Commentary for Shevuot 46:5

אלא דאמר שבועה דלא שתינא כגון אלו דלמא כגון אלו דלא שתינא בציר מהכי וטפי מהכי שתינא

I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT', etc. This itself is contradictory! You say: I SWEAR I SHALLNOT EAT', AND HE ATE FOODS WHICH ARE NOT FIT TO BE EATEN, AND DRANK DRINKS WHICH ARE NOT FIT TO BE DRUNK, HE IS EXEMPT. And then you teach: I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT,' AND HE ATE CARRION, TREFA, FORBIDDEN ANIMALS, AND REPTILES, HE IS LIABLE. What is the difference between the first clause, where he is exempt, and the second, where he is liable? - This is no question: the first clause relates to an undefined oath, and the second to a defined oath. [In the case of] a defined oath itself it may also be asked: Why? Surely he is adjured from Mount Sinai! - Rab and Samuel and R. Johanan said: Because he included permitted foods with the prohibited foods. And Resh Lakish said: You cannot find [that he should be liable] except either if he expressly states half the legal quantity, in accordance with the view of the Rabbis; or, if his oath is undefined, in accordance with the view of R. Akiba, who says, a man [in an undefined oath] prohibits to himself even a minute quantity. <br>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 46:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.