## Shevuot Daf 24b

###### Shevuot 24b:1
[Shevuot 24b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:1)

(חשובי) [אַחְשׁוֹבֵי]; אֶלָּא הָכָא מִי אַחְשְׁבֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
in taking the oath, **he granted significance to** the non-kosher food, and that is why his eating forbidden items is considered to be eating. **But here,** where he took an oath not to eat and then ate non-kosher food, **did he** thereby **give significance to it?** For this reason, no conclusive proof can be cited from the last case in the mishna.


###### Shevuot 24b:2
[Shevuot 24b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan understands the mishna as referring to a case in which the oath takes effect because it is a more inclusive prohibition than the prohibition against eating non-kosher food, in that it adds additional prohibitions for the same individual. In this context, **Rava says: What is the reasoning of the one who holds** that a more **inclusive prohibition** takes effect where there already is a prohibition in place?


###### Shevuot 24b:3
[Shevuot 24b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:3)

מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַאִיסּוּר מוֹסִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava answers his own question: **It is just as it is** in the case **of an expanded prohibition,** which incorporates additional people into the list of those for whom the original item is forbidden. An expanded prohibition also takes effect despite the fact that there is already a prohibition in place.


###### Shevuot 24b:4
[Shevuot 24b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:4)

וּמַאן דְּפָטַר, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ? כִּי אָמַר אִיסּוּר מוֹסִיף – בַּחֲדָא חֲתִיכָה, בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **the one who exempts** another from liability in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, **as he does not hold** that it takes effect, why does he hold that an expanded prohibition does take effect? **When he says** that **an expanded prohibition** takes effect, that is **with regard to a single piece,** i.e., that the number of people who are prohibited from eating the same piece of meat is expanded. **With regard to two** distinct **pieces,** i.e., a case where the new prohibition expands the scope of prohibited items, as in an inclusive prohibition, **we do not say** that it takes effect.


###### Shevuot 24b:5
[Shevuot 24b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:5)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: לְמַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל, אָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל תְּאֵנִים״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים״ – מִיגּוֹ דְּחָיְילָא שְׁבוּעָה אַעֲנָבִים, חָיְילָא נָמֵי אַתְּאֵנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And Rava says: According to the one who holds** that a more **inclusive prohibition** takes effect where another prohibition is already in place, the *halakha* should be as follows: When a person **says:** On my **oath I will not eat figs, and then says:** On my **oath I will not eat figs and grapes, since** the last oath **takes effect with regard to the grapes, it also takes effect with regard to the figs,** even though they were already forbidden by his previous oath.


###### Shevuot 24b:6
[Shevuot 24b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:6)

פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious?**


###### Shevuot 24b:7
[Shevuot 24b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:7)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו אָמְרִינַן, אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵעַצְמוֹ לָא אָמְרִינַן; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **we say** that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect only with regard to **a prohibition that occurs on its own,** like the prohibition against eating non-kosher food, but with regard to **a prohibition that occurs by** the act of a person **himself we do not say** that the more inclusive prohibition takes effect, Rava **teaches us** that there is no difference.


###### Shevuot 24b:8
[Shevuot 24b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:8)

מֵתִיב רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה אַחַת, וְחַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע חַטָּאוֹת וְאָשָׁם אֶחָד; וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב, וְהוּא נוֹתָר, מִן הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava, son of Rabba, raises an objection** from a mishna (*Karetot* 13b): **It is** possible for a person to **perform one** act of **eating for which** he is **liable** to bring **four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering. And these are** the prohibitions one can violate in this manner: **A ritually impure** person **who ate** forbidden **fat that is the leftover from** one of **the sacrificial** animals **on Yom Kippur.** If he did this and was unaware of the relevant prohibitions he is liable to bring four sin-offerings, as well as a guilt-offering for deriving benefit from the misuse of consecrated property.


###### Shevuot 24b:9
[Shevuot 24b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:9)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף אִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְהוֹצִיאוֹ – חַיָּיב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵינוֹ מִן הַשֵּׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says: Also, if it was Shabbat and he transferred** the item from one domain to another in his mouth, he is **liable** to bring a sin-offering for performing labor on Shabbat as well. The Rabbis **said to him: This is not** a prohibition **of the** same **type,** since in the case of Rabbi Meir’s additional prohibition he does not violate it by eating.


###### Shevuot 24b:10
[Shevuot 24b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:10)

וְאִם אִיתָא, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ חָמֵשׁ – כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל תְּמָרִים וְחֵלֶב״, מִיגּוֹ דְּחָיְילָא שְׁבוּעָה אַתְּמָרִים, חָיְילָא נָמֵי אַחֵלֶב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava, son of Rabba, explains the objection that arises from the mishna: **And if it is so** that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect, then **you find** a case where one is liable for the violation of **five** prohibitions in one act of eating, **such as where** one **says** in the aforementioned situation: On my **oath I will not eat dates and** forbidden **fat. Since** the oath **takes effect with regard to the dates, it also takes effect with regard to the** forbidden **fat.** The fact that the mishna fails to mention such an oath indicates that a more inclusive prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition is already in place.


