## Shevuot Daf 21b

###### Shevuot 21b:1
[Shevuot 21b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:1)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר. זוֹ הִיא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? מַאי לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ – דְּלָא לָקֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Say the latter clause** of the mishna (29a): Which oath is an oath taken in vain? It is when one takes an oath to deny that which is known to people to be true, like one says with regard to a stone column that it is made of gold. **This is an oath** taken **in vain, for** which one is **liable** to receive **lashes** if he takes the oath **intentionally, and for** which he is **exempt** if he takes it **unwittingly.** When the mishna says: **This is** an oath taken in vain, it is **to exclude what? What, isn’t** that phrase added to the mishna **to exclude** one who takes an oath saying: **I ate, or: I did not eat,** teaching **that he is not flogged?**


###### Shevuot 21b:2
[Shevuot 21b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:2)

לָא; זוֹ הִיא דְּעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר מִקׇּרְבָּן, אֲבָל ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַיָּיב קׇרְבָּן; וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דִּמְחַיֵּיב לְשֶׁעָבַר כִּלְהַבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** the mishna adds: **This is** an oath, to teach that **for** violating the prohibition against taking an oath in vain **unwittingly,** one is **exempt from** bringing **an offering; but** one who takes an oath saying: **I ate, or: I did not eat, is liable** to bring **an offering for an unwitting** violation. **And this is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who deems** one **liable** to bring an offering for oaths referring **to the past** just **like** one is liable for oaths referring **to the future.**


###### Shevuot 21b:3
[Shevuot 21b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:3)

הָא אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא! רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?! כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְרֵישָׁא לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ מִקׇּרְבָּן, אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי ״אוֹכַל״ וְלֹא אָכַל מִמַּלְקוֹת, אֲבָל קׇרְבָּן מִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t you say** that **the first clause** of that mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael?** How can **the first clause** follow **Rabbi Yishmael’s** opinion and **the latter clause** follow **Rabbi Akiva’s** conflicting opinion? The Gemara answers: The **entire** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, and the first clause** does **not** serve **to exclude** one who took an oath saying: **I ate, or: I did not eat, from** the liability to bring **an offering. Rather,** it serves **to exclude** one who took an oath saying: **I will eat, and** who subsequently **did not eat, from** the liability to receive **lashes. But he is** still **liable** to bring **an offering.**


###### Shevuot 21b:4
[Shevuot 21b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:4)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא? מִסְתַּבְּרָא, קָאֵי בִּלְהַבָּא – מְמַעֵט לְהַבָּא; קָאֵי בִּלְהַבָּא – מְמַעֵט לְשֶׁעָבַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different** about this way of understanding the mishna that it is to be preferred? The Gemara answers: **It stands to reason** that when the mishna **is addressing** an oath referring **to the future,** it **excludes** an oath referring **to the future,** in accordance with the reading that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Does it makes sense that when **addressing** an oath referring **to the future,** it **excludes** an oath referring **to the past,** as the reading of the first clause in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael would have it? Therefore, the added sentence: This is an oath on an utterance, in the first clause, serves to exclude one who took an oath saying: I will eat, and who subsequently did not eat, from the liability to receive lashes; and the whole mishna can be understood as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that one is liable to bring an offering even for oaths relating to the past.


###### Shevuot 21b:5
[Shevuot 21b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:5)

״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וְאָכַל כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, חַיָּיב כּוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ – כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דִּמְחַיֵּיב בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא לְמַכּוֹת, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ כְּזַיִת אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: On my **oath I will not eat, and he** then **ate any amount,** even less than an olive-bulk, he is **liable** according to Rabbi Akiva. **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **Does Rabbi Akiva in the entire Torah,** i.e., in general, **hold** that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who deems** one **liable** for eating **any amount** of forbidden food? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon says:** One who eats **any amount** of forbidden food is liable **to** receive **lashes, and** the Sages **stated** the measure of **an olive-bulk only in the matter of** determining liability to bring **an offering.**


