## Shevuot Daf 28a

###### Shevuot 28a:1
[Shevuot 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:1)

אֲפִילּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Even** if he had left **any amount** it would **also** be possible for him to dissolve the oath, as he had not yet broken his oath.


###### Shevuot 28a:2
[Shevuot 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:2)

אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ – מִיגּוֹ דְּמַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ שְׁאֵלָה אַכְּזַיִת בָּתְרָא, מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ שְׁאֵלָה נָמֵי אַכְּזַיִת קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi answers: **If you wish, say** that the *halakha* stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: **I will not eat** this loaf, and **if you wish, say** that it is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: **I will not eat it.** The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** that the *halakha* stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: **I will not eat** this loaf. **Since a request** for dissolution **is** still **effective** even **for the last olive-bulk** of the loaf, **it is effective also for the first olive-bulk.**


###### Shevuot 28a:3
[Shevuot 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:3)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכְלֶנָּה״ – אִי שַׁיַּיר כְּזַיִת, חֲשִׁיב לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ; וְאִי לָא, לָא חֲשִׁיב לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that the *halakha* stated by Rava is referring to a case where he took an oath, saying: **I will not eat it. If he left an olive-bulk,** that is a sufficiently **significant** quantity **for which to request** dissolution of the oath. **But if** he did **not** leave that much, it is **not** a sufficiently **significant** quantity **for which to request** dissolution of the oath.


###### Shevuot 28a:4
[Shevuot 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: מִי שֶׁנָּדַר שְׁתֵּי נְזִירוֹת, וּמָנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְהִפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ קׇרְבָּן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁאַל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה – עָלְתָה לוֹ שְׁנִיָּה בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava assumes that once one has eaten the entire loaf, it is no longer possible to dissolve the oath. The Gemara **raises an objection** to this from a *baraita*: With regard to **one who took two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first** term and **separated an offering for it, and afterward requested** and received dissolution **of the first** vow from a halakhic authority, **the second** term **was counted for him in** the observance of **the first** term and he is not required to be a nazirite further. Although the first term of naziriteship was entirely finished, a halakhic authority could still dissolve the vow.


###### Shevuot 28a:5
[Shevuot 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:5)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where he has not** yet **atoned,** i.e., he has not yet brought the offerings that one brings at the conclusion of naziriteship.


###### Shevuot 28a:6
[Shevuot 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:6)

וְהָתַנְיָא: כִּיפֵּר! בְּשֶׁלֹּא גִּלַּח – וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר תִּגְלַחַת מְעַכְּבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that one can still dissolve his vow of naziriteship after **he has atoned?** The Gemara answers: It is a case **where he** has brought the offerings but **has not** yet **shaved** his hair, **and** this is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Shaving is indispensable** to the completion of naziriteship.


###### Shevuot 28a:7
[Shevuot 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:7)

וְהָתַנְיָא: גִּלַּח! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: נְזִירוֹת קָא רָמֵית? מִי גָּרַם לַשְּׁנִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא תָּחוּל – רִאשׁוֹנָה; וְאֵינָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that one can still dissolve his vow of naziriteship after **he has shaved? Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing naziriteship** to oaths? **What caused the second** naziriteship **to not take effect** until now? It was **the first** naziriteship, **and** once it has been dissolved, **it is no** longer a factor. Since the observance of the naziriteship term is the same whether it is counted for the second or the first, the first term of naziriteship can be regarded as not yet having started and that is why it can be dissolved. By contrast, in the case of the oath, once he ate the loaf, his oath is no longer extant at all.


###### Shevuot 28a:8
[Shevuot 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:8)

אַמֵּימָר אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אֲכָלָהּ כּוּלָּהּ, נִשְׁאָל עָלֶיהָ; אִי בְּשׁוֹגֵג – מְחוּסָּר קׇרְבָּן, אִי בְּמֵזִיד – מְחוּסָּר מַלְקוֹת. אֲבָל כְּפָתוּהוּ עַל הָעַמּוּד – לָא; כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּפָתוּהוּ עַל הָעַמּוּד וְרָץ מִבֵּית דִּין – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar said,** in contrast to the opinion of Rava: **Even** if **he ate the entire** loaf **he may still request** dissolution of the oath. **If** he ate it **unwittingly,** i.e., he forgot the oath, it is a situation where he **has not yet** brought the **offering** he is liable to bring. **If** he ate it **intentionally,** it is a situation where he **has not yet** received **lashes. But if he was** already **tied to the stake** in order to receive lashes, he can **no** longer request that his oath be dissolved, **in accordance with** the opinion **of Shmuel. As Shmuel says:** If one **had** already **been tied to the stake** in order to receive lashes, **and** he **ran** away **from the court** and escaped, he is **exempt** from receiving lashes, as being tied to the stake is regarded as the beginning of receiving the lashes; once he has escaped, he is treated as though he were already flogged.


###### Shevuot 28a:9
[Shevuot 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:9)

וְלָא הִיא; הָתָם רָץ, הָכָא לָא רָץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **And** that **is not so.** Even if he was tied to the stake he can still have his oath dissolved. **There,** with regard to his exemption from receiving lashes after **he ran** away, the original flogging is over and there is no need to initiate a new one. **Here,** with regard to dissolving the oath, **he did not run,** and since he is still subject to lashes, he can still have his oath dissolved.


###### Shevuot 28a:10
[Shevuot 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/28a:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ אִם אוֹכַל זוֹ״, וְאָכַל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּשׁוֹגֵג וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּמֵזִיד – פָּטוּר. רִאשׁוֹנָה בְּמֵזִיד וּשְׁנִיָּה בְּשׁוֹגֵג – חַיָּיב. שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּשׁוֹגֵג – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says:** If one says: On my **oath I will not eat that loaf if I eat this one, and** then **he ate the first** one, i.e., the loaf whose consumption was the condition for the oath taking effect, **unwittingly, and** ate **the second intentionally,** he is **exempt.** Since he fulfilled the condition unintentionally, the oath does not take effect, as it was without full intent. But if he ate the **first intentionally,** knowing that if he eats it it will be prohibited for him to eat the other loaf, **and** he then ate the **second unwittingly,** he is **liable** to bring an offering for breaking his oath unwittingly. If he ate them **both unwittingly** he is **exempt,** as the oath does not take effect when he fulfills the condition unwittingly.