Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) REPEALING AN OATH AFTER TRANSGRESSING IT?

(a) (Rava): A man swore not to eat a loaf, and ate from it; he can ask to permit it (and will not have transgressed) only if he left over an olive's worth.
(b) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): What is the case?

1. If he swore 'I will not eat' - once he ate an olive's worth, he already transgressed!
2. If he swore 'I will not eat *it*' - even if less than an olive's worth remains, he should be able to permit it!

(c) Answer #1: He swore 'I will not eat' - permitting the oath on the rest also lmf uproots the entire oath, so he never transgressed.
(d) Answer #2: He swore 'I will not eat *it*' - if less than an olive's worth remains, this is not important enough to permit the oath. (Tosfos - because he already transgressed, leaving less than an olive's worth is like eating it all.)
(e) Question (Beraisa): A man accepted Nezirus two times; he conducted 30 days of Nezirus, separated sacrifices, and asked to annul the first Nezirus - he fulfills the second Nezirus through the days he conducted (and can use the sacrifices for it). (This shows, one can permit a vow even after it no longer applies!)
(f) Answer #1: The case is, he did not yet bring the sacrifice (so the first Nezirus was never finished).
(g) Rejection (Beraisa): (He permits it even if) he already offered the sacrifices.
(h) Answer #2: The case is, he did not yet shave;

1. The Beraisa is R. Eliezer, who says that Nezirus is not finished until he shaves.

(i) Rejection (Beraisa): (He permits it even if) he already shaved.
(j) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): There, the first Nezirus prevents the second Nezirus from taking effect; therefore, it is as if he never finished the first Nezirus, and he can permit it.
(k) (Ameimar): Even if he ate the entire loaf, he can annul the oath (because the effects of the oath still apply):;

1. If he ate unintentionally, he must bring a sacrifice;
2. If he ate intentionally, he must be lashed;
3. However, once he was tied down to be lashed (it is as if he already was lashed) he cannot annul it.

i. (Shmuel): If one was tied down to be lashed and fled from Beis Din, he is exempt (since he already was disgraced).

4. Rejection: No, he is only exempt if he suffered the disgrace of fleeing from Beis Din.

(a) (Rava): A man swore 'I will not eat this loaf (we shall call this the prohibition loaf) if I eat this other loaf (the stipulation loaf)'; he ate both.

1. (Rashi, R. Tam - The oath should take effect when he eats the first loaf; if he did not remember that he swore about the loaf when he ate it, this is not "Ha'Adam bi'Shvua'h", the oath does not take effect; Tosfos - the oath should take effect when he eats the stipulation; if he did not remember the oath then, it does not take effect. Rashi, Tosfos - In the following, first refers to the stipulation, second is the prohibition; R. Tam - first and second refer to the order in which he ate them.)
2. If he ate the first unintentionally and (Rashi - then) the second intentionally, he is exempt (since he was unaware when the oath should take effect, it does not take effect).
3. If he ate the first intentionally and (Rashi - then) the second unintentionally, he must bring a sacrifice (the oath took effect, he did not intend to transgress);
4. If he ate both unintentionally, he is exempt;

5. If he ate both intentionally: if he ate the stipulation first (and was warned just before eating the prohibition), he is lashed;

i. If he ate the prohibition first (perforce, he did not receive definite warning, had he not eaten the other loaf he would not have transgressed), R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about the law:
ii. Reish Lakish holds that doubtful warning is considered warning, he is lashed;
iii. R. Yochanan holds that doubtful warning is not considered warning, he is exempt.

(b) If he made each a stipulation for the other - 'I will not eat this loaf if I eat that one, I will not eat that one if I eat this one', and he ate both.

1. If when he ate each loaf he remembered that it was a prohibition loaf but forgot that it was a stipulation, he is exempt; (Tosfos - neither oath takes effect; Rashi - the oath forbidding the loaf he ate first takes effect, but since he knowingly and permissibly ate it, he does not bring a sacrifice; R. Tam - the oath forbidding the first loaf takes effect; the case is, he intended to transgress, therefore he does not bring a sacrifice);
2. If when he ate each he remembered that it was a stipulation but forgot that it was a prohibition, he is liable (Tosfos - he brings a sacrifice for each oath; Rashi, R. Tam - he brings for the oath that forbade the loaf he ate last).
3. If he forgot the oaths when he ate each (neither oath takes effect), he is exempt;
4. If he remembered the oaths when he ate each (both oaths take effect), he is lashed for the second loaf he ate, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue whether or not he is lashed for the first loaf (as above, since the warning was doubtful).

(c) Support ((that an oath takes effect only if the person is aware at the time) - Rav Mari - Mishnah): Mistaken vows that are permitted: (I forbid this to myself) if I ate or drank (today, and he forgot that he had done so);

1. (I forbid this to myself) if I will eat or drink (today, and he forgot this vow and ate or drank);
2. (Beraisa): Just as mistaken vows are permitted, also mistaken oaths.

(a) Question (Avimi): 'I swear that I did not eat, I swear that I did not eat' (and he had eaten) - what is the law?
(b) Answer #1 (Eifa): He only brings one sacrifice (the second oath does not take effect).
(c) Rejection (Avimi): No, we only say that a second oath does not take effect regarding oath of the future;
(d) Answer #2 (Avimi): Here, each is a false oath the moment he says it (he is liable for each).
(e) Question (Avimi): 'I swear that I will not eat nine figs, I swear that I will not eat ten figs' (and he ate ten) - what is the law?
(f) Answer #1 (Eifa): He brings two sacrifices (the second oath forbids eating a tenth, it takes effect).
(g) Rejection (Avimi): No, the first oath (not to eat nine) already forbids him from eating ten, so the latter oath does not take effect;
(h) Answer #2 (Avimi): Rather, he only brings one sacrifice.
(i) Question (Avimi): 'I swear that I will not eat ten figs, I swear that I will not eat nine figs' (and he ate ten) - what is the law?
(j) Answer #1 (Eifa): He only brings one sacrifice (the second oath is included in the first, it does not take effect).
(k) Rejection (Avimi): No, the first oath (not to eat ten) does not forbid eating nine, so the latter oath takes effect;
(l) Answer #2 (Avimi): Rather, he brings two sacrifices.