Shevuot 22b — the Talmud in English

And the Sages say: Neither he nor his fellow committed misuse, because there is no misuse with konamot!

And this is difficult for Ravina, who interprets the beraita as concerning a korban for misuse: according to the Sages, there is no misuse at all with konamot!?

And we answer:

Reverse the beraita:

“This loaf is forbidden to me like an offering,”

one—this

the one who vows,

and one—this

his fellow,

did not commit misuse, because there is no misuse with konamot—the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: He,

the one who vowed himself,

committed misuse, but his fellow did not commit misuse,

for the Sages hold that there is misuse with konamot.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

that you reverse and read in the words of Rabbi Meir that he holds there is no misuse with konamot, what of that which was taught in the beraita above:

Rabbi Meir says: Konamot are like oaths,

that also with them two loaves do not combine; and Ravina explained that the subject of the beraita is combination for a korban of misuse, and it follows that

rather, with konamot, it is combination that they do not combine,

the two loaves to the measure of a peruta’s worth for a korban of misuse;

but there is misuse in them

if there was in each one of them a measure of a peruta’s worth.

But Rabbi Meir said

according to your version:

There is no misuse with konamot at all!?

And we answer: Rabbi Meir, who said that konamot do not combine like oaths,

said it according to the words of the Rabbis

to them.

And this is what he says:

According to my view, there is no misuse with konamot at all,

even if he benefited from each loaf by a measure of a peruta’s worth. Rather,

according to your view,

that you hold there is misuse with konamot,

at least concede to me that konamot

are

like oaths,

that the two loaves do not combine together to the measure of a peruta’s worth.

And the Rabbis

replied to Rabbi Meir: There is a difference between oaths and konamot, because with

oaths

it is proper that the two loaves should not combine to the measure of an olive, because

there is

that

which

Rav Pinhas

said:

Oaths are different, for since the loaves are divided so as to obligate two sin-offerings for them, therefore they do not combine; whereas

with konamot there is no [principle of] Rav Pinhas,

for the loaves forbidden through konamot are not divided with regard to a korban of misuse; therefore it is proper that they combine to the measure of a peruta’s worth.

Rava said:

One who says, “

An oath that I will not eat,”

and he ate earth—

he is exempt,

for earth is not something fit for eating and is not included in his oath.

Rava raised a question:

One who says, “

An oath that I will not eat earth,”

for then he is certainly also forbidden to eat earth, since he explicitly specified that he prohibits himself from eating earth as well—yet the question is:

How much

earth is he forbidden to eat?

The sides of the uncertainty are: Is it that

since he said

in the language of eating,

“that I will not eat,”

his intention is [concerning] an olive-sized measure,

which is the measure of eating;

or perhaps, since

earth

is not something that people eat,

a measure of eating does not apply to it, and his intention is to prohibit himself even

in any amount?

And we conclude:

It stands unresolved!

Rava raised another question:

If you can conclude from the preceding uncertainty that one who swears not to eat earth is forbidden in any amount, since it is not fit for eating, what is the law concerning one who says,

“An oath that I will not eat grape-stones,”

of grapes,

how much

is he forbidden?

Is it that

since it is eaten through a mixture,

for the usual manner is to eat the grape-stone when it is mixed with the grapes, it is therefore considered an ordinary food, and therefore

his intention

of the one who swears

is [concerning] an olive-sized measure

of it, as with all measures of eating;

or perhaps, since

the grape-stone is only in a manner that

people do not eat it by itself,

for the grape-stone as it is is not eaten, but only when it is in a mixture, it is considered something unfit for eating, and therefore

his intention is [concerning] any amount?

And we conclude:

It stands unresolved!

Rav Ashi raised a question:

If you can conclude that every person who swears concerning grape-stones is forbidden only in an olive-sized measure, what is the law

with a nazirite,

who is in any event forbidden to eat grape-stones,

who said, “

An oath that I will not eat grape-stones,”

how much

is he forbidden?

Could it be said:

since an olive-sized measure

of grape-stones

is a Torah prohibition

for him, and he knows that the oath does not take effect with regard to an olive-sized measure, since he is already sworn and obligated concerning it from Sinai, therefore

when he swears

to prohibit himself,

he swears concerning what is permitted, and his intention is [concerning] any amount,

which is permitted to him by Torah law, and that he wishes to prohibit upon himself through the oath?

Or perhaps, since he said “

that I will not eat,”

his intention is [concerning] an olive-sized measure,

which is the measure of eating, and it follows that his oath did not take effect, since concerning an olive-sized measure he is already sworn and obligated from Sinai?

Come and hear

from that which we learned in the Mishna below: One who says, “

An oath that I will not eat,”

and he ate unslaughtered animals and torn animals, creeping creatures and crawling things, he is liable.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts!

And we considered it: Why is he liable

for his oath, according to the Sages? Is he not

already sworn and obligated from Sinai?

Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan said:

In what case are we speaking here?

With inclusion,

in his oath,

of permitted things together with prohibited things.

And since the oath takes effect upon the permitted things, it takes effect also upon the prohibited things.

And Reish Lakish said: You do not find

according to the Sages that he becomes liable for an oath not to eat prohibited things unless he is prohibited by his oath in a half-measure.

And two possibilities are possible in this:

a.

If he specified,

that he prohibits himself even in

a half-measure,

concerning which he is not already sworn and obligated from Sinai,

and according to the view of the Rabbis,

who hold that everyone who swears anonymously swears concerning an olive-sized measure; therefore he must explicitly say that he is swearing also concerning a half-measure.

b.

