Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DOES 'EATING' INCLUDE DRINKING?

(a) We can learn from a verse that 'eating' includes drinking:
(b) Opinion #1 (Reish Lakish): "V'Achalta (Ma'aser Sheni of)...Tiroshecha" - 'Tirosh' is wine, and it says 'You will eat'!
(c) Rejection: Perhaps he eats Anigron (a food made with wine).

1. (Rabah bar Shmuel): Anigron is a beet dish, Achsigron is made from other cooked vegetables.

(d) Opinion #2 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): "(You will buy with Ma'aser money)...Uva'Yayin uva'Shechar...v'Achalta" - it speaks of eating wine!
(e) Question: Perhaps here also, he eats Anigron!
(f) Answer: It says 'Shechar', something that Meshacher (intoxicates).
(g) Question: Perhaps it refers to Ke'ilis figs (which intoxicate)!

1. If a person ate Ke'ilis figs, drank honey or milk and entered the Mikdash he is liable.

(h) Answer: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Shechar-Shechar" from a Nazir.

1. Just as Shechar said by Nazir refers to wine, also that said by Ma'aser.

(i) (Rava): Our Mishnah also teaches that 'eating' includes drinking.

1. (Mishnah): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate and drank, he is only liable once.
2. If 'eating' includes drinking, we understand the need to teach this;
3. But if 'eating' does not includes drinking, this is like saying that he is only liable once for eating and doing Melachah!

(j) Question (Abaye): But if you will say 'eating' includes drinking, the next clause is difficult!

1. (Mishnah): If he swore 'I will not eat and I will not drink' and he ate and drank, he is liable twice.
2. Once he says 'I will not eat', he is already forbidden to drink;

i. The oath not to drink should not take effect, just as one who swears twice 'I will not drink' (the second oath does not take effect)!

(k) Answer #1 (Rava): The case is, first he swore 'I will not drink' and then he swore 'I will not eat';

1. 'Eating' includes drinking, but 'drinking' does not include eating.

(l) Objection: Rava admits that if he swore 'I will not eat' and then 'I will not drink', he is only liable once;

1. If so, this should be taught as the first clause, it is a bigger Chidush than when he only swore 'I will not eat'!

(m) Answer #2: Really, he swore first 'I will not eat';

1. Since he then swore 'I will not drink', this shows that he did not include drinking in his first oath.

(n) (Rav Ashi): The end of our Mishnah also teaches that 'eating' includes drinking.

1. (Mishnah): If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate things unfit to eat or drank liquids unfit to drink, he is exempt.
2. Inference: If he ate things fit to eat or drank liquids fit to drink he is liable, even though he only swore not to eat!

(o) Rejection: Perhaps the case is that he also swore not to drink.

(a) (Mishnah): If he swore...('I will not eat wheat bread, barley bread and spelt bread', and he ate all three, he is liable for each).
(b) Question: Perhaps he did not intend to make three separate oaths, he only wanted to permit other kinds of bread!
(c) Answer #1: If so, he should have said 'wheat, barley and spelt'.

1. Objection: That would mean, he will not eat these grains raw!

(d) Answer #2: Rather, (if he only wanted to permit other kinds of bread) he should have said 'bread of wheat, barley and spelt.

1. Objection: That could mean, he will not eat wheat bread, or raw barley or spelt!

(e) Answer #3: Rather, he should have said 'bread of wheat and of barley and of spelt'.

1. Objection: (Perhaps he thought) that would forbid bread of all three grains!

(f) Answer #4: Rather, he should have sworn 'I will not eat bread of wheat, and similarly of barley, and similarly of spelt'.

1. There was no need to say 'bread' each time; we conclude, he did so to make a separate oath regarding each.

(g) (Mishnah): If he swore... 'I will not drink wine, oil or honey' and he drank all three, he is liable for each.
(h) Question: We understand by ...'I will not eat wheat bread, barley bread...', he is liable for each - since he did not need to say 'bread' each time, it is extra to make each a separate oath;

1. Regarding the drinks, why are they separate oaths? Perhaps he intended to permit himself the other drinks!

(i) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): The case is, the drinks are in front of him;

1. He should have sworn 'I will not drink these' (since he rather detailed each, he intended for separate oaths).
2. Objection: (Perhaps he thought) this does not forbid all wine, oil or honey, only what is in front of him!

(j) Answer #2: Rather, he should have sworn 'I will not drink (drinks) like these'.

1. Objection: (Perhaps he thought) this only forbids the quantity in front of him, but he may drink more or less!

(k) Answer #3: He should have sworn 'I will not drink these types (of drinks)'.

1. Objection: (Perhaps he thought) this forbids *other* wine, oil and honey, but not what is in front of him!

(l) Answer #4: He should have sworn 'I will not drink these or their types'.
(m) Answer #5 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The case is, Reuven was pressuring Shimon 'Come drink wine, oil and honey with me'; it would have sufficed for Shimon to say 'I will not drink with you';

1. 'Wine, oil or honey', is extra, to make each a separate oath.

(n) (Mishnah): Yehudah claimed that he deposited wheat, barley and spelt by Levi, Levi swore (falsely) 'I don't have anything of yours' - he is only liable once;

1. If he swore 'I don't have wheat, barley or spelt of yours', he is liable for each one (that he has).
2. (R. Yochanan): If he has a Perutah's worth of wheat, barley and spelt altogether, they join up, he is liable.
3. (Rav Acha or Ravina): (In the second clause) he is only liable for the individual oaths (on each species), there is no general oath;

i. (R. Yochanan (who says that they join up) refers to the first clause, there is only a general oath.)

4. (The other of Rav Acha and Ravina): He is liable for the individual oaths and for a general oath;

i. (R. Yochanan refers to both clauses of the Mishnah.)

(o) Question: What is the law here (swearing not to eat or drink)?
(p) Answer (Rava): By a watchman, he is liable for each false oath (since he could have admitted), he is liable for a general oath and individual oaths;

1. Here, there cannot be a general oath - if there was, he is already bound to keep it, the individual oaths would not take effect!

(a) (Mishnah): If he swore 'I will not eat'...
(b) Question: It says, if he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate things unfit to eat or drank liquids unfit to drink, he is exempt;

1. The next clause says, if he swore 'I will not eat', and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, he is liable!
2. Why is he exempt in the former and liable in the latter?

(c) Answer #1: The former case is when he did not specify, he only swore 'I will not eat'; in the latter case, he specified 'I will not eat Neveilos...'
(d) Question: Even if he specifies, why is he liable? He is already bound (by the oath we accepted on Sinai) not to eat them!
(e) Answer #1 (Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan): Because his oath takes effect on permitted food, it also takes effect on forbidden food.
(f) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Torah only forbids him from eating an olive's worth of these things, his oath forbids him from eating any amount;

1. We find this according to Chachamim if he specified (any amount), or according to R. Akiva even without specifying.

(g) We understand why R. Yochanan did not answer like Reish Lakish - he prefers to establish the Mishnah like Chachamim *and* R. Akiva.
(h) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish answer like R. Yochanan?
(i) Answer: The principal of Kolel (if a prohibition takes effect to forbid something that was previously permitted, it also takes effect to add a prohibition to something already forbidden) only applies to prohibitions the Torah imposed;

1. When a person imposes his own prohibitions through oaths, the principal of Kolel does not apply!