"Juro que comeré este pan. Juro que no lo comeré", el primero es un juramento de pronunciamiento; el segundo, un vano juramento. Si se lo come, está en transgresión de un vano juramento. Si no lo come, está en transgresión de un juramento de pronunciamiento. [Esta es la intención: si se la come, transgrede un vano juramento solo. Si no se lo come, también transgrede un juramento de pronunciamiento. Porque cuando jura "comeré este pan", está obligado a comerlo. De modo que cuando él jura "No lo comeré", está jurando no realizar una mitzvá, y recibe franjas por juramento vano si lo come o no. Y si no lo come, es responsable dos veces: por un juramento vano y por un juramento de pronunciamiento.]
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.
