«Je jure que je ne mangerai pas ce pain. Je jure que je ne le mangerai pas. Je jure que je ne le mangerai pas», et il l'a mangé, il n'est responsable que d'un seul. [La raison pour laquelle il n'est responsable que d'un seul est que le (deuxième) serment ne "prête" pas le premier. Mais s'il a d'abord dit: "Je ne le mangerai pas", et ensuite: "Je ne mangerai pas", et qu'il a tout mangé, il est responsable de deux. Car quand il dit: "Je ne le mangerai pas", il n'est pas responsable tant qu'il n'a pas mangé tout, et quand il dit alors: "Je ne mangerai pas", une fois qu'il en mange une taille d'olive, il est responsable . Par conséquent, le deuxième serment prête, et il est responsable lorsqu'il en mange une taille d'olive. Et quand il mange alors tout, il est responsable en raison du premier serment. ("Je jure que je ne le mangerai pas. Je jure que je ne le mangerai pas" :) Même si le deuxième serment, "Je ne le mangerai pas," suffit à nous informer qu'un serment ne "prend" pas l'autre, le troisième apprend encore à nous informer que même s'il n'y a aucune responsabilité pour ces derniers serments, ce sont néanmoins des serments, et non des paroles vaines, et s'ils peuvent «trouver une place», ils prennent effet. Car si un sage l'absout du premier, le second prend effet et il lui est interdit en raison du second serment. De même, s'il est absous des deux premiers, le troisième prend effet. Car le sage déracine complètement le vœu, de sorte que c'est comme s'il ne l'avait jamais fait, et le second "prend" rétroactivement, le premier étant considéré comme inexistant une fois qu'il en a été absous.] C'est un serment de prononcé. , où, pour une transgression volontaire, on est sujet à des rayures, et pour une transgression involontaire, à une offrande veyored. Avec un vain serment, pour une transgression volontaire, on est passible de coups, et pour une transgression involontaire, il n'est pas 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.
