שבועות 28:2 — Soncino English Talmud

both wilfully, then, if he [first] ate the conditional one, and then he ate the prohibited one, he is liable; but if he [first] ate the prohibited one, and then he ate the conditional one, [the ruling depends on] the controversy between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish: according to the one who holds an uncertain warning is a warning he is liable, and according to the one who holds it is not a warning, he is exempt. If he made them conditional upon each other: ‘I shall not eat this one, if I eat that one; I shall not eat that one, if I eat this one’; then, if he ate this one wilfully, [mindful of the oath] concerning it, but forgetful [of the oath] concerning the other; and [ate] the other wilfully, [mindful of the oath] concerning it, but forgetful [of the oath] concerning the first, he is exempt: [if he ate] this one unwittingly, [forgetful of the oath] concerning it, but mindful [of the oath] concerning the other, and [ate] the other unwittingly, [forgetful of the oath] concerning it, but mindful [of the oath] concerning the first, he is liable; both unwittingly, he is exempt; both wilfully, then, for the second he is liable; but for the first, [the ruling depends on] the controversy between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. R. Mari said: We have also learnt thus [in a Mishnah]: Four vows did the Sages permit: vows of urging. vows of hyperbole. vows made unwittingly, and vows accidentally unfulfilled. Vows made unwittingly: how? ‘Konam [this loaf to me], if I ate or drank [today]’, and he remembered that he had eaten or drunk; ‘[konam this loaf to me,] if I eat or drink [today]’, and he forgot, and ate or drank, he is permitted [to eat that loaf]; and it was taught with reference to this: just as vows made unwittingly are permitted, so oaths made unwittingly are permitted. Efa learnt [the laws of] oaths in the school of Rabbah. His brother Abbimi met him, and asked him: [If one said,] ‘I swear I have not eaten; I swear I have not eaten’, [and he had eaten,] what is the ruling? — He replied: He is liable only once. He said to him: You are mistaken, for surely a false oath went forth [from his mouth]. — [He asked him again: If one said,] ‘I swear I shall not eat nine [figs; I swear I shall not eat] ten [figs’, and he ate ten figs], what is the ruling? — He replied: He is liable for each [oath]. — He said to him: You are mistaken, for if he will not eat nine, he will not eat ten. [He asked him again: If one said,] ‘I swear I shall not eat ten [figs; I swear I shall not eat] nine [figs,’ and he ate ten], what is the ruling? — He replied: He is liable only once. He said to him: You are mistaken: ten he would not eat, but nine he would eat. Abaye said: Sometimes this ruling of Efa is possible, as the Master said, for Rabbah said: [If a man said,] ‘I swear I shall not eat figs and grapes [together in one day],’ then he said, ‘I swear I shall not eat figs;’25^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

^ᵃnote:Stripes; provided, before eating the second, he was given the required definite warning: ‘Do not eat this loaf, because you have sworn not to eat it, if you eat the first; and you have already eaten the first.’
^ᵇnote:V. supra 3b.
^ᶜnote:The warning, which must be given before the eating of the prohibited loaf, cannot be definite: ‘You must not eat this loaf’ (for it is not prohibited until he eats the conditional loaf). The warning is therefore: ‘You must not eat this loaf, in case you eat the conditional one, and then you will have transgressed the oath in having eaten this prohibited loaf.’ This warning is uncertain, for he may never eat the conditional loaf.
^ᵈnote:Both loaves are conditional and prohibited.
^ᵉnote:When he ate the first one, he remembered that he had sworn not to eat it, if he ate the other; but he forgot that he had also sworn not to eat the other, if he ate this one. When he ate the second, he remembered that he had sworn not to eat it, if he ate the first; but forgot that he had also sworn not to eat the first, if he ate this. Now, he is exempt from stripes for the second loaf which he has just eaten wilfully, because at the time the oath has to take effect, i.e., at the moment of the first act (eating the first loaf), he had forgotten that he had sworn not to eat the second loaf, if he ate the first; the second oath, therefore, does not take effect; and he is exempt from stripes or offering for the first, because, though he ate it wilfully, it was permitted at the moment of eating (for he had then not yet eaten the second).