###### Shevuot 24b:11
[Shevuot 24b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:11)

כִּי קָתָנֵי, אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו; אִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵעַצְמוֹ לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The absence of an oath with a more inclusive prohibition in the mishna does not indicate anything. **When** the *tanna* **teaches** the scenario above, he lists only the potential **prohibitions that occur on their own** in one act of eating, but **he does not teach prohibitions that occur by** the act of the person **himself.**


###### Shevuot 24b:12
[Shevuot 24b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:12)

וַהֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t** the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from **consecrated** property, which does not occur on its own but only when an item is consecrated?


###### Shevuot 24b:13
[Shevuot 24b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:13)

בִּבְכוֹר, דִּקְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The case in the mishna is that of **a first-born** animal, **whose sanctity is from the womb,** i.e., begins automatically at birth.


###### Shevuot 24b:14
[Shevuot 24b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:14)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי קָתָנֵי, מִידֵּי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ שְׁאֵלָה; שְׁבוּעָה דְּאִית לֵיהּ שְׁאֵלָה לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead, in response to the question, that **when** the *tanna* of the mishna **teaches** it, he includes only **matters to which** presenting **a request** for dissolution **do not apply. An oath, to which a request** for dissolution **applies, is not taught.**


###### Shevuot 24b:15
[Shevuot 24b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:15)

הֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Doesn’t** the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from **consecrated** property? Consecration can be dissolved by a Sage.


###### Shevuot 24b:16
[Shevuot 24b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:16)

הָא אוֹקְמִינַן בִּבְכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Didn’t we** already **establish** that the case in the mishna is that of **a firstborn** animal, whose sanctity cannot be dissolved?


###### Shevuot 24b:17
[Shevuot 24b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:17)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי קָתָנֵי, קׇרְבָּן קָבוּעַ; קׇרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead that **when he teaches** that case, he lists only those prohibitions for which one is liable to bring **a fixed** sin-**offering.** If one breaks his oath he is liable to bring **a sliding-scale offering,** and the *tanna* of the mishna **does not teach** about the liability to bring other offerings.


###### Shevuot 24b:18
[Shevuot 24b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:18)

הֲרֵי טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – דְּקׇרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Doesn’t** the mishna list the transgression of **an impure** person **who ate consecrated** items, i.e., the sacrificial animals mentioned in the mishna, **which is** a prohibition for which one brings **a sliding-scale offering?**


###### Shevuot 24b:19
[Shevuot 24b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:19)

בְּנָשִׂיא, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא דְּאָמַר: נָשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring **to a king** who eats the leftover of a sacrificial animal while impure, **and** the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who says:** A ritually impure **king** who ate consecrated items **brings** a male **goat** as a sin-offering, rather than the sliding-scale offering brought by a commoner.


###### Shevuot 24b:20
[Shevuot 24b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:20)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כִּי קָתָנֵי, מִידֵּי דְּבָעֵי שִׁיעוּר; שְׁבוּעָה דְּחָיְילָא אַפָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר, לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** there is a different answer: **When** the *tanna* **teaches** this case, he lists only **matters that apply** when one eats the **measure** of an olive-bulk, whereas the case of **an oath, which applies to** eating even **less than** the standard **measure, is not taught** in the mishna.


###### Shevuot 24b:21
[Shevuot 24b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:21)

הֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Doesn’t** the mishna include in its list the prohibition against deriving benefit from the misuse of **consecrated** property, which applies to eating even less than an olive-bulk?


###### Shevuot 24b:22
[Shevuot 24b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:22)

הָא בָּעֵינַן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We require** that one derive the **value of one *peruta*** of benefit in order to be liable, so that is also a prohibition to which standard measures apply.


###### Shevuot 24b:23
[Shevuot 24b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:23)

וְרַב אָשֵׁי מֵאַוֵּירְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כִּי קָתָנֵי, זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת; זְדוֹנוֹ לָאו, לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Ashi of Avireya said** that **Rabbi Zeira** said: **When** the *tanna* **teaches** this case, he lists only prohibitions for which **intentional** violation **of** them renders one liable to receive ***karet*,** and **he does not teach prohibitions** for which **intentional** violation **of** them renders one liable to receive lashes.


###### Shevuot 24b:24
[Shevuot 24b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/24b:24)

וַהֲרֵי אָשָׁם, דִּזְדוֹנוֹ לָאו, וְקָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** the **guilt-offering** for the misuse of consecrated property, which is listed in the mishna, **a prohibition** for **which intentional** violation **of it** renders one liable to receive only lashes, not *karet*? **And** nevertheless the *tanna* of the mishna **teaches** it.