᵏnote:For the first oath prohibits only the eating of all of it (not a ka-zayith), and the second oath prohibits even a ka-zayith; when therefore he eats a ka-zayith, the second oath takes effect; when he eats it all, the first oath takes effect. He is therefore liable to bring two offerings, if he eats it all.
^ˡnote:For the oath implies ‘I shall not eat (i.e., a ka-zayith, for ,hzfc vkhft) of this loaf.’
^ᵐnote:For the oath implies ‘I shall not eat it’ (i.e., the whole.)
^ⁿnote:Why does the Mishnah mention the third oath? From the fact that the second oath does not take effect on the first, we already know that the third also does not take effect.
^ᵒnote:To bring an offering, because a later oath cannot take effect when a previous oath exists; but the later oath is not wasted; it can take effect when the previous oath is removed.
^ᵖnote:I.e., if the previous oath is removed.
^ᵠnote:Does he tell us that the later oath remains?
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘allowed himself to be asked,’ v. note 2.
^ˢnote:If he explains to a Sage that the first oath was made under a misapprehension, and he expresses regret for it, the Sage absolves him; so that it is now counted as if he had not sworn the first oath; the second oath therefore takes effect. The Mishnah therefore mentions a third oath to teach us that no matter how many oaths are uttered they all remain, but are merely suspended from taking effect as long as the first oath is in existence.
^ᵗnote:I.e., vowed to be a nazir for two periods, each of which is for 30 days; v. Naz. I, 3.
^ᵘnote:Num. VI, 13-21.
^ᵛnote:And he does not need to be a nazir for another period of 30 days, for, since the first is absolved, the 30 days he has already counted are reckoned for the fulfilment of the second vow, and the offering may also be utilised for it. Similarly, in the case of all oaths, when the first is absolved, the second takes its place. This therefore supports Raba's statement.
^ʷnote:There is no similarity, and it does not support Raba.
^ˣnote:In the case of the vow of naziriteship, the second vow was not uttered in vain, for it was to be fulfilled in any case, but in the case of oaths, the second oath, when uttered, was in vain, and might possibly never take effect (if the first is not absolved); therefore we may say that, since when uttered, it was in vain, it should not take effect even when the opportunity arises.
^ʸnote:Not to eat it.
^ᶻnote:Then he will not have transgressed the oath, and may also eat the remainder.
^ᵃᵃnote:Then how can he obtain absolution now?