Reference for Shevuot 3:4

שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל אֳכָלִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִיָּה, פָּטוּר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר, קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי אִם אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם, וְהוּא אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, הֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה:

"I swear that I shall not eat," and he ate things which are not fit for eating and drank things which are not fit for drinking, he is not liable. "I swear that I shall not eat," and he ate carrion and treifoth, forbidden animals and reptiles, he is liable. [For they are fit for eating; it is just that the Torah forbids them.] R. Shimon rules not liable. [For he is already besworn (by the Torah) against them. And the dispute between R. Shimon and the first tanna obtains where he includes permitted things with forbidden ones, as where he says "I swear that I shall not eat slaughtered meat and treifoth." The first tanna holds that since the oath "takes" with slaughtered meat, it also takes with treifoth, for one prohibition takes effect upon another in the instance of an inclusive prohibition. And R. Shimon holds that it does not. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.] If one says: "I bevow my wife benefit from me if I have eaten today," and he had eaten carrion and treifoth, forbidden animals and reptiles, his wife is forbidden (to benefit from him). [For he had eaten foods. And even R. Shimon (agrees in this.) For the reason he rules not liable in the first instance is not that they are unfit for eating but because an oath does not take on something forbidden.]

Explore reference for Shevuot 3:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.