If he spoke anonymously, and according to the view of Rabbi Akiva, who said: A person

who swears anonymously not to eat

prohibits himself in any amount!

The Gemara now infers from the fact that Reish Lakish establishes the words of the Sages when he explicitly specified that he prohibits himself in a half-measure:

But an unslaughtered animal, which is something concerning which he is already sworn and obligated from Sinai, which is analogous to grape-stones with regard to a nazirite,

the unslaughtered animal is similar to a nazirite in that he is already sworn and obligated not to eat grape-stones,

and the reason

that one who swears is forbidden in half an olive of an unslaughtered animal is because

he specified

in his oath that he prohibits himself in a half-measure.

If he did not specify—

his intention

is to swear only

concerning an olive-sized measure.

And even if he explicitly mentioned in his oath that he swears not to eat an unslaughtered animal, we nevertheless say that his intention is only concerning at least an olive-sized measure of an unslaughtered animal; for otherwise, Reish Lakish could have established the words of the Sages when he explicitly specified that he would not eat unslaughtered and torn animals, in which case he would not need to further specify that he intends to swear also concerning a half-measure. If so, the same is true of a nazirite who swears that he will not eat grape-stones: if he did not explicitly specify that he prohibits himself in any amount, his intention is to eat an olive-sized measure.

Learn from this!

And we challenge:

Rather,

if so,

resolve

from it also

the question that Rava raised: “An oath that I will not eat earth—how much?”

Resolve that only when there is an olive-sized measure

of earth does he transgress his oath,

for an unslaughtered animal

which is forbidden to eat and is not eaten

is analogous to earth, and the reason

that he is prohibited from eating a half-measure is because

he specified

in his oath that he prohibits himself in a half-measure.

If he did not specify,

even if he explicitly said that he was swearing concerning an unslaughtered animal,

his intention is [concerning] an olive-sized measure.

The same should apply to earth: although it is unfit for eating, his intention is only concerning an olive-sized measure?

And we reject this:

No,

it is not so. Earth is different from an unslaughtered animal, even though neither is eaten. For

earth is not at all something fit for eating.

And one can say that the intention of one who swears is not for the measure of eating applicable to other prohibitions, for the name “eating” does not apply to earth at all; rather, his intention is not to put earth into his mouth, even any amount. But

an unslaughtered animal is fit for eating

and a measure of eating applies to it. Rather,

a lion lies upon it.

The Torah’s warning not to eat it is like a lion crouching upon it, preventing one from approaching it and eating it.

Mishna:

a. One who says:

“An oath that I will not eat,”

even though he is also forbidden to drink, because drinking is included in eating, nevertheless it is one oath.

And

therefore, if he

ate and drank, he is liable for only one

offering, only one having been brought, like a person who ate an olive-sized measure and then ate another olive-sized measure from the same oath, in one lapse of awareness, who is liable for only one offering for the two acts of eating.

b. One who says:

“An oath that I will not eat and that I will not drink,”

his words are considered two separate oaths, one concerning eating and the other concerning drinking,

and

therefore, if he

ate and drank, he is liable for two!

c. One who says:

“An oath that I will not eat,” and he ate wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread—

he is liable for only one,

for he did not specify each species separately in his oath.

d. But if he said:

“An oath that I will not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread,” and he ate

the three of these species,

he is liable for each one and one.

For this reason he specified each species separately, because he wished a separate oath to take effect upon each species and each species individually.

e. One who says:

“An oath that I shall not drink,” and he drank many beverages—

is liable only once.

f. And if he said:

“An oath that I shall not drink wine, oil, or honey,” and he drank

from all of them,

he is liable for each and every one.

g. One who says:

“An oath that I shall not eat,” and he ate foods unfit for eating, and drank beverages unfit for drinking—

he is exempt,

because they are not included in his oath, since they are not fit for eating.

h. And if he said:

“An oath that I shall not eat,” and he ate carcasses, animals with fatal defects, creeping things, and crawling things—

he is liable,

because they are fit for eating, except that the prohibition prevents their eating.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts,

because he is already sworn and standing from Mount Sinai regarding the eating of forbidden things, and therefore the oath does not take effect upon them.

t.

He said: “Konam, my wife is forbidden to me” [

I hereby vow to derive no benefit from my wife ]

“if I ate today!” And he ate

on that day

carcasses, animals with fatal defects, creeping things, and crawling things—

behold, his wife is forbidden.

For he ate foods fit for eating, and Rabbi Shimon, too, will agree here, since the entire reason that he exempts in the first clause is because he is already sworn and standing, and not because they are unfit for eating.

Gemara:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said that Shmuel said:

One who says:

“An oath that I shall not eat,” and he drank, is liable,

because drinking is included within eating!

And the source for this is—

If you wish, say: it is a rationale

—

and if you wish, say: it is a verse

—he [derives it from Scripture].

And the Gemara explains:

If you wish, say: it is a rationale:

for it is the language of people to speak of drinking in the language of eating. And the proof is

that a person says to his fellow:

“Let us taste something,”

and

in the end

they enter

they enter

and eat and drink!

And if you wish, say: it is a verse:

From Scripture we learn that

drinking is included within eating

it is.

For Reish Lakish said: From where is it [derived] that drinking is included within eating?

As it is stated [

Deuteronomy 14:23 ]: “

And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that He will choose to establish His Name there, the tithe of your grain and your wine.”