Shevuot

even if only a minute quantity [is left, he should obtain absolution] also?1 — 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.2 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. 3 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’.4 Here we are discussing the case where he has not yet obtained atonement.5 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;6 and it is in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer, who holds that shaving is indispensable.7 — 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!8 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;9 but if he had already been bound to the pole,10 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.11 — But it is not really analogous; there he ran; here he did not run. 12 Raba said: [If he said:] ‘I swear I shall not eat this loaf, if I eat that one,’ and he ate the first13 unwittingly, and the second14 wilfully, he is exempt;15 [if he ate] the first wilfully, and the second unwittingly, he is liable;16 both unwittingly, he is exempt;17 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. oath; and he cannot, therefore, obtain absolution; v. Tosaf. 27b, s.v. ot. in the case of an oath, should he not be able to obtain absolution even after he has completely eaten the loaf? therefore not yet completed, and he may obtain absolution. has not been completed entirely, and he may still obtain absolution. 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? Amemar disagrees with Raba who holds that only if a ka-zayith is left can he obtain absolution. already received the stripes. 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. 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). course, permitted to him then); when, therefore, he later ate the prohibited one unwittingly, he became liable for an offering. forgotten the oath, and it cannot, therefore, take effect.