Shevuot 24b — the Talmud in English

there,

with the konem of the Mishna,

since initially

before he vowed,

he ate

the unslaughtered animal,

and afterward he swore to him,

afterward he said in his wording, “If I ate today,”

he deemed it significant,

for he deemed the unslaughtered animal significant through his eating of it and demonstrated that he was not disgusted by it.

Rather, here,

where he first swore without specification, “I shall not eat,”

did he deem it significant

the unslaughtered animal at the time of his oath? Therefore, if afterward he eats an unslaughtered animal, it is possible that he is exempt, as though he ate foods that are unfit.

Rava said: What is the reason of the one who holds “

inclusive prohibition”?

What is the reason of the Rabbis who hold that although a prohibition does not take effect upon a prohibition, if the additional prohibition also includes permitted things that are now prohibited together with the additional prohibition, the second prohibition takes effect?

It is as “

additional prohibition.”

For if the additional prohibition adds a stringency that was not present in the first prohibition, everyone agrees that it takes effect upon the preceding prohibition; so too, if the additional prohibition includes permitted things along with it, it takes effect upon the first prohibition.

The difference between “additional prohibition” and “inclusive prohibition” is that an additional prohibition adds upon the object itself a new prohibition that was not in it until now. For example, the fat of an offering that became notar is called an additional prohibition, because until it became notar, the fat was prohibited for eating only to an Israelite, but it was permitted for offering to the Most High; and through its becoming notar, a prohibition was added to it, so that even for the altar it was prohibited to offer it. And since the designation notar took effect upon it with regard to the prohibition of offering, which is a new prohibition and is not one prohibition upon another prohibition, the designation notar also takes effect upon it with regard to human eating, so that one becomes liable for it also on account of notar, even though with regard to this it was already prohibited on account of forbidden fat.

An inclusive prohibition does not add a prohibition upon the object itself, but upon the person, who is now prohibited in things that until now were permitted. For example, an unslaughtered animal on the Day of Atonement: the prohibition of the Day of Atonement adds nothing to the unslaughtered animal, for even now it is prohibited only in eating, as before; rather, it adds and extends upon the person, so that he is prohibited in all foods. And by virtue of the fact that the Day of Atonement takes effect upon the person to prohibit him in other foods, it also takes effect upon the unslaughtered animal, so that it is prohibited to him also on account of the Day of Atonement.

And the one who exempts, who does not hold

an inclusive prohibition, even though he agrees regarding an additional prohibition, because he holds:

when he said

that a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition, this is specifically with an

additional prohibition,

because it is

in one piece,

for the second prohibition adds a prohibition upon the piece itself that had been prohibited. But with an inclusive prohibition, which is

in two pieces,

where the second prohibition adds only upon another piece,

we do not say

that since the additional prohibition takes effect upon the person with regard to this piece, it will also take effect with regard to this piece.

And Rava said: According to the one who holds that an inclusive prohibition

takes effect upon a prohibition, if he

said, “

An oath: I shall not eat figs, and he went back and said,

‘An oath: I shall not eat figs and grapes’” —

since it takes effect

his second oath

upon the grapes,

with regard to which he had not been under oath until now,

it also takes effect upon the figs,

because he included in his second oath also the permitted grapes. Therefore, if he ate figs, he is liable on account of two oaths.

And we object:

Obviously,

for this is an inclusive prohibition!?

And we answer:

Lest you say

that only

an inclusive

prohibition

that comes on its own is said

to take effect upon a prohibition, such as the Day of Atonement taking effect upon an unslaughtered animal, but

a prohibition that comes

through the person

by himself, we do not say

that it takes effect upon a prohibition.

It teaches us

Rava that the authority who holds an inclusive prohibition holds this also regarding a prohibition by which a person prohibits himself.

Rava the son of Rabbah objected

against Rava, that even with a prohibition that comes by itself one says an inclusive prohibition, from what we learned in tractate Keritot [13b]:

There is

a person who

eats one eating

one olive-bulk

and is liable for four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering.

And these are they:

a person

impure who ate forbidden fat. And it is

the fat of an offering that

became notar from consecrated things,

whose eating-time for the offering had passed. And he ate it

on the Day of Atonement.

