Shevuot 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

And grape juice

is it not

wine

—

it is, and

nevertheless

it is written

here,

“and you shall eat”,

which indicates that drinking is included in eating.

And we raise this difficulty:

perhaps

the Torah speaks of wine in the language of eating in a case where he consumes the wine

by means of

eating

anigron.

And what is anigron?

As Rabba bar Shmuel said: Anigron

is

the water of beets,

a cooked dish of beets.

Aksigron

is

the water of all cooked vegetables,

a cooked dish of other vegetables.

They were accustomed to place wine in the anigron, and therefore wine too is considered eating, but from where do we know that drinking is included in eating?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya'akov said: From here

we learn that drinking is included in eating, as it is stated [there, verse 26]:

“And you shall give the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle, for sheep, for wine, and for strong drink,

and for whatever your soul asks of you, and you shall eat there.”

But

wine is wine, and

nevertheless

it is written

“and you shall eat”!

And we question this:

But perhaps here too

the reference is to wine that he consumes

by means of anigron?

And we answer: Although “wine” could refer to wine consumed by means of anigron, in this verse

“strong drink”

is also written,

whose meaning is

something that intoxicates,

something that causes drunkenness—that is, it is used in the manner of drunkenness, whereas consuming it as food is not the manner of drunkenness!

The difficulty nevertheless remains:

perhaps the “strong drink” of the verse is not wine at all, but

a dried fig

“Ke'ilit”

a dried fig

“Ke'ilit”

[a place-name], which intoxicates [and consuming it too is a manner of drunkenness]?

As it was taught

[in a beraita from which it can be learned that a Ke'ilit dried fig intoxicates]:

A koen who

ate a Ke'ilit dried fig and drank honey

that had been cooked with water, or

drank milk,

all of which are intoxicating substances, like wine,

and entered the Temple and performed the Temple service is liable

for lashes. The prohibition against performing the service after drinking wine was stated not only with regard to wine, but with regard to anything that intoxicates.

If so, perhaps the intent of the verse when it says “and you shall eat” with regard to strong drink is that it refers to a Ke'ilit dried fig, which is food; and drinking is in fact not included in eating?

And we answer:

Rather, he derives

by means of a gzera shava the term

“strong drink” -

“Strong drink”

from nazir, just as there,

with regard to a nazir, the “strong drink” mentioned there is

wine,

so here too,

with regard to second tithe, the strong drink is

wine,

which, as stated, is not consumed in the manner of drunkenness except by drinking, and nevertheless the Torah says about it, “and you shall eat”; this proves that drinking is included in eating.

Rava said: We too have learned this

in our Mishna, that drinking is included in eating:

As we learned:

“An oath: I shall not eat,” and he ate and drank—he is liable for only one

if you say that drinking is included in eating,

therefore

the tanna needed to teach us that he is liable for only one

even though he performed two acts in violation of his oath.

But if you say that drinking is not included in eating,

it is obvious that he is liable for only one. For

“An oath: I shall not eat,” and he ate and performed labor—

would the tanna have needed

to

teach us that he is liable for only one

for the eating and not for the labor!? He did not swear at all with regard to the labor. The same would apply if we say that drinking is not included in eating: The tanna would not need to teach us that he is not liable for the drinking, since it was not included in his oath!?

Abaye said to him,

to Rava:

Rather, what

do you intend to say, that

drinking is included in eating?

If so,

say

the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“An oath: I shall not eat, and I shall not drink,” and he ate and drank—

he is liable for two,

for the eating separately and the drinking separately.

But

since he said

first, “An oath:

I shall not eat,”

immediately

he became prohibited

also

from drinking,

for drinking is included in eating. If so,

when he said

afterward,

“I shall not drink,”

why is he liable in addition for the drinking? And

if

he had said

twice, “An oath:

I shall not drink,” “An oath:

I shall not drink,”

would he be liable for two? The second oath does not take effect at all, since he was already under oath with regard to drinking. Here too, he is already under oath with regard to drinking through his first oath, “I shall not eat”; so how can the second oath, “I shall not drink,” take effect!?

He said to him

Rava:

There,

in our Mishna, the case is

that he said first, “An oath:

I shall not drink,”

and afterward said, “An oath:

I shall not eat.”

For

although

drinking is indeed included in eating,

but

eating is not included in drinking,

it follows that through his first oath, “I shall not drink,” he was not yet prohibited from eating. Therefore, his second oath takes effect, prohibiting him from eating as well, and if he ate and drank, he is liable for two.

And we challenge Rava:

But

if he

said,

“An oath: I shall not eat, and I shall not drink,”

and he ate and drank, what

according to your view, is the law?—

He is liable for only one!

