Shevuot 28a — the Talmud in English

But behold,

even

if what remains of the loaf is

any amount

alone,

also

he can have his oath annulled. For he has still not violated it so long as any amount of the loaf remains?

And we answer:

Alternatively, if you wish, say

that it deals with one who swore

“that I shall not eat.” Alternatively, if you wish, say

that it deals with one who swore

“that I shall not eat it.”

And there is no difficulty at all, as we explain:

Alternatively, if you wish, say,

with one who swore

“that I shall not eat,”

and violated his oath when he ate an olive’s bulk, and nevertheless he can have his oath annulled. For

since the annulment benefits him with regard to the last olive’s bulk,

which he has not yet eaten,

the annulment also benefits him with regard to the first olive’s bulk

which he ate. For as long as part of the loaf remains, his oath remains upon what remains. And when he goes before a sage and uproots his oath retroactively, the uprooting does not relate to each part of the loaf separately; rather, his entire oath is nullified from the outset, and it follows that he did not violate his oath with the olive’s bulk that he had already eaten.

And alternatively, if you wish, say,

that it deals with one who swore concerning the loaf

“that I shall not eat it,”

and nevertheless only

if he leaves

of it

an olive’s bulk is it considered

this olive’s bulk

to have the oath annulled with regard to it,

for through the sage’s attending to the request concerning the olive’s bulk, the loaf is permitted.

But if he does not

leave an olive’s bulk of the loaf, but only less than an olive’s bulk remains,

it is not considered

this any amount

to have the oath annulled with regard to it,

since the sage does not attend to it to annul his oath with regard to it.

We raise an objection: One who vowed two periods of Naziriteship, and counted

the

first Naziriteship, and set aside an offering for it, and afterward had the first annulled—

the second Naziriteship counts for him

as the

first!

And it is demonstrated that even after the first Naziriteship has ended, he can have it annulled. If so, it is difficult: why, after he ate the loaf, can he not have it annulled?

And we answer:

Here,

with Naziriteship,

with what are we dealing? With a case in which he did not complete the atonement

through the offerings of the nazirite, so that his Naziriteship still remained, for he was obligated to attain atonement through his vow of the first Naziriteship, and therefore he can have it annulled.

And we challenge:

But was it not taught

that even if he had already

completed the atonement

by bringing the offerings of the nazirite, nevertheless he can have the first annulled?

And we answer: Since he had still

not shaved

his hair, he was still included within the first Naziriteship.

And it is Rabbi Eliezer’s

opinion,

who says: The nazirite’s shaving prevents him

from drinking wine and from becoming impure.

And we challenge:

But was it not taught

that even if he had

shaved

his hair, so that nothing of his first Naziriteship remained, he can have it annulled and fulfill, during the days in which he observed Naziriteship, the second Naziriteship?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: Are you casting Naziriteship

against an oath,

to raise an objection?

Naziriteship is different, for since he vowed two periods of Naziriteship but observed only the first, we must see:

what caused the

Naziriteship

of the second not to take effect

until now? You must say: the

first Naziriteship,

since first he must count the days of the first Naziriteship and only afterward the second, and it follows that the obligation now to count the days of the second Naziriteship is a result of counting the days of the first; therefore, it is considered as though the first Naziriteship exists. And when he now has it annulled

and it is

no longer so, the days of counting the first Naziriteship count for him as days of counting the second Naziriteship.

Ameimar said: Even if he ate

the

entire loaf, he can have his oath annulled,

because something of his oath still remains: for

if

he ate it

unintentionally,

he is still

lacking an offering,

and as long as he has not attained atonement through an offering, something of his oath remains. And likewise,

if

he ate it

intentionally,

he is still

lacking lashes,

he is.

But

if he ate intentionally and they had already

bound him to the post

in order to flog him, then

he may not

have it annulled, even though they have not yet flogged him,

as Shmuel said, for Shmuel said:

one who became liable to receive lashes in the court,

and they bound him to the post, and he ran

away,

from the court,

he is

exempt

from lashes, because “and your brother be degraded before your eyes” has already been fulfilled with regard to him—for since he was degraded, he is your brother.

But the Gemara rejects what Ameimar said, that even if they merely bound him, it is as one who was flogged and he may no longer have his oath annulled:

That is not so! There,

it is that he

ran

from the post and was disgraced through his flight, and thereby “and your brother be degraded” was fulfilled with regard to him.

But

here, he did not run,

but they merely bound him to the post, and that is not sufficient for “and your brother be degraded” to be deemed fulfilled with regard to him, so as to exempt him from lashes.

The explanation of the following sugya is according to the explanation of the Ritva in Rashi’s method!

Rava said:

One who said:

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, if I eat

the loaf

this one,”

his law is as follows—

a.

And he ate the

loaf

the first one unintentionally, and the second one intentionally, he is exempt!

This means that he swore in such a manner that he stipulated concerning the first loaf that, if he ate it, he would be prohibited from eating the second loaf. And afterward he forgot his oath and ate the first one “unintentionally,” for at the time of eating he did not remember that by eating this loaf he would become prohibited from eating the second loaf. It follows that at the time the oath took effect, which is the time of eating the first loaf, “the person [is] under an oath” does not apply to him, for he had forgotten his oath and did not remember that he was now becoming prohibited from eating the second loaf as a result of eating the first loaf. And whenever, at the time the prohibition of his oath takes effect, “the person under an oath”—who remembers his oath—does not apply, his oath does not take effect at all. Therefore, even if he eats the second loaf “intentionally,” remembering his oath that if he eats the first one he will become prohibited from the second, he is exempt for eating the second, because the oath did not take effect!

b. And if he ate the

first one intentionally,

knowing, while eating the loaf concerning which he had stipulated, of his oath that by eating it he would become prohibited from eating the second, his oath takes effect. Therefore, if afterward he eats the loaf

the second one unintentionally,

having forgotten his oath, he is

liable

for an offering, like anyone who violates his oath unintentionally.

c. He ate

both of them unintentionally:

at the time of eating the loaf concerning which he had stipulated, he had forgotten his oath that by eating it he would become prohibited from eating the second; the oath did not take effect, as in the first case, and he is

exempt

for eating the second, because he was not prohibited from eating it.

And he stated “both of them unintentionally” in order to say that it does not matter to us which loaf was eaten first, the loaf concerning which he stipulated or the loaf concerning which he became prohibited, since at the time the oath took effect—which is the time of eating the loaf concerning which he had stipulated—he did not know of the oath, and it therefore does not take effect.