Shevuot 42
אימא סיפא זו היא שבועת שוא שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה פטור זו היא למעוטי מאי מאי לאו למעוטי אכלתי ולא אכלתי דלא לקי
<br> How [then] will you explain the latter clause: This is the vain oath for the wilful transgression of which stripes are incurred, and for the unwitting transgression of which he is exempt. 'This is [the vain oath, etc.]' What does 'this' exclude? Surely, it excludes '[I swear] I have eaten', '[I swear] I have not eaten', that he is not liable for stripes! - No! 'This is [the oath . . .] for the unwitting transgression of which he is exempt [from a sacrifice]' but '[I swear] I have eaten', '[I swear] I have not eaten', makes him liable for a sacrifice for unwitting transgression; and this will be in accordance
לא זו היא דעל שגגתה פטור מקרבן אבל אכלתי ולא אכלתי על שגגתה חייב קרבן ור"ע היא דמחייב לשעבר כלהבא
with the opinion of R. Akiba who holds that he is liable for [an oath] in the past as in the future. But you have said that the first statement is in accordance with R. Ishmael's view. Is the first statement, then, in accordance with R. Ishmael's view, and the second in accordance with R. Akiba's view! - [No!] It is entirely in accordance with R. Akiba's view; and the first statement is not intended to exclude '[I swear] I have eaten', '[I swear] I have not eaten' from a sacrifice, but to exclude '[swear] I shall eat', and he did not eat, from stripes; but for a sacrifice he is liable. Why should you prefer this? - It is reasonable that, since he is discussing the future, he should exclude the future; but, discussing the future, shall he exclude the past? <br>
הא אמרת רישא ר' ישמעאל היא רישא רבי ישמעאל וסיפא רבי עקיבא כולה ר"ע ורישא לאו למעוטי אכלתי ולא אכלתי מקרבן אלא למעוטי אוכל ולא אכל ממלקות אבל קרבן מיחייב
I SWEAR I SHALL NOT EAT , AND HE ATE A MINUTE QUANTITY, HE IS LIABLE; [THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA.]
ומאי שנא מסתברא קאי בלהבא ממעט להבא קאי בלהבא ממעט לשעבר:
It was queried [by the scholars]: Does R. Akiba agree in the whole Torah with R. Simeon who imposes liability for a minute quantity, for it has been taught: 'R. Simeon says. For a minute quantity stripes are incurred; and it was not said that the size of an olive is necessary except for a sacrifice.' And by right they should disagree also elsewhere, but the reason their disagreement is stated here is to show you the power of the Sages, for, although it is possible to say, since if he had expressly stated [a minute quantity] he would have been liable, he should also be liable even if his statement is undefined, we are informed, nevertheless, that they exempt him. Or, elsewhere, does R. Akiba agree with the Sages, and here, this is the reason: since if he expressly states [a minute quantity] he is liable, he is liable also if his statement is undefined?
שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל כל שהוא חייב כו': איבעיא להו ר"ע בכל התורה כולה כר"ש ס"ל דמחייב במשהו דתניא ר"ש אומר כל שהוא למכות ולא אמרו כזית אלא לענין קרבן
Come and hear: THEY SAID TO R. AKIBA: WHERE DO WE FIND THAT HE WHO EATS A MINUTE QUANTITY IS LIABLE, THAT THIS ONE SHOULD BE LIABLE? And if it is so [that he agrees with R. Simeon elsewhere also], let him answer them: agree in the whole Torah with R. Simeon? - [It is possible that] he is replying according to the views of the Rabbis themselves: As for me, I agree with R. Simeon in the whole Torah; but as for you, agree with me at least that, since if he expressly states [a minute quantity] he is liable, he should be liable also if his statement is undefined. And the Rabbis replied to him: No!
ובדין הוא דבעי איפלוגי בעלמא והאי דקא מיפלגי הכא להודיעך כוחן דרבנן דאף ע"ג דאיכא למימר הואיל ומפרש חייב סתם נמי חייב קא משמע לן דפטרי
Come and hear: R. Akiba says, A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine, and there is sufficient in both together to make up the size of an olive, is liable. Now if you were to hold that everywhere he agrees with R. Simeon, what need is there for combining? And again, we learnt: I SWEAR I shall not eat', and he ate carrion, trefa, forbidden animals, and reptiles, he is liable; and R. Simeon exempts him. And we asked: Why is he liable, since he had already been adjured on Mount Sinai? Rab and Samuel and R. Johanan said: [He is liable because] he had included permitted things with the prohibited things. And Resh Lakish said: You cannot find [that he should be liable] except either, if he expressly stated half the legal quantity, and it will be in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, or, [even] if his statement was undefined, and it will be in accordance with R. Akiba's view, who holds that a man [in an undefined oath], prohibits to himself [even] a minute quantity. Now if you were to say that elsewhere R. Akiba also agrees with R. Simeon, then for a minute quantity he also stands adjured from Mount Sinai! Hence, we deduce from this [must we not?] that elsewhere he agrees with the Rabbis. It is proven.
או דלמא בעלמא כרבנן סבירא ליה והכא היינו טעמא הואיל ומפרש חייב סתם נמי חייב
THEY SAID TO R. AKIBA: WHERE DO WE FIND [THAT HE WHO EATS A MINUTE QUANTITY IS LIABLE, etc.]. Can we not? Is there not the ant? A creature is different. Is there not sacred property? - But we require it should be the value of a perutah. Is there not the expressly defined oath? An expressly defined oath is like a creature. Is there not dust? May you then,<br>