There are here four sin-offerings: for eating forbidden fat, for eating notar, for eating on the Day of Atonement, and for eating consecrated things while impure in body. In addition, he is liable for a guilt-offering for sacrilege because he benefited from consecrated property.

Rabbi Meir says:

sometimes

even

there is one additional sin-offering, for example, if this was on

Shabbat, and he carried it

that olive-bulk of fat

in his mouth

from the private domain to the public domain during eating, in which case he

is liable

for an additional sin-offering, on account of the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Meir: The liability for the sin-offering for carrying

is not of the same designation.

That sin-offering comes not for eating but for the labor of carrying, and we count only the sin-offerings that come for the eating itself alone.

And if it is so,

that even an inclusive prohibition that comes through the person himself takes effect upon a prohibition, then

it can be found

that he would be liable for that olive-bulk even for

five

sin-offerings,

for example, if he said, “

An oath: I shall not eat

dates and forbidden fat,” for according to Rava the oath takes effect upon the forbidden fat even though it is a prohibition upon a prohibition, because this oath also includes the permitted dates. And

for according to Rava the oath takes effect upon the forbidden fat even though it is a prohibition upon a prohibition, because this oath also includes the permitted dates.

since it takes effect

his oath

upon the dates, it also takes effect upon the forbidden fat.

It follows that he is liable for yet another sin-offering for transgressing his oath and eating the forbidden fat!? And we answer: Indeed, there is an inclusive prohibition even with a prohibition that comes by itself; however,

when he teaches,

the tanna of the Mishna counts only

an

inclusive prohibition

that comes on its own.

But

an

inclusive prohibition

that comes by itself, he does not teach.

And we object:

But consecration,

which is a prohibition that comes by itself, for a person makes the consecration through his speech, and nevertheless the tanna counts it, for the guilt-offering for sacrilege comes on account of deriving benefit from consecrated property, !?

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking

of

an offering,

a firstborn whose sanctity is from the womb,

automatically, and not through the person’s consecration.

Alternatively, if you wish to say: When he teaches

the Mishna, only

something that has no question

such prohibitions that cannot be permitted through a question to a sage; therefore

an oath that has a question

which a sage can permit

he does not teach!

And we object:

But consecration,

regarding which one may ask permission, like any vow, and he teaches the guilt-offering for sacrilege!?

And we answer:

We established this as referring to a firstborn,

regarding which one cannot ask permission, for its sanctity does not come through a person’s vow, but it is holy by itself.

Alternatively, if you wish to say: When he teaches

specifically

a fixed offering,

for all the sin-offerings and the guilt-offering enumerated in the Mishna are fixed offerings, in which there is no difference between the wealthy and the poor; whereas

an ascending-and-descending offering,

which comes for an oath, where the poor person brings an offering different from that of the wealthy,

he does not teach.

And we object:

But an impure person who ate consecrated property, whose offering is an ascending-and-descending offering,

and he teaches it!?

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking

of a ruler,

who ate consecrated property in impurity, and he does not bring an ascending-and-descending offering, but a fixed offering.

And it is Rabbi Eliezer’s [opinion], who says: A ruler brings a goat

as a sin-offering for his sin involving the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, whether he is wealthy or whether he is poor.

Rav Ashi said: When he teaches, it is something upon which [the prohibition] takes effect by a measure.

Only prohibitions for which one is liable only for a measure of an olive-bulk. But

an oath, upon which [the prohibition] takes effect

even

upon less than the measure,

for if he explicitly swore regarding less than the measure, he is liable for it,

he does not teach!

And we object:

But consecration,

for one is liable for the guilt-offering for sacrilege even for eating less than an olive-bulk, and he teaches it!?

And we answer:

Here, we require

that the sacrilege be at least

the value of a peruta,

for this is the measure of sacrilege; whereas an oath has no measure at all.

And Rav Ashi of Mevarya said in the name of Rabbi Zeira: When he teaches,

only something for which one is liable for

intentional violation by excision.

But an oath, which is something whose

intentional violation is [punished by] lashes

alone,

he does not teach!

And we object:

But the guilt-offering

for sacrilege,

whose intentional violation is [punished by] lashes

alone,

and he teaches it?