Shevuot 28aשבועות כ״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shevuot 28a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
28aכ״ח א

אפי' כל שהוא נמי

Even if he had left any amount it would also be possible for him to dissolve the oath, as he had not yet broken his oath.

אי בעית אימא שלא אוכל אי בעית אימא שלא אוכלנה איבעית אימא שלא אוכל מיגו דמהניא ליה שאלה אכזית בתרא מהניא ליה שאלה נמי אכזית קמא

Rav Ashi answers: If you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: I will not eat this loaf, and if you wish, say that it is referring to a case where he took an oath , saying: I will not eat it. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath , saying: I will not eat this loaf. Since a request for dissolution is still effective even for the last olive-bulk of the loaf, it is effective also for the first olive-bulk.

ואיבעית אימא שלא אוכלנה אי שייר כזית חשיב לאיתשולי עליה ואי לא לא חשיב לאיתשולי עליה

And if you wish, say that the halakha stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: I will not eat it. If he left an olive-bulk, that is a sufficiently significant quantity for which to request dissolution of the oath. But if he did not leave that much, it is not a sufficiently significant quantity for which to request dissolution of the oath.

מיתיבי מי שנדר שתי נזירות ומנה ראשונה והפריש עליה קרבן ואח"כ נשאל על הראשונה עלתה לו שניה בראשונה

Rava assumes that once one has eaten the entire loaf, it is no longer possible to dissolve the oath. The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: With regard to one who took two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first term and separated an offering for it, and afterward requested and received dissolution of the first vow from a halakhic authority, the second term was counted for him in the observance of the first term and he is not required to be a nazirite further. Although the first term of naziriteship was entirely finished, a halakhic authority could still dissolve the vow.

הכא במאי עסקינן בשלא כיפר

The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he has not yet atoned, i.e., he has not yet brought the offerings that one brings at the conclusion of naziriteship.

והתניא כיפר בשלא גלח ור"א היא דאמר תגלחת מעכבא

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that one can still dissolve his vow of naziriteship after he has atoned? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he has brought the offerings but has not yet shaved his hair, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Shaving is indispensable to the completion of naziriteship.

והתניא גלח אמר רב אשי נזירות קא רמית מי גרם לשניה שלא תחול ראשונה ואינה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that one can still dissolve his vow of naziriteship after he has shaved? Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing naziriteship to oaths? What caused the second naziriteship to not take effect until now? It was the first naziriteship, and once it has been dissolved, it is no longer a factor. Since the observance of the naziriteship term is the same whether it is counted for the second or the first, the first term of naziriteship can be regarded as not yet having started and that is why it can be dissolved. By contrast, in the case of the oath, once he ate the loaf, his oath is no longer extant at all.

אמימר אמר אפילו אכלה כולה נשאל עליה אי בשוגג מחוסר קרבן אי במזיד מחוסר מלקות אבל כפתוהו על העמוד לא כדשמואל דאמר שמואל כפתוהו על העמוד ורץ מב"ד פטור

Ameimar said, in contrast to the opinion of Rava: Even if he ate the entire loaf he may still request dissolution of the oath. If he ate it unwittingly, i.e., he forgot the oath, it is a situation where he has not yet brought the offering he is liable to bring. If he ate it intentionally, it is a situation where he has not yet received lashes. But if he was already tied to the stake in order to receive lashes, he can no longer request that his oath be dissolved, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: If one had already been tied to the stake in order to receive lashes, and he ran away from the court and escaped, he is exempt from receiving lashes, as being tied to the stake is regarded as the beginning of receiving the lashes; once he has escaped, he is treated as though he were already flogged.

ולא היא התם רץ הכא לא רץ

The Gemara rejects this: And that is not so. Even if he was tied to the stake he can still have his oath dissolved. There, with regard to his exemption from receiving lashes after he ran away, the original flogging is over and there is no need to initiate a new one. Here, with regard to dissolving the oath, he did not run, and since he is still subject to lashes, he can still have his oath dissolved.

אמר רבא שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו אם אוכל זו ואכל את הראשונה בשוגג והשניה במזיד פטור ראשונה במזיד ושניה בשוגג חייב שתיהן בשוגג פטור

§ Rava says: If one says: On my oath I will not eat that loaf if I eat this one, and then he ate the first one, i.e., the loaf whose consumption was the condition for the oath taking effect, unwittingly, and ate the second intentionally, he is exempt. Since he fulfilled the condition unintentionally, the oath does not take effect, as it was without full intent. But if he ate the first intentionally, knowing that if he eats it it will be prohibited for him to eat the other loaf, and he then ate the second unwittingly, he is liable to bring an offering for breaking his oath unwittingly. If he ate them both unwittingly he is exempt, as the oath does not take effect when he fulfills the condition unwittingly.