## Shevuot Daf 23a

###### Shevuot 23a:1
[Shevuot 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:1)

וְתִירוֹשׁ חַמְרָא הוּא, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** since the Hebrew word ***tirosh*** mentioned in the verse **is wine, and it is written** with regard to it: **“And you shall eat,”** this indicates that drinking is an activity included in eating.


###### Shevuot 23a:2
[Shevuot 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:2)

וְדִלְמָא עַל יְדֵי אֲנִיגְרוֹן? דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲנִיגְרוֹן – מַיָּא דְּסִילְקֵי, אַכְּסִיגְרוֹן – מַיָּא דְּכוּלְּהוּ סִילְקִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But perhaps** the verse is referring to consuming wine **by means of an *anigeron*, as Rabba bar Shmuel says: *Anigeron*** is **a stew of beet greens** and wine, and ***aksigeron*** is a **stew of all types of cooked** vegetables. If so, the wine in the verse is not drunk but eaten.


###### Shevuot 23a:3
[Shevuot 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, מֵהָכָא: ״וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ, בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר״; יַיִן חַמְרָא הוּא, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:** Cite **from here,** a verse written with regard to money with which one has redeemed second tithe: **“And you shall bestow the money for whatsoever your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine [*uvayyayin*], or for strong drink,** or for whatsoever your soul asks of you; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26). The Hebrew word ***yayin*** mentioned in the verse **is wine, and it is written: “And you shall eat.”**


###### Shevuot 23a:4
[Shevuot 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:4)

וְדִלְמָא הָכָא נָמֵי עַל יְדֵי אֲנִיגְרוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But perhaps here** this verse is **also** referring to consuming wine **by means of an *anigeron*.**


###### Shevuot 23a:5
[Shevuot 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:5)

״שֵׁכָר״ כְּתִיב, מִידֵּי דִּמְשַׁכַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **“Strong drink” is written** in the verse, referring to **something intoxicating,** and wine mixed into a stew is not intoxicating.


###### Shevuot 23a:6
[Shevuot 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:6)

וְדִלְמָא דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית? דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית וְשָׁתָה דְּבַשׁ וְחָלָב, וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְעָבַד – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But perhaps** the intoxicating substance referred to in the verse is pressed **figs from Ke’ila, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: A priest who **ate** pressed **figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk and** then **entered the Temple and performed** the sacrificial rites is **liable** for violating the prohibition against conducting the Temple service while intoxicated.


###### Shevuot 23a:7
[Shevuot 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:7)

אֶלָּא גָּמַר ״שֵׁכָר״–״שֵׁכָר״ מִנָּזִיר; מָה לְהַלָּן יַיִן, אַף כָּאן יַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one **derives** the meaning of **“strong drink”** in this verse by means of a verbal analogy **from** the verse about **a nazirite:** “He shall abstain from wine and **strong drink:** He shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried” (Numbers 6:3). **Just as there,** the strong drink that is forbidden to the nazirite is referring to a type of **wine, so too here,** the verse is referring to **wine.**


###### Shevuot 23a:8
[Shevuot 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה, אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁתִיָּה לָאו בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה – מִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said: We learn** in the mishna **as well** that drinking is included in eating. The mishna teaches: If one said: On my **oath I will not eat, and** then he **ate and drank, he is liable** to bring **only one** offering. **Granted, if you say** that **drinking is included in eating,** that is why **it was necessary for the *tanna* to teach us that he is liable** to bring **only one** offering. **But if you say** that **drinking is not included in eating,** there is no reason for the *tanna* to teach that it is only one violation. If one says: On my **oath I will not eat, and he ate and performed** some kind of **labor, would it be necessary to teach us that** the person is **liable** to bring **only one** offering? He never took an oath prohibiting labor.


###### Shevuot 23a:9
[Shevuot 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מַאי, שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה?! אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״, וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם. כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ – אִיתְּסַר לֵיהּ בִּשְׁתִיָּה; כִּי אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ – אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? אִילּוּ אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי, מִי מִיחַיַּיב תַּרְתֵּי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: What, rather,** is your conclusion; that **drinking is included in eating? Say the latter clause** of the mishna: If he said: On my **oath I will not eat and I will not drink, and** then he **ate and drank,** he is **liable** to bring **two** offerings. According to you, Rava, **once he said: I will not eat, drinking became forbidden to him,** so **when he said: I will not drink, why** is he rendered **liable** to bring a separate offering? **If he had said: I will not drink, two times, would he be liable** to bring **two** offerings?


###### Shevuot 23a:10
[Shevuot 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״, וַהֲדַר אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״; דִּשְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה אִיתַהּ, אֲכִילָה בִּכְלָל שְׁתִיָּה לֵיתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: There,** in the mishna, it is actually a case **where he said: I will not drink, and then said: I will not eat.** Although **it is** so **that drinking is included in eating, it is not** so that **eating is included in drinking,** and the oath not to drink went into effect independently of the oath not to eat. Therefore, he is liable to bring two offerings.


