שבועות 28:1 — Soncino English Talmud

even if only a minute quantity [is left, he should obtain absolution] also? — If you will, you may say [that he said], ‘I shall not eat,’ and if you will, you may say [that he said], ‘I shall not eat it.’ If you will, you may say [that he said], ‘I shall not eat;’ and since absolution is effective for the last ka-zayith, absolution is effective also for the first ka-zayith. And if you will, you may say [that he said], ‘I shall not eat it;’ now, if he left a ka-zayith, it is of sufficient consequence to have absolution obtained for it; but if not, it is not of sufficient consequence to have absolution obtained for it. An objection was raised: ‘He who vowed two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first, and set apart an offering for it, and then obtained absolution from the first — the second [vow] takes the place of the first’. Here we are discussing the case where he has not yet obtained atonement. But surely it has been taught: [Even if] he obtained atonement [he can still obtain absolution]! — It refers to the case where he had not yet shaved; and it is in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer, who holds that shaving is indispensable. — But surely it has [also] been taught: [Even if] he shaved [he can still obtain absolution]? R. Ashi said: You put a question from that which obtains in the case of naziriteship! [There is no comparison.] What caused the second [vow] not to take effect? The first! Well, it is no more! Amemar [however] said: Even if he ate it all, he may obtain absolution from it; for, if unwittingly, he lacks an offering; and if wilfully, he lacks stripes; but if he had already been bound to the pole, no; as Samuel said, for Samuel said: If they bound him to the pole, and he ran away from the Beth din, he is exempt. — But it is not really analogous; there he ran; here he did not run. Raba said: [If he said:] ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf, if I eat that one,’ and he ate the first unwittingly, and the second wilfully, he is exempt; [if he ate] the first wilfully, and the second unwittingly, he is liable; both unwittingly, he is exempt;17^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:For as long as he has not eaten it all he has not yet transgressed the oath, and may obtain absolution.
^ᵇnote:After eating the first ka-zayith he may obtain absolution from the oath to permit him to eat the remainder of the loaf; and since he can obtain absolution for the rest, the oath is thus automatically removed (for the Sage has the power to uproot the oath ab initio), and the first ka-zayith which he has already eaten is therefore now counted as not having been eaten under prohibition.
^ᶜnote:If he leaves less than a ka-zayith, it is counted as if he had already eaten the whole loaf, and thus transgressed his oath; and he cannot, therefore, obtain absolution; v. Tosaf. 27b, s.v. ot.
^ᵈnote:This shows that absolution may be obtained from the first vow even after it has been completely fulfilled. Why then, in the case of an oath, should he not be able to obtain absolution even after he has completely eaten the loaf?
^ᵉnote:Num. VI, 14-17; if the offerings have not yet been sacrificed, he has not obtained atonement for his vow; it is therefore not yet completed, and he may obtain absolution.
^ᶠnote:Cf. Num. VI, 18; the omission of this act invalidates the rite; therefore so long as this has not been done the first vow has not been completed entirely, and he may still obtain absolution.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘restrains’; he must still refrain from drinking wine, until this is completed.
^ʰnote:He vowed two vows, counted 30 days, and now asks for absolution from the first. Why assume that the 30 days that have been counted are for the first vow, and that it has therefore been completed, and absolution should not be possible? Since the Sage has the power to uproot the first vow in its entirety by showing it to have been made under a misapprehension, the result is that we may legitimately assume that the 30 days that have been counted are for the second vow, and the counting for the first vow has not even started, so that when absolution is asked for the first vow, it is still intact, and absolution may therefore he granted; but in the case of an oath, if he has already eaten the loaf completely, he has transgressed the oath; how can he now obtain absolution?
^ⁱnote:Since there is something still necessary, he may yet obtain absolution and be exempt from offering or stripes. Amemar disagrees with Raba who holds that only if a ka-zayith is left can he obtain absolution.
^ʲnote:In readiness for receiving the stripes (v. Mak. 22b), he cannot obtain absolution, for it is counted as if he had already received the stripes.
^ᵏnote:It is counted as if he had already received the stripes, and he is not brought back.
^ˡnote:By running away he has already suffered degradation (v. Mak. 23a), and it is counted as if he had already received his punishment; but here we may say that even if he has been bound to the pole, it is not yet counted as if he had received his stripes, and he may therefore still obtain absolution from his oath.
^ᵐnote:The conditional one.
^ⁿnote:The one he prohibited to himself; if he should eat the conditional one.
^ᵒnote:An oath which is conditional upon the performing of another act does not take effect at the moment it is uttered, but at the moment the first act is performed; and if at that moment he remembers the oath, it takes effect, but if he has forgotten the oath, it cannot take effect, for it is not counted vgucac ostv (v. supra 26a). If he ate the conditional one unwittingly (having forgotten the oath) and the prohibited one wilfully (remembering the oath), he is exempt from stripes (though he ate the prohibited one wilfully), because at the moment of the first act (eating the conditional one) when the oath was due to take effect, he had forgotten it (and it is not, therefore, vgucac ostv).
^ᵖnote:For an offering, because when he ate the conditional one he remembered the oath: he ate it wilfully (it was, of course, permitted to him then); when, therefore, he later ate the prohibited one unwittingly, he became liable for an offering.
^ᵠnote:Whether he ate the conditional or the prohibited loaf first, because at the moment he ate the first one he had forgotten the oath, and it cannot, therefore, take effect.