## Shevuot Daf 22a

###### Shevuot 22a:1
[Shevuot 22a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:1)

תִּיפְשׁוֹט דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וְאָכַל עָפָר, בְּכַמָּה? תִּפְשׁוֹט עַד דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת! כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן – בְּמִידֵּי דְּבַר אֲכִילָה קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**answer that** which **Rava asks** with regard to one who says: On my **oath I will not eat, and** who then **ate dirt.** Rava’s question is: **How much** must he eat **in** order to be liable? Based on the Rabbis’ statement, **you could answer** that he is not liable **unless there is an olive-bulk** that he has eaten. The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **When we say** in the mishna that there are no cases where a person who eats less than a full measure is liable, **we say** it **with regard to items that are edible.**


###### Shevuot 22a:2
[Shevuot 22a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:2)

וַהֲרֵי קוּנָּמוֹת! קוּנָּמוֹת נָמֵי כִּמְפָרֵשׁ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But aren’t *konamot*** an example of a case where one is liable for eating even less than an olive-bulk? The Gemara answers: ***Konamot* are also like** a case where he **specifies** that any amount is forbidden for consumption.


###### Shevuot 22a:3
[Shevuot 22a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:3)

אָמַר לָהֶן: הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בִּמְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן, שֶׁזֶּה מְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן. וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי מְגַדֵּף! מְדַבֵּר וְאוֹסֵר קָאָמְרִינַן, וְהַאי מְדַבֵּר וְחוֹטֵא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva **said to** the Rabbis: **Where do we find one who speaks and** is liable to **bring an offering** for it, **as this** oath taker merely **speaks,** i.e., takes an oath, **and brings an offering** for it? The Gemara asks: **And** do we **not? But isn’t a blasphemer** liable to bring an offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (see *Karetot* 7a)? The Gemara answers: **We are speaking of one who speaks and** in doing so **generates a prohibition. And this one,** the blasphemer, **is** merely one who **speaks and sins** but does not bring an offering.


###### Shevuot 22a:4
[Shevuot 22a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:4)

וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר! מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּנוֹ עַל דִּבּוּרוֹ קָאָמְרִינַן, וְהַאי מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן – לְאִשְׁתְּרוֹיֵי לֵיהּ חַמְרָא הוּא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But doesn’t a nazirite** render wine forbidden to himself through speech, by making a vow? And he does bring an offering. The Gemara answers: **We are speaking of one who brings an offering** specifically **for his speaking, and this one,** the nazirite, **brings an offering** at the end of his naziriteship **in order to permit wine to himself.**


###### Shevuot 22a:5
[Shevuot 22a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:5)

וַהֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ! אוֹסֵר לְעַצְמוֹ קָאָמְרִינַן, וְהַאי אוֹסֵר עַל כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t consecrated** property a case where one renders an item forbidden via speech alone and brings an offering for its misuse? The Gemara answers: **We are speaking of one who,** by speaking, **generates a prohibition for himself,** and nevertheless brings an offering. **And this one,** who consecrates an item, **generates a prohibition for the whole world.**


###### Shevuot 22a:6
[Shevuot 22a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:6)

הֲרֵי קוּנָּמוֹת! קָסָבַר אֵין מְעִילָה בְּקוּנָּמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Aren’t *konamot*** an example of a case where one renders an item forbidden to himself by speech alone and brings an offering for using it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva **holds** that **there is no** prohibition of **misuse** of consecrated property **with regard to *konamot*.**


###### Shevuot 22a:7
[Shevuot 22a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:7)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּסְתָם, אֲבָל בִּמְפָרֵשׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא. מַאי טַעְמָא? מְפָרֵשׁ נָמֵי כִּבְרִיָּה דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says:** The **dispute** between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis is with regard to **where** one took the oath **without specifying** that he is liable for eating any amount. **But** in a case **where he specifies** that his oath applies to any amount, **everyone agrees** that he is liable **for** eating **any amount. What is the reason** for this? **One who specifies** this renders any amount significant **like** a whole **entity.**


###### Shevuot 22a:8
[Shevuot 22a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:8)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, אֲבָל בְּ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶטְעוֹם״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִיטְעוֹם נָמֵי – כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says:** The **dispute** is with regard to a case **where** one takes an oath saying: On my oath **I will not eat, but** in a case **where** one says: On my oath **I will not taste, all agree** that he is liable **for** tasting **any amount.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that he is liable in that case? Tasting has no defined measure. The Gemara answers: Rava nevertheless taught it, **lest you say** that **even** if one takes an oath saying: I will not taste, he is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk, **as people say: To taste,** as a way of saying: To eat. Therefore, Rava **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Shevuot 22a:9
[Shevuot 22a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:9)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת, אֲבָל בְּקוּנָּמוֹת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא. מַאי טַעְמָא? קוּנָּמוֹת נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קָא מַדְכַּר שְׁמָא דַּאֲכִילָה, כְּדִמְפָרֵשׁ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa says:** The **dispute** in the mishna is **with regard to oaths, but with regard to *konamot*, all agree** that one is liable for eating **any amount. What is the reason** for this? **Indeed,** with regard to ***konamot*, since** in the vow **he did not explicitly mention eating,** which has a defined measure, but only that the item is forbidden to him like an offering, it is **as if he specified** that he is liable for eating any amount.