###### Shevuot 23a:11
[Shevuot 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:11)

אֲבָל אָמַר שְׁבוּעָה ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״, וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, מַאי – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת; לִיתְנֵי: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת – וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ לְחוֹדֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to this, if **he said:** On my **oath I will not eat and I will not drink, and he** then **ate and drank, what** is the *halakha*? Is it that **he is liable** to bring **only one** offering? **If that is so, rather than teaching** in **the first clause** of the mishna that one who said: On my **oath I will not eat, and** then **ate and drank, is liable** to bring **only one** offering, **let** the *tanna* **teach** the following: If one says: On my **oath I will not eat and I will not drink,** and he ate and drank, **he is liable** to bring **only one** offering. From that ruling it could be concluded that when one takes an oath: **I will not eat, alone, all the more so** is he liable to bring only one offering.


###### Shevuot 23a:12
[Shevuot 23a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:12)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי; וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ וַהֲדַר אָמַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״ – גַּלִּי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהָךְ אֲכִילָה דְּאָמַר, אֲכִילָה גְּרֵידְתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna **actually** is **as it is taught,** that one who took an oath not to eat and drink, and then ate and drank, is liable to bring two offerings, even though drinking is included in eating. **And here** it **is different. Since he said: I will not eat, and then said: I will not drink, he revealed his intention that the eating that he stated** first **is eating alone** and does not include drinking.


###### Shevuot 23a:13
[Shevuot 23a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:13)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל אֳוכָלִין שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לַאֲכִילָה, וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לִשְׁתִיָּה – פָּטוּר. הָא רְאוּיִן – חַיָּיב; וְאַמַּאי? הָא ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely** formulated in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that drinking is included in eating. It teaches: If he said: On my **oath I will not eat, and he ate foods that are inedible or drank liquids that are not potable,** he is **exempt. But** if those liquids were **fit** for consumption, he would be **liable. And why?** The mishna teaches that he took an oath **saying:** On my **oath I will not eat,** without mentioning drinking, which indicates that drinking is included in eating.


###### Shevuot 23a:14
[Shevuot 23a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:14)

דִּלְמָא דְּאָמַר תַּרְתֵּי: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps** the mishna is referring to a case **where he said both:** On my **oath I will not eat** and: On my **oath I will not drink.** The mishna did not spell out the second oath because its primary interest was in teaching that eating or drinking that which is inedible or not potable is not considered eating or drinking.


###### Shevuot 23a:15
[Shevuot 23a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:15)

שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל, וְאָכַל פַּת חִטִּין כּוּ׳. וְדִלְמָא לְמִיפְטַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ מֵאַחְרָנְיָיתָא קָאָתֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one said: On my **oath I will not eat, and** then he **ate wheat bread** and barley bread and spelt bread, he is liable to bring only one offering. If he said: On my oath I will not eat wheat bread or barley bread or spelt bread, and then he ate all of them, he is liable to bring an offering for each one. The Gemara challenges: **But perhaps** when he details each type of bread it **comes to** ensure that he **exempts himself from** having **other** foods included in the oath, not to indicate that each type of bread is a separate oath.


###### Shevuot 23a:16
[Shevuot 23a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:16)

הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין״. וְדִלְמָא לָכוֹס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: If that was his intention, then **he could have** just **said: Wheat, barley, and spelt,** without mentioning bread each time. From the fact that he mentioned bread each time, it can be understood that his intention was that each be considered a separate oath. The Gemara rejects this: **But** if he did not mention bread, **perhaps** his oath could be interpreted **to** prohibit **chewing [*lakhos*]** whole kernels of these grains, and he consequently mentioned bread to limit the oath to bread.


###### Shevuot 23a:17
[Shevuot 23a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:17)

דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״פַּת חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין״. וְדִלְמָא ״פַּת חִטִּין״ – לֶאֱכוֹל, ״שְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין״ – לָכוֹס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If his intention was to ensure that his oath does not extend to other foods, **he could have** just **said: Bread** made from **wheat, or barley, or spelt,** and in that way his oath would be limited to just bread. The Gemara rejects this: If he had said it that way, **perhaps** his oath could be interpreted to prohibit him from **eating wheat bread** and from **chewing** whole kernels of **barley or spelt.**


###### Shevuot 23a:18
[Shevuot 23a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/23a:18)

דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״פַּת חִטִּין וְשֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין וְשֶׁל כּוּסְּמִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If his intention was to ensure that his oath does not extend to other foods, **he could have** just **said: Bread** made from **wheat, and from barley, and from spelt,** thereby limiting his oath to types of bread.