Previous daf

1)

(a) So we quote the Pasuk in Re'ei (also in connection with Ma'aser Sheini) "Ve'nasata ha'Kesef be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha ... u'va'Yayin u'va'Sheichar ... ve'Achalta" as proof that the Lashon "Achilah" incorporates drinking. We cannot refute this proof as we did the previous one (from Anigron and Achsigron) - because "Sheichar" means specifically something that intoxicates (which Anigron and Achsigron do not).

(b) Nevertheless, we reject this proof too, on the basis of a Beraisa. The Beraisa rules that a Kohen who ate a Deveilah Ke'ilis (a dried fig from Ke'ilah), or drank honey or milk - and then went to serve in the Beis-Hamikdash, is Chayav (because all of these sometimes cause intoxication).

(c) We therefore conclude that maybe the second Pasuk too, is referring to that sort of Sheichar. So we finally learn that Achilah incorporates drinking from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sheichar" "Sheichar" - from Nazir, to whom the only beverage that the Torah forbids is wine.

(d) Rava proves from our Mishnah ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal ve'Shasah, Eino Chayav Ela Achas') that 'Achilah' incorporates drinking - because otherwise, the Tana would not need to inform us that a Nishba who eats and drinks is Chayav only one set of Malkos (any more than he needs to inform us that he only receives one Malkos if he eats and works).

(a) Abaye queries Rava's current proof from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal ve'she'Lo Eshteh, ve'Achal ve'Shasah, Chayav Shenayim' - because, if as Rava asserts, Achilah incorporates Shesiyah, the Nishba ought to be Chayav only for 'she'Lo Ochal' (incorporating Shesiyah), and not for 've'she'Lo Eshteh', since this is a classical case of 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah'.

(b) Initially, Rava attempts to answer Abaye's Kashya by inverting the wording of the Mishnah - to read 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh ve'she'Lo Ochal ... ', since even though Achilah incorporates Shesiyah, Shesiyah does not incorporate Achilah.

(c) The problem with the implication of the Seifa (that 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal ve'she'Lo Eshteh, ve'Achal ve'Shasah' would then be Chayav only one) creates with the Reisha is - why the Mishnah then presents the case of 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal (alone, which implies that the current case is Chayav two)', rather than that case?

(d) So Rava repudiates Abaye's Kashya without inverting the cases. 'Lo Ochal ve'Lo Eshteh' is different than 'Lo Ochal' on its own, he says - because by adding 've'Lo Eshteh', the Nishba indicates that 'Lo Ochal' refers exclusively to eating (as if he was Mefaresh).

(a) Our Mishnah rules 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Ochlin she'Einan Re'uyin la'Achilah, ve'Shasah Mashkin she'Einan Re'uyin li'Shesiyah, Patur'. Rav Ashi attempt to prove from here that Achilah incorporates Shesiyah - from the implication that if he drank beverages that were fit to drink, he would be Chayav, even though he only declared 'she'Lo Ochal'.

(b) We refute his proof however - by suggesting that maybe the Mishnah speaks when he also said 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh'.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Pas Chitin Pas Se'orin ... , Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas'. The problem with this is - how we know that the Nishba meant to make an independent Shevu'ah on each item. Maybe he intended to make only one Shevu'ah, incorporating all the items that he mentioned.

(b) We answer - by pointing to the excessive Lashon. Had he meant to make one Shevu'ah, we argue, he should have simply said ' ... Pas Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin'.

(c) We query this answer however, on the grounds that this Lashon would imply that he was forbidding on himself wheat bread, but barley and spelt kernels. And we answer - by amending the suggested Lashon to 'Pas Chitin ve'shel Se'orin ve'shel Kusmin' (which would have sufficed had he wanted to include them all in one Shevu'ah).

(d) This too, we query, on the grounds that this Lashon would imply that he was forbidding a loaf that contained all three species. We finally amend the Lashon (that the Nishba should have said had he meant to make one Shevu'ah incorporating all three items) to - 'Pas shel Chitin, ve'Chein shel Se'orin ve'Chein shel Kusmin'.

(e) From the fact that the Nishba chose to mention 'Pas' three times - it is clear that he meant to declare three Shevu'os, and not just one.

5)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Yayin, Shemen u'Devash, ve'Shasah, Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas'. The problem with this is - that, if in the Reisha ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Pas Chitin Pas Se'orin ... '), we attributed the three sets of Malkos to the excessive Lashon of 'Pas', to what will we attribute it in this case?

