"I swear that I shall not eat this loaf. I swear that I shall not eat it. I swear that I shall not eat it," and he ate it, he is liable only for one. [The reason that he is liable only for one is that the (second) oath does not "take" on the first. But if he first said: "I shall not eat it," and then: "I shall not eat," and he ate the whole thing, he is liable for two. For when he says: "I shall not eat it," he is not liable until he eats the whole thing, and when he then says: "I shall not eat," once he eats an olive-size of it, he is liable. Therefore, the second oath takes, and he is liable when he eats an olive-size of it. And when he then eats the whole thing, he is liable by reason of the first oath. ("I swear that I shall not eat it. I swear that I shall not eat it":) Even though the second oath, "I shall not eat it," is enough to apprise us that one oath does not "take" on the other, the third is still taught to apprise us that even though there is no liability for the latter oaths, they are nonetheless oaths, and not vain words, and if they can "find a place," they take effect. For if a sage absolves him of the first, the second takes effect and it is forbidden to him by reason of the second oath. Likewise, if he is absolved of the first two, the third takes effect. For the sage uproots the vow completely, so that it is as if he had never vowed, and the second "takes" retroactively, the first being regarded as non-existent once he has been absolved of it.] This is an oath of pronouncement, where for willful transgression one is liable to stripes, and for unwitting transgression, to an oleh veyored offering. With a vain oath, for willful transgression one is liable to stripes, and for unwitting transgression, he is not liable.
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו. שבועה שלא אוכלנה – the reason that he said that “I will not eat” and then he repeats saying that I won’t eat it, he is not liable other than one [count], for the oath does not take effect on [another] oath, but if he stated first that he would not eat it and then repeats that he will not eat it and then repeats saying that he will not eat and he eats all of it, he is liable for two [counts], for if he stated that he will not eat it, he is not liable until he eats all of it, and if he repeats and states that he will not eat, since he ate from an olive’s [bulk], he is liable, therefore, the final oath takes effect and makes him liable when he eats from it an olive’s [bulk]. And when he repeats and eats all of it, he is liable because of the concluding oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
Mishnah seven concludes the mishnah’s discussion of “oaths of utterance.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
שבועה שלא אוכלנה שבועה שלא אוכלנה – even though that from the second oath “that I will not eat it,” we learn that an oath does not take effect on [another] oat, The Mishnah teaches us a third oath to inform us that is an obligation for there isn’t in the last oaths but these oaths and they did not go to idleness but if they found a place, they would take place and if he did consulted with a Sage [for absolution] on the first [oath]. The second [oath] is neutralized in its place and he is forbidden in the manner because of the second oath, and similarly, if he consulted [with a Sage] on he two [oaths], the third takes effect, because the Sage uproots the vow from its essence and it is like he had not taken an oath and the second one takes effect retroactively for the first [oath] is like he it didn’t exist and similarly, when he consults [with a Sage] about the two [oaths], it is like they didn’t exist and the third [oath] takes effect retroactively.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
“I swear I shall not eat this loaf”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; “I swear I shall not eat it”; and he ate it, he is liable only once. If one repeats the same oath several times and then breaks the oath(s) he is only liable for having broken one oath. Since after he made the first oath the loaf was already forbidden to him, he cannot make the same loaf any more forbidden to him. The repeated oaths do not create any new forbidden things, and therefore they do not count.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
This is the oath of utterance, for which one is liable, for its willful transgression, flogging; and for its unwitting transgression, a sliding scale sacrifice. For a vain oath one is liable for willful transgression, flogging, and for unwitting transgression one is exempt. This is the concluding section of mishnah which began at the beginning of the chapter and which has discussed “oaths of utterance.” For intentionally breaking an oath of utterance one is flogged and for unintentionally breaking an oath of utterance one must bring a sacrifice. The mishnah now mentions “vain oaths” a topic which will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. For intentionally swearing a vain oath one is flogged. There is no punishment for unintentionally swearing a vain oath.
