Jewish%20thought for Yoma 146:20

וריש לקיש אמר אי אתה מוצא אלא במפרש חצי שיעור ואליבא דרבנן או בסתם

Now [the above answer] would be right according to R'Johanan, but what can be said according to Resh Lakish? - Resh Lakish would agree that [less than the legal quantity] is forbidden by [decree of] the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though less than the legal minimum does not involve punishment according to Biblical law, or indeed, may not be forbidden at all, Rabbinical law, as a fence around the laws of the Torah, may declare less than a minimum forbidden, or punishable, too. The dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish would hinge on the question as to whether forbidden foods are so considered in any quantity, however small, or whether the term 'eating' etc. implies a definite minimum below which no transgression at all can be said to have taken place.');">²³</span> If that be the case, one should not be liable on account thereof to offe a sacrifice for an oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,if someone has sworn that he would not eat less than the legal quantity of a forbidden food. Since that food is forbidden, he has, as it were, already sworn on Mount Sinai, not to eat it; the present oath, therefore, has no force, for the transgression of which no sin-offering is necessary (v. Shebu. 27a) .');">²⁴</span> why then did we learn:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 21a.');">²⁵</span> [If one had sworn] an oath not to eat carrion, trefah things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word trefah. lit., 'torn', means any kind of abnormal, irregular, ritually inadmissible food. Nebelah 'carrion' refers to the flesh of animals which had died a natural death, or in connection with the ritual slaughtering of which a basic mistake or irregularity had been committed.');">²⁶</span> abominable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 11, 31, 42, 46.');">²⁷</span> or creeping things, and then had eaten thereof, he is culpable? R'Simeon holds him not culpable. And we raised the point in connection therewith: Why should he be culpable? Surely he stands committed to the oath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Israel swore their allegiance to the Torah, and that oath binds every Israelite.');">²⁸</span> from Mount Sinai on! [And] Rab, Samuel and R'Johanan [in reply] said [it is a case] when he includes things permitted in the oath touching foods forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had he sworn not to eat forbidden things, such oaths would imply his non-culpability in case of transgression, i.e., as far as the oath is concerned. But, by including things permitted, he swears an oath, the effect of which is to prohibit for him the eating of otherwise permissible foods. Hence the transgression implies the obligation of sacrifice.');">²⁹</span> whereas Resh Lakish said: This cannot be explained except where he either expressly refers to less than the legal quantity, and that in accord with the view of the Sages,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages hold that an oath 'I will not eat a certain thing' implies 'l will not eat as much as the legal minimum', hence he could be guilty in the case of having eaten less than that only if he had expressly stated: I shall not eat anything at all of that food, his special declaration investing his oath with validity in the case of an infinitesimal amount of the food now forbidden to himself.');">³⁰</span> or that he made a general statement

Explore jewish%20thought for Yoma 146:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.