משנה: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. MISHNAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;” he is liable only once100He made three oaths but the second and third are void since they forbid what already is forbidden.. This is the blurted oath101It is the paradigm for all rules about “blurted oaths”. where in case it be intentional one is liable for flogging102If he was duly warned not to break his oath but broke it before witnesses he can be prosecuted in criminal court for breaking the commandment of he shall not profane his word., and if unintentional for a variable sacrifice.
הלכה: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ כול׳. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זֶה הַיּוֹם. וְעָבַר הַיּוֹם וַאֲכָלָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. פָּטוּר. לֹא טַעֲמָא דְאָהֵן. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשֵּׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל הַתְרָייָה. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. שְׂרָפָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיכָהּ לַיָּם. אִין תֵּימַר מִשֵּׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל הַתְרָייָה פָּטוּר. וְאִין תֵּימַר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה. HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf,” etc. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today,” the day passed and then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, he is not liable103Criminal liability.; not for the same reason. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan, because he cannot be duly warned104No criminal prosecution is possible without evidence that the criminal was duly warned not to commit the crime (cf. Introduction to Tractate Sanhedrin, on Chapter Five). The warning must be delivered shortly before the criminal act, so the accused cannot claim to have forgotten. In this case criminality would be inaction; this is not subject to warning.
The Shevuot.3b">Babli, 3b, brings the same example and connects this with the dispute between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish whether a warning can be delivered even if it is conditional because there is no certainty that the contemplated action will be criminal (Yevamot 11:7:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.11.7.6">Yebamot11:7 Note 171, Nazir 8:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.8.1.6">Nazir8:1 Note 48, Pesachim 5:4:2-12" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.5.4.2-12">Pesaḥim5:4 fol. 32c; Shevuot.3b">Babli 3b). Since R. Joḥanan holds that a conditional warning is acceptable, the Babli is forced to switch the attributions in this case. As a consequence it follows that for the Yerushalmi here, in R. Joḥanan’s opinion this would not be a conditional warning but one which it is impossible to deliver. (In his Notes to Shevuot 3b:2:2" href="/Tosafot_on_Shevuot.3b.2.2">Tosaphot s. v. אבל, Shevuot.4a">Babli 4a, R. Akiba Eiger essentially notes that the Babli’s argument cannot be read into the Yerushalmi.). The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because it is a prohibition without action105Cf. Shevuot 3:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.3.1.1">Note 3.. What is the difference between them? He burned it or threw it into the sea. If you say, because he cannot be duly warned106Even if the witnesses are present at the moment when the loaf is thrown into the sea he cannot be warned since what he does is not breaking the oath but making its fulfillment impossible; there is no biblical paragraph prohibiting this action., he is not liable. If you say, because it is a prohibition without action, there is an action.
רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בָּעֵי. הָיָה אַסְתֶנֵיס. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לָבֹא אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְשֶׁעָבַר. Rebbi Phineas asked, if he was asthenic107Greek ἀσθενής. He is unable to eat an entire loaf during the day and he knows it. Therefore it is a false oath, not a blurted one.? Since it is not in his hand for the future, it is not in his hand for the past75He never could swear that X will give Y since it is not in his power to force X to give. This is all about liability for a variable sacrifice, not monetary liabilities. Since witnesses do not swear, this is not a case of perjury..
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. שְׁבוּעָה שְׁבוּעָה שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל. מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶינָּה. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶינָּה. וַאֲכָלָהּ. חַייָב אַחַת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר בָּהּ זוֹ. הָא אִם לֹא הִזְכִּיר בָּהּ זוֹ חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. Rebbi Yose asked, “an oath, an oath, an oath, that I shall not eat,” and he ate. What is the rule? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, let us hear from the following: “'An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;' he is liable once.” Because he mentioned this. Therefore, if he did not mention this, he would be liable for each single one108Since he specified the loaf in the first oath, the others were vain. But if it was not specified, the oaths are concurrent but separate and each one carries its own liability. This is amplified in the next paragraph..
אַבִּימֵי אַחוֹי דְחֵיפָה אָמַר. שַׁמְשִׁית בִּנְדָרִין שַׁמְשִׁית בִּשְׁבּועוֹת. בָּעֵי חֵיפָא מִיבְדְּקִינֵיהּ. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו חָמֵשׁ כִּכָּרִין וְאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שְׁתַּיִם אֵילּוּ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שְׁלְשָׁה אֵילּוּ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. אַרְבָּעָה אֵילּוּ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. חֲמִשָּׁה אֵילּוּ. וְאָכַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִזְכִּיר עָלֶיהָ שְׁבוּעָה עֲשָׂאָהּ כִּנְבֵילָה. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ כְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעוֹת עַל הָאִיסּוּרִין. וְאֵין שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל הָאִיסּוּרִין. Abime the brother of Ḥefa109He is called עיפא in the Shevuot.28b">Babli 28b, where their dispute is about other cases and Ḥefa always has the correct answer. They are Babylonian Amoraim of the fourth generation. said, I had studied Nedarim and Ševuot; Ḥefa wanted to examine him. He had before him five loaves and said, an oath that I would not eat this loaf. He returned and said, these two. He returned and said, these three. He returned and said, these four. He returned and said, these five. Then he ate the first. He110Abime. said to him, he is liable for each single one111Since each oath adds to the preceding prohibition, even R. Joḥanan should agree that the addition in each oath is valid (Shevuot 3:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.3.6.1">Note 42).. He112Ḥefa. answered, he is liable only once, for when he mentioned the first he made it like carcass meat; the following make an oath fall on something prohibited and oaths cannot fall on prohibitions113R. Joḥanan will agree that successive additions of prohibitions are valid only if the prohibitions vary in kind, not if the domain of applicability of one prohibition is enlarged..
חָזַר חֵיפָה וּבְדָקֵיהּ. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו חָמֵשׁ כִּכָּרוֹת וְאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל חָמֵשׁ כִּכָּרִים אֵילּוּ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. אַרְבַּע. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שָׁלשׁ. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. שְׁנַיִם. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. זוֹ. וְאָכַל כּוּלָּם. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל חָמֵשׁ כִּכָּרִים. וְאָכַל ד׳. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פָטוּר. Ḥefa continued to examine him. He had before him five loaves and said, an oath that I would not eat these five loaves. He returned and said, these four. He returned and said, these three. He returned and said, these two. He returned and said, this one, and ate the first one. He110Abime. said to him, he is liable only once114Since 4,3,2,1 all are contained in 5, all oaths following the first are void.. He111Since each oath adds to the preceding prohibition, even R. Joḥanan should agree that the addition in each oath is valid (Shevuot 3:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.3.6.1">Note 42). answered, he is liable for each single one; if somebody said “an oath if I would eat five loaves” and he ate four, is he not free from liability115Since he did not eat five, he did not break the oath. In this case, instead of “not liable” one should say “permitted.”?
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְאַחוֹי דְחֵיפָה בָּאַחֲרִייָתָא וּכְחֵיפָה בְקַדְמִיתָא. Rebbi Yose said, the brother of Ḥefa seems to be reasonable in the later case and Ḥefa in the prior.