Yerushalmi Shevuot 3:4 ירושלמי שבועות ג׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids, he is not liable⁴³In popular usage, swallowing inedibles is not called “eating”. Judicial interpretation of oaths must follow popular usage.. An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling animals, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable⁴⁴Eating forbidden food still is called eating. R. Simeon will agree with this statement; he holds not only that an oath to break biblical commandments is void in itself but breaking the law to fulfill an oath invalidates the oath.. If he said, a qonam⁴⁵Qonam is a substitute for qorbān “sacrifice” which in the context of an oath or a vow means “it shall be forbidden to me as if it were sacrificial meat”, cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim. that my wife may not benefit from me if I had eaten today, if he had eaten carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling animals, his wife is forbidden benefits⁴⁶He can neither have marital relations with her nor let her eat anything that is wholly or partially his, nor let her live in his house: he must divorce her and pay the marriage settlement in full. R. Simeon will agree..

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not drink,” etc. In this case⁴⁷In Mishnah 5., Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion, as we have stated there⁴⁸Mishnah Makkot3:2 Notes 27–32. Tevel is produce from which heave and the heave of tithe have not been removed, whose consumption except at harvest time is a deadly sin.: “How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything⁴⁹In R. Simeon’s opinion, biblical prohibitions are absolute, but infringing on a prohibition in a minute amount, for edibles less than the size of an olive, does not trigger the obligation of a sacrifice. Babli 24a.; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats an ant is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature⁵⁰He does not defend his point of view but shows his opponents that even in their opinion a complete fruit or animal is biblically forbidden even if it is smaller than an olive but still visible with the naked eye. This is accepted as practice, cf. Berakhot6:1, Notes 14–18..” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does Rebbi Simeon declare not liable? Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: You shall deprive yourselves⁵¹Lev. 16:29., of what is permitted to you, not of what is forbidden to you⁵²Eating non-kosher food violates a simple prohibition; breaking the fast on the Day of Atonement is a severe sin subjecting the unrepentant sinner to extirpation. R. Simeon declares eating non-kosher food on the Day of Atonement as violation of a simple prohibition (which if committed inadvertently does not make the perpetrator liable for a sacrifice). If the stringent prohibition of the Day of Atonement does not include forbidden food then an oath which never can lead to extirpation cannot include forbidden food either..

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that comprehensive oaths fall on prohibitions, should we not state “an oath that I shall not eat; when he ate”⁵³This refers to Mishnah Keritut3:4, that a person may become liable for 5 sacrifices for eating one olive-size bite: an impure person who on the Day of Atonement ate sacrificial fat which was a leftover from a prior day. Eating fat is always forbidden; eating sacrificial fat is illegitimate use of sacra, classified as larceny (requiring restitution and a reparation sacrifice); eating any sacra while impure is punishable by extirpation. The mention of the Day of Atonement shows that the Mishnah is formulated for the Rabbis, not R. Simeon. The question then is, if the statement of R. Joḥanan be true that an oath containing a general prohibition also refers to things biblically prohibited, the Tanna, who obviously is looking for an example showing the maximum of criminal acts that can be committed by one action, should have added that the person who ate the fat had previously made an oath that he would not eat at all, for a total of 6 sacrifices. That no oath is mentioned in the Mishnah seems to prove that R. Joḥanan’s position is rejected by the Mishnah; it cannot be accepted in practice.? Rebbi Ze`ira said, in the whole lifetime of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal we did not find an answer; after he had died, we found an answer. Where do we stand? If one said, an oath that I shall not eat meat, including Passover⁵⁴Since oaths have to be interpreted according to common usage, not lawyers’ jargon, an oath “that I shall not eat” will be interpreted as oath not to eat permitted food; the question of R. Abba bar Mamal does not apply. But an oath to become vegetarian is a valid oath and in Temple times would prevent the person from fulfilling the commandment of eating of the Passover sacrifice. Since in contrast to vows oaths cannot be dissolved by a rabbi, this is a case where a general oath supersedes a biblical commandment.; that I shall not eat during these ten days⁵⁵The Ten days of Penitence, from New Year’s day to and including the Day of Atonement. In this case breaking the fast is a double sin since it also means breaking the oath. The entire argument is for the Rabbis, so it includes eating non-kosher food., including the Day of Atonement, then the oath falls on prohibitions. Rebbi Yose said, one may infer from here if in front of him were olive-sized pieces of slaughtered [meat] and one of carcass meat and he said, [an oath] that I shall eat these ten olive-sized pieces, since he is not liable⁵⁶This follows R. Simeon. If there can be no punishment for breaking the oath relative to the carcass meat then there cannot be one for eating the other 9 since the oath was for 10, not for 9 pieces. for the carcass meat, he neither is liable for the remainder.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Why did he not say, “an oath that I shall eat of the slaughter of X”? Is there not fat? If he slaughters deer. Is there not the hip sinew? About fowl. Is there not blood⁵⁷Following R. Joḥanan it is difficult to find any oath involving meat that should be valid at all, since he requires an oath which forbids permitted foods; as a consequence it will also apply to prohibitions. But if somebody forbids himself anything which a person X will slaughter, the oath includes the fat of the slaughtered domestic animal forbidden by biblical standards. Since an original oath forbidding biblically forbidden things is void, the entire oath is voided. Similarly for wild animals, whose fat is permitted (Lev. 7:23), the hip sinew still is forbidden (Gen. 32:33), and the blood of a fowl is forbidden like the blood of four-legged animals (Lev. 7:27).?

