Shevuot

both wilfully, then, if he [first] ate the conditional one, and then he ate the prohibited one, he is liable;1 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:2 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.3 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’;4 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:5 [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;6 both unwittingly, he is exempt;7 both wilfully, then, for the second he is liable;8 but for the first, [the ruling depends on] the controversy between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.9 R. Mari said: We have also learnt thus [in a Mishnah]:10 Four vows did the Sages permit:11 vows of urging.12 vows of hyperbole.13 vows made unwittingly,14 and vows accidentally unfulfilled.15 Vows made unwittingly: how? ‘Konam16 [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.17 Efa18 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].19 — [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].20 — He said to him: You are mistaken, for if he will not eat nine, he will not eat ten.21 [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.22 He said to him: You are mistaken: ten he would not eat, but nine he would eat.23 Abaye said: Sometimes this ruling of Efa is possible,24 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 you have sworn not to eat it, if you eat the first; and you have already eaten the first.’ 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. 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). 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. vgucac ostv is therefore not fulfilled. sworn not to eat it, if you eat the first; and you have already eaten the first.’ liable for having eaten this.’ It is uncertain, because he may never eat the other. of fulfilling the condition. 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. road today.’ He knows it is untrue; It is merely exaggerated speech. he had not drunk, but later reminded himself that he had; the vow is null, and he may eat the loaf. 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. 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. 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? precept. transgressed the second oath, and when he ate another one, be transgressed the first. 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.