"Ich schwöre, dass ich dieses Brot essen werde. Ich schwöre, dass ich es nicht essen werde", der erste ist ein Eid der Aussprache; der zweite ein vergeblicher Eid. Wenn er es isst, übertritt er einen vergeblichen Eid. Wenn er es nicht isst, verstößt er gegen einen Eid der Aussprache. [Dies ist die Absicht: Wenn er es isst, übertritt er allein einen vergeblichen Eid. Wenn er es nicht isst, übertritt er auch einen Eid der Aussprache. Denn wenn er schwört "Ich werde dieses Brot essen", ist er verpflichtet, es zu essen. Wenn er dann schwört "Ich werde es nicht essen", schwört er, keine Mizwa durchzuführen, und er erhält Streifen aufgrund eines vergeblichen Eides, ob er es isst oder nicht. Und wenn er es nicht isst, haftet er zweimal: wegen eines vergeblichen Eides und wegen eines Eides der Aussprache.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
אכלה עבר על שבועת שוא – this is what he said: if he ate it , he has violated a oath taken in vain alone. If he didn’t eat it, he violated even an oath on a statement/rash oath (i.e., an oath taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story – and is liable to bring a sing-offering). For once he swore that he would eat this loaf, he is obligated to eat it, and when he then took another oath [afterwards] that he would not eat it, he swore to abrogate/nullify the Mitzvah, and is flogged eause of the oath taken in vain, whether he would eat it or whether he would eat it, and if he did not eat it, he would be liable for two [violations], because of an oath taken in vain and because of oath on a statement/rash oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
Mishnah nine discusses one who takes two oaths, the second oath being the exact opposite of the first oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
[If one said:] “I swear I shall eat this loaf”; [and then he said,] “I swear I shall not eat it,” the first is an oath of utterance, and the second is a vain oath. If he ate it, he transgressed the vain oath; if he did not eat it, he transgressed the oath of utterance. In the case in our mishnah a person swears two oaths, the second oath contradicting the first. The first oath is considered to be a normal oath of utterance, which he must observe or be liable for breaking his oath. The second oath is considered a vain oath, since it is forbidden to observe the oath. In other words, similar to one who swears not to observe a commandment, this person has sworn to do that which is forbidden for him to do. If he eats the loaf, as he swore to do in the first oath, he is liable for having broken the second oath. If he does not eat it, he is liable for having broken his oath of utterance. In the Talmud it is explained that if he does not eat the loaf he has transgressed not only his oath of utterance but he has also made a vain oath, despite the fact that he kept the oath. Since at the time that he made the oath it was forbidden to keep, he is liable for having made a vain oath even if he does keep it.