Rebbi Ḥinena asked: Why did he not say, “an oath if I would eat of X” without detail⁵⁸The difficulty encountered in the preceding paragraph can easily be circumvented if the oath is made on a piece of meat which does not contain any forbidden fat and is drained of its blood. Then the only problem is the problem that for R. Simeon the number of required sacrifices is not a measure of the number of prohibitions which were violated; the Tanna might want to formulate his statement to take care of R. Simeon’s opinions also. But since the Mishnah requires a separate sacrifice for eating forbidden fat on the Day of Atonement, it certainly cannot be formulated for R. Simeon, who denies that the prohibitions of that day refer to forbidden food.? Because of Rebbi Simeon. But if following Rebbi Simeon, how could we state the Day of Atonement, since Rebbi Simeon stated, you shall deprive yourselves, of what is (forbidden)⁵⁹It is clear that the words in parentheses have to be switched, Note 52. to you, not of what is (permitted)⁵⁹It is clear that the words in parentheses have to be switched, Note 52. to you. Only one has a fixed rate sacrifice, the other a variable one⁶⁰The Tanna of Keritut counts only the maximum of fixed-rate sacrifices; he could agree that with an oath a liability for a variable rate sacrifice could be added. Nothing can be inferred about the disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish..

They objected, is there not impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta which need a variable rate [sacrifice] and did the Tanna not state it⁶¹The previous explanation is incorrect. The Tanna of Keritut mentioned a sacrifice for eating sancta in impurity; this requires a variable value sacrifice.? We come to state only things carrying a liability to extirpation; there is no extirpation for oaths.

They objected, there is no extirpation for larceny and it was stated⁶²The previous explanation is incorrect. The Tanna of Keritut mentioned a sacrifice for illegally appropriating Temple property for private use. There is no extirpation mentioned for this, only restitution with a fine and a reparation sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). Only fixed-rate purification offerings are restricted to atoning for unintentional sins carrying a penalty of at least extirpation, not reparation sacrifices. This finally yields the correct answer.! We come to state only things which cannot become permitted after being forbidden. Oaths may become permitted after being forbidden⁶³Since oaths may be made for a certain time only.. This⁶⁴Nothing mentioned here but the end of Mishnah Keritut3:4 where R. Meïr says that if it was on a Sabbath and the person brought the piece of meat between his teeth from a private to a public domain he is liable for an additional sacrifice. implies that there are no categories of work for the day of Atonement⁶⁵The rules for the Sabbath specify 39 categories of forbidden work (Mishnah Šabbat7:2), each of which triggers liability for a separate sacrifice. Since the anonymous Tanna placed the case on the Day of Atonement, and any work forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, R. Meїr could simply have added carrying also on the day of Atonement. Since he has to place that Day on a Sabbath, it follows that any and all infringements of the sanctity of the Day of Atonement trigger the same liability of a sacrifice. There never can be more than one for a given Day. The conclusion of the Babli, Keritut14a, is formulated more narrowly: Transporting from domain to domain is not a separate desecration of the Day of Atonement., for if anybody violated all of them in one forgetting he is liable only for one [sacrifice] for all of them. But if anybody violated each of them separately, would he not be liable for each single one?

In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one said, “an oath that I shall not eat unleavened bread”, he is forbidden to eat unleavened bread in the night of Passover. “That I shall not eat unleavened bread in the night of Passover,” he is flogged and eats unleavened bread⁶⁷While leavened bread is forbidden for seven days on Passover, there is a positive commandment to eat unleavened bread only on the first night (Ex. 12:18; cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 328–329.) An oath not to fulfill this commandment is void; the oath is void and incurs the penalty of void oaths. But an oath never to eat unleavened bread is valid and prevents its maker from fulfilling his duty without breaking the oath.. “That I shall not sit in the shadow”, he is forbidden to sit in the shadow of a booth⁶⁸On the festival of Tabernacles, Lev.23:42. The argument is totally parallel to that of the preceding example.. “That I shall not sit in the shadow of a booth,” he is flogged and sits in the shadow of a booth.

Not only unspecified, but even “X”. Not only comprehensive but even in detail. Not only in the future but also in the past. Not only the rabbis but even Rebbi Aqiba. Not only carcass and torn meat but even dust⁶⁹The Babli (24a) explicitly declares ingesting dust as not eating..