(b) So Rav Papa establishes the case - where those three items were lying in front of the Nishba, in which case he could have simply said 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Eilu'.

(c) Assuming that he wanted to forbid those species on himself, it would not have sufficed to say ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Eilu' however - because that would have implied that his Shevu'ah pertains specifically to the beverages that he sees, and to no others.
2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh k'Gon Eilu' - because that would have implied others that comprised the same Shiur as those that he saw.
3. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh mi'Miyn Eilu' - because that would have implied - that he will not drink the likes of those three beverages, but that those beverages themselves, he will.

(d) What he ought then to have said is - 'she'Lo Eshteh Eilu u'Miynaihu'.

(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika establishes the case quite differently. According to him, our Mishnah is speaking about - someone whose friend is trying to convince him to drink those three beverages with him.

(b) Had he wanted to forbid them with one Shevu'ah, he should have replied - 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Imach'.

(c) The extent of the Shevu'ah will then be confined to that one occasion.

(a) We will learn in the Mishnah in 'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon' 'Ten Li Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin she'Yesh Li be'Yadcha, Shevu'ah she'Ein Lach be'Yadi K'lum, Eino Chayav Ela Achas'. To be Chayav three Ashamos, he would have had to respond - 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lach be'Yadi Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin'.

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan says that even one P'rutah will combine to obligate the Nishba, he means - to bring one Asham.

(a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue with regard to the Seifa of the Mishnah. One says 'a'Perati Mechayev, a'Kelali Lo Mechayev', by which he means - that, in the Seifa, the Nishba is Chayav three Ashamos, but that he is not Chayav to bring a fourth Asham for 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lach be'Yadi'.

(b) The other one says - 'a'Kelali Nami Mechayav', and he is Chayav to bring four Ashamos.

(c) Their Machlokes affects Rebbi Yochanan - inasmuch as according to the first opinion, he pertains specifically to the Reisha, whereas according to the second opinion, his statement pertains equally to the Seifa.

(d) This does not mean that, according to the latter opinion, Rebbi Yochanan will obligate the Nishba to bring four Ashamos (which is impossible, since all three items are worth only one P'rutah between them) - but that he will be Chayav to bring one Asham for 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lach be'Yadi'.

(a) We reject the suggestion that the Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina might also extend to our case, where someone made a Shevu'ah forbidding wine, oil and honey on himself and that he might also be Chayav four sets of Malkos - which is impossible, seeing as he would already be 'Mushba ve'Omed ... ' after having said 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lach be'Yadi' (and 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah).

(b) The reason that it is possible in the case of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is - because the Torah obligates the Nifkad to bring an Asham, each time he swears afresh that he has the Pikadon (overriding the general principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah').

(a) The problem with the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos ... Chayav' is - that it clashes with the Reisha 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Ochlin she'Einan Re'uyin le'Achilah ... , Patur'.

(b) It will not suffice to simply answer that the Seifa speaks by Mefaresh (when the Nishba specifically included Neveilos and T'reifos in the Shevu'ah) - because he is already 'Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai', in which case, the Shevu'ah ought not to take effect.

(c) To answer the Kashya, Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan establish the Seifa by an 'Kolel' (when the Nishba combined permitted foods together with Neveilos and T'reifos in his Shevu'ah. Resh Lakish establishes it by Chatzi Shiur, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - even by S'tam.
2. ... Rebbi Akiva - by Mefaresh.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan declines to learn like Resh Lakish, because they prefer to establish the Mishnah like one Tana.

(b) Resh Lakish, on the other hand, declines to learn like Rebbi Yochanan, because he does not hold of Isur Kolel by Shevu'ah - though he concedes Isur Kolel by 'Isur ha'Ba me'Eilav' (an Isur Torah, not of his own making).

(a) In fact, this is a Machlokes Tana'im. According to the Rabbanan, someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur - is Chayav a Korban Chatas (as well as Malkos for Neveilah).

(b) Despite the fact that the Isur Neveilah preceded the Isur of Yom Kipur, we do not apply the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' because Yom Kipur is an Isur Kolel ...

(c) ... inasmuch as when Yom Kipur enters, one becomes forbidden to eat even Kasher foods.

(d) Rebbi Shimon - exempts him from a Chatas, because he holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' even by an Isur Kolel.