Shevuot 52
איזו היא שגגת שבועת ביטוי לשעבר אי דידע מזיד הוא אי דלא ידע אנוס הוא
<br> What is unwitting transgression of oath of utterance in the past? If he knew, it is wilful transgression; if he did not know, it is accidental transgression? - He replied to him: [It is possible in the case of] one who says, 'I know that this oath is prohibited, but I do not know whether one is liable to bring an offering for it or not.' According to whom will this be? According to Monobaz, who holds that ignorance of [liability for] an offering is termed ignorance! - You may [however] say that it will be even in accordance with the view of the Rabbis; for the Rabbis disagree with Monobaz only in the rest of the Torah where there is no innovation, but here where there is an innovation - for in the whole Torah we do not find that [the unwitting transgression of] a negative precept [for the wilful transgression of which kareth is not inflicted] should make him liable for an offering, for we deduce it from the ruling concerning idolatry; yet here, it does make him liable to bring [an offering] even the Sages admit. <br>
א"ל באומר יודע אני ששבועה זו אסורה אבל איני יודע אם חייבין עליה קרבן או לאו
Rabina enquired of Raba: If he swore concerning a loaf [not to eat it], and he was dangerously ill on account of [not being able to eat] it, what is the ruling? - If he is dangerously ill, [of course] you may permit it to him! Well then, if he is distressed, and he ate it, unwittingly transgressing the oath, what is the ruling? - He said to him, it has been taught: He who would turn back if he knew brings an offering for his unwitting transgression; he who would not turn back if he knew, does not bring an offering for his unwitting transgression. <br>
כמאן כמונבז דאמר שגגת קרבן שמה שגגה
Samuel said: If he decided in his mind, he must utter it with his lips, for it is said: to utter with the lips. An objection was raised: with the lips, but not in the mind. If he decided in his mind, how do we know [that he is liable]? Because it is said: whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath. This itself is contradictory! You say, with the lips, but not in the mind; and then you say, if he decided in his mind, how do we know [that he is liable]? - R. Shesheth said: This is no question; thus he means: with the lips, but not if he decided in his mind to utter it with his lips, and did not utter it. If he decided in his mind, simply, how do we know [that he is liable]? Because it is said: whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly. But against Samuel the question remains! - R. Shesheth said: Answer it thus: with the lips, but not if he decided in his mind to utter 'wheat bread', and he uttered 'barley bread'. If he decided in his mind to utter 'wheat bread', and he uttered 'bread' simply, how do we know [that he is liable]? Because it is said: whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly. <br>
אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דמונבז אלא בכל התורה כולה דלאו חידוש הוא אבל הכא דחידוש הוא דבכל התורה כולה לא אשכחן לאו דמייתי קרבן
An objection was raised: That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do; from this we know only, if he uttered it with his lips; if he decided in his mind, how do we know [that he must keep his promise]? Because it is said: all who were willing-hearted [brought ... an offering of gold unto the Lord]. - There it is different, because it is written: all who were willing-hearted. But let us deduce from it. - [No!] because [tabernacle] offerings and holy things are 'two verses which
דילפינן מע"ז והכא מייתי אפילו רבנן מודו
come as one'; and all [cases of] 'two verses which come as one' do not teach [for other cases]. - That is well, according to the one who holds that 'they do not teach'; but according to the one who holds that 'they do teach', what shall we say? - This is hullin, and [the others are] holy things; and hullin we cannot deduce from holy things.