^ᶠnote:When he ate the first one, he forgot that he had sworn not to eat it, if he ate the second, but remembered that he had sworn not to eat the second, if he ate this; and when he ate the second, he forgot that he had sworn not to eat it, if he ate the first, but remembered that he had sworn not to eat the first, if he ate this. Now, for the second loaf he must bring an offering, for the second loaf took effect at the beginning, at the moment of the first act (eating the first loaf), for at that moment he remembered that he had sworn not to eat the second loaf, if he ate the first. And now when he ate the second loaf (though he forgot this oath now) he is liable, for it is a simple case of unwitting transgression (eating the loaf, having forgotten his oath not to do so). But he is not liable for stripes for the first loaf (though now, when eating the second loaf, he remembers that he had sworn, not to eat the first, if he ate the second, and yet he eats the second wilfully), because at the moment of the first act (eating the first loaf) this oath (not to eat the first, if he ate the second) did not take effect, for he had forgotten it.
^ᵍnote:For at the moment of the first act, when the oaths are due to take effect, he had forgotten them, and the condition of vgucac ostv is therefore not fulfilled.
^ʰnote:Stripes; where he was given a definite warning which, in this case, is possible: ‘Do not eat this loaf, for you have sworn not to eat it, if you eat the first; and you have already eaten the first.’
^ⁱnote:For it is an uncertain warning: ‘Do not eat this in case you also eat the other, and if you eat the other you will be liable for having eaten this.’ It is uncertain, because he may never eat the other.
^ʲnote:In support of Raba's statement that in the case of a conditional oath the person must remember the oath at the time of fulfilling the condition.
^ᵏnote:To be deemed as of no effect even without absolution; Ned. 20b.
^ˡnote:Bargaining in business; e.g., the seller says: ‘I vow that food shall be prohibited to me today, if I sell you this article for less than 4 denarii’, and the buyer vows similarly that he will not give more than 2 denarii; both intend to compromise for 3 denarii; they vow merely to obtain better terms, and do not intend their vows to be taken seriously.
^ᵐnote:Or exaggeration; e.g., I vow that this loaf shall be prohibited to me, if I did not see 500,000 men pass along this road today.’ He knows it is untrue; It is merely exaggerated speech.
^ⁿnote:E.g., ‘I vow that this loaf shall be prohibited to me, if I have drunk wine today.’ When uttering the vow he thought he had not drunk, but later reminded himself that he had; the vow is null, and he may eat the loaf.
^ᵒnote:E.g., ‘I vow that enjoyment of my property shall be prohibited to you, if you do not dine with me today,’ and illness prevented the acceptance of the invitation, the vow’ is null, for the person who made it did not intend it to take effect if accident prevented the fulfilment of the condition.
^ᵖnote:Prohibited be (v. Glos.).
^ᵠnote:E.g., ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf, if I drink wine today,’ and he forgot and drank wine, he is permitted to eat the loaf; because in order that the oath shall take effect he must remember the oath at the time of fulfilling the condition, but in this case, when fulfilling the condition (drinking the wine), he had forgotten the oath. This, therefore, agrees with Raba's statement.
^ʳnote:He and Abbimi were the sons of Rahabah of Pumbeditha.
^ˢnote:Only in the case of an oath in the future can you say that the second oath does not take effect, because the first has already prohibited it, and the second is now an oath to fulfil a precept (to fulfil the first oath); but in the case of an oath in the past, which is false immediately when it is uttered, why should he not be liable for the second or any number of subsequent oaths?
^ᵗnote:He assumed that the second oath is not included in the first, and therefore can take effect.
^ᵘnote:The second oath is therefore already included in the first, and cannot take effect, for it is now an oath to fulfil a precept.
^ᵛnote:He assumed that the second oath is included in the first, for ‘nine’ is included in ‘ten’.
^ʷnote:The first oath was only for ten, but he was permitted to eat nine; the second prohibited nine. When he ate nine, he transgressed the second oath, and when he ate another one, be transgressed the first.
^ˣnote:That if he swore for ten, and then nine; and ate ten, he should be liable only once.
^ʸnote:If he would have eaten figs and grapes together in one day, he would have had to bring two offerings: for, as soon as he ate the figs, he is liable for the second oath, and when he eats also the grapes, he is liable for the first.