###### Shevuot 21b:6
[Shevuot 21b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:6)

וּבְדִין הוּא דְּבָעֵי אִיפְּלוֹגֵי בְּעָלְמָא, וְהַאי דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי הָכָא – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כּוֹחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הוֹאִיל וּמְפָרֵשׁ חַיָּיב, סְתָם נָמֵי חַיָּיב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּפָטְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if in fact Rabbi Akiva agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then **by right,** the mishna **should have** taught that Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis **disagree in general. And** the reason **that** it states only **here** that **they disagree** is **to convey to you the far-reaching nature** of the opinion **of the Rabbis.** The Rabbis hold **that even though it is** possible **to say** that **since** one who eats less than an olive-bulk after taking an oath in which he **specifically** forbids himself any amount is **liable,** one who eats less than an olive-bulk **without** so **specifying** in his oath will **also** be **liable,** as that is included in his oath not to eat, that reasoning is not accepted. The mishna therefore states the dispute in the context of an oath that he will not eat in order to **teach us that,** according to the Rabbis, as long as he did not specify that his oath includes any amount, he is **exempt** from receiving lashes.


###### Shevuot 21b:7
[Shevuot 21b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:7)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, בְּעָלְמָא – כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ; וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – הוֹאִיל וּמְפָרֵשׁ חַיָּיב, סְתָם נָמֵי חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents the other side of the dilemma: **Or perhaps, in general,** Rabbi Akiva **holds like the Rabbis** that one must consume at least an olive-bulk in order to be liable for a prohibition that involves eating. **And here,** with regard to an oath that one will not eat, **this is the reason** he disagrees: **Since** one who **specifically** forbids himself any amount is **liable,** one who eats less than an olive-bulk **without** so **specifying** in his oath will **also** be **liable.**


###### Shevuot 21b:8
[Shevuot 21b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בְּאוֹכֵל כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב, שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּיב? וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵימָא לְהוּ: אֲנָא בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear that** which the Rabbis **said to Rabbi Akiva: Where do we find that** one who **eats any amount is liable,** leading you to say **that this** person is **liable?** The Gemara explains why this is relevant: **If it is so** that according to Rabbi Akiva one is always liable for eating any amount, **let him say to them: In the entire Torah I hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Shevuot 21b:9
[Shevuot 21b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:9)

לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי, בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לִי. לְדִידְכוּ, אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהָא, הוֹאִיל וּמְפָרֵשׁ חַיָּיב, סְתָם נָמֵי חַיָּיב! וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The fact that Rabbi Akiva did not answer the Rabbis in that way does not necessarily indicate that he does not agree with Rabbi Shimon in general. Perhaps he **is speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their** own **statement,** and this is how he would respond to their question: **As far as my opinion** is concerned, **in the entire Torah I hold** that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** that one is liable for all prohibitions involving eating when one eats any amount. **According to you, admit to me at least** that **since** one who **specifically** forbids himself any amount is **liable,** one who eats less than an olive-bulk **without** so **specifying** in his oath will **also** be **liable. And the Rabbis said to him: No,** we will not admit that.


###### Shevuot 21b:10
[Shevuot 21b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נָזִיר שֶׁשָּׁרָה פִּתּוֹ בְּיַיִן, וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְצָרֵף כְּזַיִת – חַיָּיב. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּעָלְמָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, לְמָה לִי לְצָרֵף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents another attempt to resolve the dilemma. **Come** and **hear** a mishna (*Nazir* 34b): **Rabbi Akiva says: A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine** and ate it, **and** the two together **contain enough to combine to an olive-bulk,** is **liable,** even though there is less than the minimal measure of wine. **And if it should enter your mind that he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon in general,** then **why do I** need the wine and bread **to combine** to the measure of an olive-bulk? Consumption of any amount of wine should be sufficient for him to be liable.


