«Я клянусь, что буду есть эту буханку. Я клянусь, что я не буду есть ее», - первая клятва произнесения; вторая - тщетная клятва. Если он ест это, он нарушает тщетную клятву. Если он не ест его, он нарушает клятву произнесения. [Это и есть намерение: если он его съест, он нарушит только пустую клятву. Если он не ест его, он также нарушает клятву произнесения. Ибо, когда он клянется: «Я съем этот хлеб», он обязан его есть. Поэтому, когда он клянется: «Я не буду есть это», он клянется не совершать мицву, и он получает полоски из-за тщетной клятвы, ест ли он ее или нет. И если он не ест его, он несет ответственность дважды: из-за тщетной клятвы и из-за присяги.]
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.
