"Juro que no comeré este pan. Juro que no lo comeré. Juro que no lo comeré", y él lo comió, él es responsable solo de uno. [La razón por la que él es responsable solo por uno es porque el (segundo) juramento no "toma" el primero. Pero si él dijo primero: "No lo comeré", y luego: "No comeré", y él comió todo, es responsable de dos. Porque cuando dice: "No lo comeré", no es responsable hasta que coma todo, y cuando luego dice: "No comeré", una vez que come una aceituna, es responsable . Por lo tanto, toma el segundo juramento, y él es responsable cuando come una aceituna. Y cuando luego come todo, es responsable por el primer juramento. ("Juro que no lo comeré. Juro que no lo comeré" :) Aunque el segundo juramento, "No lo comeré", es suficiente para advertirnos que un juramento no "toma" el otro, al tercero todavía se le enseña a informarnos que, aunque no hay responsabilidad por los últimos juramentos, son juramentos y no palabras vanas, y si pueden "encontrar un lugar", surten efecto. Porque si un sabio lo absuelve del primero, el segundo entra en vigencia y le está prohibido por razón del segundo juramento. Del mismo modo, si es absuelto de los dos primeros, el tercero surte efecto. Para el sabio, el voto se desarraiga por completo, de modo que es como si nunca hubiera hecho un voto, y el segundo "toma" retroactivamente, el primero se considera inexistente una vez que ha sido absuelto de él.] Este es un juramento de pronunciamiento , donde por transgresión intencional uno está sujeto a franjas, y por transgresión involuntaria, a una oferta ofrecida. Con un juramento vano, por la transgresión intencional, uno es susceptible a las rayas, y por la transgresión involuntaria, no es responsable.
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.