###### Shevuot 21b:11
[Shevuot 21b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:11)

וְעוֹד תְּנַן: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים – חַיָּיב. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? מוּשְׁבָּע מֵהַר סִינַי הוּא! רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בְּכוֹלֵל דְּבָרִים הַמּוּתָּרִין עִם דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And additionally, we learned** in a mishna (22b): If one says: On my **oath I will not eat, and** then **ate** the meat of unslaughtered **carcasses, or animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [*tereifot*],** or **repugnant creatures, or creeping animals,** he is **liable; and Rabbi Shimon deems** him **exempt. And we discussed it: Why** is he **liable** for breaking his oath when he eats non-kosher food? **He is** already **under oath from Mount Sinai** not to eat forbidden food, and an oath cannot take effect to render a matter forbidden that is already forbidden. **Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan both,** i.e., all, **say** that this is a case **where he incorporates** into the oath that he will not eat some **permitted items, along with** the statement concerning the **forbidden items.** Since the oath takes effect with regard to the permitted items, it extends also to the forbidden ones.


###### Shevuot 21b:12
[Shevuot 21b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:12)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא אִי בִּמְפָרֵשׁ חֲצִי שִׁיעוּר – וְאַלִּיבָּא דְרַבָּנַן, אִי בִּסְתָם – וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אָדָם אוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish says: You find** that one is liable for eating forbidden food as the result of an oath **only if** it is both an oath **where** he **specifies** that it includes **a half-measure,** in this case, less than an olive-bulk, **and in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis** that one is not liable for eating a half-measure unless it is specified in the oath. Since eating a half-measure is not prohibited by the Torah, the oath takes effect. Alternatively, you find that one is liable **if** he took the oath **without specifying** that the oath prohibits less than the usual measure **and in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva, who says** that **a person renders himself prohibited from** eating **any amount** by taking an oath not to eat.


###### Shevuot 21b:13
[Shevuot 21b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:13)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּעָלְמָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, כָּל שֶׁהוּא נָמֵי מוּשְׁבָּע וְעוֹמֵד מֵהַר סִינַי הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בְּעָלְמָא כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** that Rabbi Akiva **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon in general,** this is difficult, as one who consumes **any amount is also already under oath from Mount Sinai.** Why should the oath take effect according to Reish Lakish? **Rather,** must one **not conclude from it: In general, Rabbi Akiva holds like the Rabbis,** and it is only with regard to unspecified oaths that he deems one liable for eating any amount? The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from it** that Rabbi Akiva holds like the Rabbis.


###### Shevuot 21b:14
[Shevuot 21b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:14)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ כּוּ׳. וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי נְמָלָה! בְּרִיָּה שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: The Rabbis **said to Rabbi Akiva: Where do we find** that one who eats any amount is liable, leading you to say that this person is liable? The Gemara asks: **And** do we **not? But isn’t** one who eats **an ant** liable, despite the fact that it is smaller than an olive-bulk? The Gemara answers: A whole **entity is different,** since it has significance.


###### Shevuot 21b:15
[Shevuot 21b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:15)

וַהֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ! הָא בָּעֵינַן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** one who eats less than an olive-bulk of **consecrated** food liable? The Gemara answers: In order to be liable for eating consecrated food, **we require** a different measure, an amount **worth one *peruta*.** One is not liable for eating an amount worth less than that.


###### Shevuot 21b:16
[Shevuot 21b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:16)

וַהֲרֵי מְפָרֵשׁ! מְפָרֵשׁ נָמֵי כִּבְרִיָּה דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** one who **specifies** in his oath that he is prohibited from eating any amount liable for doing so? The Gemara answers: One who **specifies** that eating any amount is prohibited is **indeed comparable to** one who eats a whole **entity,** since he has granted it significance.


###### Shevuot 21b:17
[Shevuot 21b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/21b:17)

וַהֲרֵי עָפָר! אֶלָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** there an unresolved question with regard to one who took an oath not to eat and then ate **dirt?** If, as the Rabbis claim, one is not liable for eating less than a full measure, you could **rather**