"Juro que no comeré", y él comió cosas que no son aptas para comer y bebió cosas que no son aptas para beber, no es responsable. "Juro que no comeré", y él comió carroña y treifoth, animales prohibidos y reptiles, es responsable. [Porque son aptos para comer; es solo que la Torá les prohíbe.] R. Shimon dictamina que no es responsable. [Porque él ya está enamorado (por la Torá) en contra de ellos. Y la disputa entre R. Shimon y la primera tanna se produce cuando incluye las cosas permitidas con las prohibidas, como cuando dice "Juro que no comeré carne sacrificada y treifoth". La primera tanna sostiene que dado que el juramento "toma" con carne sacrificada, también toma con treifoth, porque una prohibición tiene efecto sobre otra en el caso de una prohibición inclusiva. Y R. Shimon sostiene que no. La halajá no está de acuerdo con R. Shimon.] Si uno dice: "Confío en que mi esposa se beneficie de mí si he comido hoy", y él había comido carroña y treifoth, animales y reptiles prohibidos, su esposa está prohibida (a beneficiarse de él). [Porque había comido alimentos. E incluso R. Shimon (está de acuerdo en esto.) Por la razón de que él dictamina que no es responsable en primera instancia no es que no sean aptos para comer sino porque un juramento no toma algo prohibido.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
ואכל נבלות חייב – that they are appropriate for eating, for if not, for the All-Merciful forbad them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
Mishnah four continues to discuss how many oaths one is liable for when he takes an oath not to eat. This mishnah talks about one who violates the oath by eating things that are either not fit to be eaten or forbidden.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
ר"ש פור – that was subjected to an oath and he stands over them, and the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first Tanna/teacher [concerns] including things that are permitted with things that are forbidden, as for example when one states an oath “that I will not eat slaughtered and meat of animals torn, the First Teacher holds that since the oath takes effect with that which is slaughtered, it also takes effect on that of torn animals, for the prohibition can take legal hold where another prohibition already exists regarding a more comprehensive prohibition (i.e., having a wider range of prohibited objects), but Rabbi Shimon holds that one prohibition can take no legal hold where another prohibition already exists (i.e., you can punish, or impose sacrificial expiation only for the first one) But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate foods which are not fit to be eaten, and drank liquids which are not fit to be drunk, he is exempt. Again this mishnah discusses a person who swears not to eat. In this case after having sworn not to eat he eats food which are not fit to be eaten, for example rotten fruit, or drinks liquids not fit to drink. The mishnah teaches that in such a case he is exempt from having to bring a sacrifice. The assumption is that when a person swears not to eat his intention is not to eat food that is fit for consumption. Therefore, by eating food not fit for consumption he has not in actuality broken his oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
אשתו אסורה – for he ate food, and even according to Rabbi Shimon. For the reason that he is exempt in the first [oath] is not because they are not things eaten, but rather, that the oath doesn’t take effect on something that is forbidden.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate carrion, trefot, and reptiles and creepy things, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him. In this case the person who swore not to eat, ate foods which are forbidden to a Jew. Carrion are animals that died either a natural death or died as a result of an improperly carried out act of ritual slaughter. Trefot are animals that were either torn by beasts of prey or afflicted with severe diseases or defects that would have caused them to die within 12 months. They are both forbidden to eat, as are reptiles and creepy things. If one swears not to eat them and does eat them, according to the first opinion he is liable to bring a sacrifice. Even though he is forbidden to eat them, they are still considered edible food, which other people eat, and therefore he has broken his oath. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. According to his opinion, at Mount Sinai the Jewish people took an oath not to break the commandments. This oath was binding for all future generations as well. Therefore, one cannot add another oath to that which he has already sworn not to do. One who does so has not done anything legally significant, and is therefore not obligated to bring a sacrifice.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
He said, “I vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, if I have eaten today,” and he had eaten carrion, trefot, forbidden animals, or reptiles, his wife is prohibited to him. This section discusses vows (nedarim) which are halachically different from oaths (shevuoth). If a man took a vow that if he had already eaten today his wife would be forbidden to benefit from him or his property, and he had in fact eaten a forbidden thing, she is forbidden to benefit from him. This law is agreed upon by all of the Sages, even Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon in essence does consider eating forbidden food to be considered eating. The reason that he exempted the one who swore not to eat and then ate forbidden food was that there was a prior existing oath upon him not to eat. In the case in our section, this logic is not applicable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Questions for Further Thought: • Section three: How do you know that Rabbi Shimon would agree to the ruling stated in section three?