For, as stated, the first oath also includes drinking, and one oath does not take effect upon another.

If so, instead of teaching in the first clause

of the Mishna:

“An oath: I shall not eat, and he ate and drank—he is liable for only one,” it should teach

the greater novelty, that even if he said,

“An oath: I shall not eat, and I shall not drink,”

he is liable for only one,

even though he explicitly specified in his wording a separate oath for eating and a separate oath for drinking;

and all the more so

when he said, “An oath:

I shall not eat”

alone,

that he is liable for only one, since he did not specify eating and drinking separately!?

Rather, Rava answers:

Rava explains:

Actually, there is no need to revise the wording of the latter clause of our Mishna; rather, it is

ne nuzhno izmenyat' tekst posledney chasti Mishny; sleduet ostavit' ego tak,

as it teaches, “An oath: I shall not eat, and I shall not drink.”

But here it is different, for “I shall not eat” does not include drinking as well, since

for drinking is not included in “I shall not eat,” since

when he said,

“I shall not eat,”

and afterward said,

“I shall not drink,”

and drinking is included in “I shall not eat,” why did he need to say “I shall not drink” again? Rather, it is necessarily the case that

he revealed his intention that this eating of which he spoke

at the beginning of his words

is eating alone, and only in his second oath did he swear with regard to drinking. Thus there is no oath imposed upon an oath, and therefore if he ate and drank, he is liable for two.

a klyatvu o pitii on dal tol'ko vo vtoroy fraze. Zdes' net klyatvy posle klyatvy, poetomu, esli on s''el i vypil, on obyazan za dve klyatvy.

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna too is precise

in indicating that drinking is included in eating, as it teaches:

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

he is exempt.

And we infer:

That

if he drank liquids that are

fit, he is liable!

But why

is he liable for the drinking?

That

“An oath: I shall not eat”

alone

he said!?

Rather, drinking is certainly included in eating!

And we reject this:

Perhaps

the Mishna is speaking of one who

said two oaths:

“An oath: I shall not eat,” “An oath: I shall not drink.”

The tanna did not trouble to write this, because the main point he wished to teach us is that one is not liable for foods and liquids that are unfit.

We learned in the Mishna:

“An oath: I shall not eat, and he ate wheat

bread

and barley bread and spelt bread, he is liable for only one. An oath: I shall not eat wheat bread, barley bread, or spelt bread, and he ate—he is liable for each and every one.”

And we raise this difficulty: Why is he liable for each and every one?

Perhaps

he did not intend by his words to divide his oath into three separate oaths. Rather, he specified these three types of bread because he wished to prohibit only those items to himself, and

he came to exempt himself from other items,

for had he simply said, “An oath: I shall not eat,” he would have become prohibited from all foods in the world!?

And we answer: If that had been his intention,

he should have said, “An oath: I shall not eat

wheat, barley, and spelt.”

Why, then, did he need to mention “bread” with regard to each of them? Rather, he certainly intended to impose a separate oath upon each type of bread.

We nevertheless ask:

Perhaps

the reason he did not suffice with saying only “wheat, barley, and spelt” is that his words would then have implied that he wished to prohibit himself only from

nibbling

[chewing] the wheat, barley, and spelt with his mouth while they were whole, and not from eating bread made from them. Therefore, he added “bread” in order to prohibit himself only from eating bread made of wheat, barley, and spelt? And we answer: If that had been his intention,

he should have said, “An oath: I shall not eat

wheat, barley, and spelt bread,”

for this wording is sufficient to demonstrate that he prohibits himself only from eating bread of all the types he specified, and not from nibbling them. Why, then, did he need to add “bread” to each one? Rather, he certainly intended to prohibit every type of bread by a separate oath.

We nevertheless ask:

Perhaps

if he had said, “wheat, barley, and spelt bread,” it would have been understood that

wheat bread

is what he intends to prohibit himself from

eating

as bread, whereas

barley and spelt

he intends to prohibit himself only from

nibbling them. Therefore, he repeated “bread” with regard to each one, so that he would be prohibited from all of them only when eating bread made from them. We still have no proof that he wished to divide his oath for each type of bread separately?

And we answer: He still need not have mentioned “bread” with regard to each and every one. Rather,

I otvechaem: emu vse eshche ne nuzhno bylo upominat' slovo «khleb» pri kazhdom vide, a

he should have said,

“wheat bread, and that of barley, and that of spelt,”

and that would have sufficed. Since he says “bread” first and afterward “that of,” it is evident that he also intends to prohibit barley and spelt as the bread mentioned previously, and not as items to be nibbled. Rather, he certainly intends to divide his oath.