###### Shevuot 22a:10
[Shevuot 22a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: שְׁנֵי קוּנָּמוֹת מִצְטָרְפִין, שְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּעוֹת אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: קוּנָּמוֹת כִּשְׁבוּעוֹת. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ חַיָּיב בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, לְמָה לִי לְצָרֵף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from that which is taught in a *baraita*: Items that are forbidden by **two *konamot* combine** to produce a full measure for which one is liable; items forbidden by **two oaths do not** so **combine. Rabbi Meir says:** Items forbidden by ***konamot* are like** those forbidden by **oaths.** The Gemara explains the objection: **And if it enters your mind** that with regard to items forbidden by *konamot*, one is **liable for** eating **any amount, why do I** need them **to combine?**


###### Shevuot 22a:11
[Shevuot 22a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:11)

דְּאָמַר: ״אֲכִילָה מִזּוֹ עָלַי קוּנָּם״, ״אֲכִילָה מִזּוֹ עָלַי קוּנָּם״. אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי מִצְטָרְפוֹת? סוֹף סוֹף – זִיל לְהָכָא לֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, וְזִיל לְהָכָא לֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא! דְּאָמַר: ״אֲכִילָה מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן עָלַי קוּנָּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: They combine in a case **where he said: Eating from this one is *konam* for me; eating from that one is *konam* for me.** Since he explicitly mentions eating, he is not liable unless he eats an olive-bulk. The Gemara asks: **If so, why do they combine to** produce a full measure? **Ultimately,** since he took two separate vows, **go to this** item and **there is not** a full **measure, and go to that** item and **there is not** a full **measure.** The Gemara answers: They combined to produce one full measure **when he said: Eating from both of them is *konam* for me.**


###### Shevuot 22a:12
[Shevuot 22a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:12)

דִּכְוָותַהּ גַּבֵּי שְׁבוּעוֹת – דְּאָמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן״, אַמַּאי אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין? אָמַר רַב פִּנְחָס: שָׁאנֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁחֲלוּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת, אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In the corresponding** situation **with regard to oaths, where he said:** On my **oath I will not eat from both of them, why do they not combine? Rav Pineḥas said: Oaths are different. Since** two items that are forbidden by a single oath **are distinct with regard to sin-offerings,** in that one is liable to bring a sin-offering for eating each one, so too eating a small amount from each **does not combine** in order to produce a full measure.


###### Shevuot 22a:13
[Shevuot 22a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:13)

אִי הָכִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: קוּנָּמוֹת כִּשְׁבוּעוֹת – בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁבוּעוֹת, הוֹאִיל וַחֲלוּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת; אֶלָּא קוּנָּמוֹת, אַמַּאי לָא? אֵיפוֹךְ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שְׁבוּעוֹת כְּקוּנָּמוֹת. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לִדְרַב פִּנְחָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** how did **Rabbi Meir say** that items forbidden by ***konamot* are like** those forbidden by **oaths** and do not combine to produce a full measure? **Granted that** items forbidden by **oaths** do not combine, **since they are distinct with regard to sin-offerings, but why do** items forbidden by ***konamot* not** combine? The Gemara answers: **Reverse** the language so that the *baraita* has **Rabbi Meir say:** Items forbidden by **oaths are like** items forbidden by ***konamot*.** Neither combines to produce a full measure, **and** Rabbi Meir **does not accept** the statement **of Rav Pineḥas** that items forbidden by oaths are different.


###### Shevuot 22a:14
[Shevuot 22a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:14)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: כִּי קָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא – לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת; כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבָּן, דְּבָעֵינַן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: When Rav Pappa says** that one is liable for eating any amount of an item forbidden by *konamot*, that is **with regard to the matter of lashes. When it is taught** in the *baraita* that items forbidden by *konamot* combine to produce a full measure, **that** is **with regard to the matter of an offering** for misuse of consecrated property, **where we require** that one derive benefit equal to the **value of one *peruta*** from the forbidden item.


###### Shevuot 22a:15
[Shevuot 22a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/22a:15)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן יֵשׁ מְעִילָה בְּקוּנָּמוֹת?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״כִּכָּר זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, וַאֲכָלָהּ – בֵּין הוּא בֵּין חֲבֵירוֹ מָעַל; לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. ״כִּכָּר זוֹ עָלַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ – הֲרֵי הוּא מָעַל, חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא מָעַל; לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is that **to say that the Sages hold** that the *halakhot* of **misuse** of consecrated property extend **to** items forbidden by ***konamot*? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If one said: **This loaf is consecrated, and** subsequently **ate it,** then **either he or another** who ate it is liable for **misusing** consecrated property; **consequently,** since the loaf is consecrated, **it is subject to redemption.** If one said: **This loaf is** forbidden **to me** as if it were **consecrated,** i.e., it is *konam* for me, and then he ate it, **he** is liable for **misusing** consecrated property, but **another** is **not** liable for **misusing** consecrated property; **consequently,** since the loaf is not fully consecrated, **it is not subject to redemption.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**