Shevuot 43
תיפשוט דבעי רבא שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל עפר בכמה תפשוט עד דאיכא כזית כי קאמרינן במידי דבר אכילה קאמרינן
<br> decide that which Raba enquired: '"I swear I shall not eat dust", and he ate; what quantity [must he eat to make him liable]?' - May you [then] decide that it must be the size of an olive! - [No!] When do we say [that we do not find liability for a minute quantity,] only in the case of an edible do we say so. Is there not the case of vows? - Vows are like expressly defined oaths. <br>
אמר להן היכן מצינו במדבר ומביא קרבן שזה מדבר ומביא קרבן: ולא והרי מגדף מדבר ואוסר קאמרינן והאי מדבר וחוטא הוא
Do we not [find such a case]? Is there not the blasphemer'. - We mean, speaking and prohibiting; but this one speaks and sins. Is there not the nazirite? - We mean, bringing an offering for [breaking] his word; but this one brings an offering so that wine may again be permitted to him. Is there not sacred property? - We mean, prohibiting to himself only; but this one prohibits to the whole world. Is there not the case of vows? - He holds that there is no trespass offering for [breaking] vows.
והרי נזיר מביא קרבנו על דבורו קאמרינן והאי מביא קרבן לאשתרויי ליה חמרא הוא דקא מייתי
Raba said: The controversy [between R. Akiba and the Sages] is in the case of an undefined oath, but if he expressly states [a minute quantity], all agree that he is liable for a minute quantity. What is the reason? An expressly defined oath is on a par with a 'creature'. And Raba said further: The controversy is only where he says, I shall not eat,' but if he says, I shall not taste, all agree that he is liable for a minute quantity. This is self-evident! - I might have thought that 'to taste' should be taken in the way that people talk, therefore he teaches us [that it is taken literally].
והרי הקדש אוסר לעצמו קאמרינן והאי אוסר על כל העולם כולו הוא
R. Papa said: The controversy is in the case of oaths, but in Konamoth all agree that he is liable for a minute quantity. What is the reason? Vows, since the word 'eating' is not mentioned in them, are like expressly defined oaths.
הרי קונמות קסבר אין מעילה בקונמות
An objection was raised: Two Konamoth combine; two oaths do not combine. R. Meir says: Konamoth are like oaths. Now, if you say that [in vows] he is liable for a minute quantity, what need is there for combining? - He said, 'Eating of this [loaf] shall be to me konam; and eating of that [loaf] shall be to me konam.' - If so, why do they combine? In any case, if you go here, there is not the legal minimum, and if you go there, there is not the legal minimum. - He said, 'Eating of both [loaves] shall be to me konam.' Now, a similar expression in the case of oaths would be, if he said, I SWEAR I shall not eat of both [loaves];' then why do they not combine? - R. Phinehas said: Oaths are different; because they are divided in respect of sin offerings, they do not combine. If so, 'R. Meir says: Konamoth are like oaths.' [Why?] Granted, oaths [do not combine], because they are divided in respect of sin offerings; but konamoth, why not? - Reverse it: R. Meir Says: oaths are like Konamoth [and combine]; and he does not agree with R. Phinehas. Rabina said: That which R. Papa said [that in Konamoth he is liable for a minute quantity] refers only to stripes; and that which we learnt in the Baraitha [that vows combine] refers to an offering, where we require [that the enjoyment should be] the value of a perutah. <br>
אמר רבא מחלוקת בסתם אבל במפרש דברי הכל בכל שהוא מאי טעמא מפרש נמי כבריה דמי
Shall we say that the Sages hold there is a trespass offering for Konamoth? Yet we learnt: [If he says,] 'This loaf is sacred,' and he eats it - either he or his neighbour - he trespasses; therefore there is redemption for it. [If he says,] 'This loaf is to me sacred', he trespasses [by eating it], but