(28a:1)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.
(28a:2)אי בעית אימא שלא אוכל אי בעית אימא שלא אוכלנה איבעית אימא שלא אוכל מיגו דמהניא ליה שאלה אכזית בתרא מהניא ליה שאלה נמי אכזית קמא
(28a:2)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.
(28a:3)ואיבעית אימא שלא אוכלנה אי שייר כזית חשיב לאיתשולי עליה ואי לא לא חשיב לאיתשולי עליה
(28a:3)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.
(28a:4)מיתיבי מי שנדר שתי נזירות ומנה ראשונה והפריש עליה קרבן ואח"כ נשאל על הראשונה עלתה לו שניה בראשונה
(28a:4)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.
(28a:5)הכא במאי עסקינן בשלא כיפר
(28a:5)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.
(28a:6)והתניא כיפר בשלא גלח ור"א היא דאמר תגלחת מעכבא
(28a:6)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.
(28a:7)והתניא גלח אמר רב אשי נזירות קא רמית מי גרם לשניה שלא תחול ראשונה ואינה
(28a:7)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.
(28a:8)אמימר אמר אפילו אכלה כולה נשאל עליה אי בשוגג מחוסר קרבן אי במזיד מחוסר מלקות אבל כפתוהו על העמוד לא כדשמואל דאמר שמואל כפתוהו על העמוד ורץ מב"ד פטור
(28a:8)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.
(28a:9)ולא היא התם רץ הכא לא רץ
(28a:9)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.
(28a:10)אמר רבא שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו אם אוכל זו ואכל את הראשונה בשוגג והשניה במזיד פטור ראשונה במזיד ושניה בשוגג חייב שתיהן בשוגג פטור
(28a:10)§ 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.
(28b:1)שתיהן במזיד אכליה לתנאיה והדר אכליה לאיסוריה מיחייב אכליה לאיסוריה והדר אכליה לתנאיה פלוגתא דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש למ"ד התראת ספק שמה התראה חייב למ"ד לאו שמה התראה פטור
(28b:1)In a case where he ate both of them intentionally, if he ate the loaf whose consumption was his condition and then ate the forbidden loaf, he is liable to receive lashes. If he ate the forbidden loaf and then ate the loaf whose consumption was his condition, his liability is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. According to the one who says that an uncertain forewarning is deemed a valid forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes. According to the one who says that an uncertain forewarning is not deemed a valid forewarning, he is exempt. Since when he was forewarned for eating the forbidden loaf it was uncertain whether it would actually become forbidden, that forewarning is not sufficient for him to be liable to receive lashes.
(28b:2)תלאן זו בזו לא אוכל זו אם אוכל זו לא אוכל זו אם אוכל זו ואכל זו בזדון עצמה ובשגגת חבירתה וזו בזדון עצמה ובשגגת חבירתה פטור
(28b:2)If one took an oath with regard to two loaves such that he rendered them interdependent, this one on that one, saying: I will not eat that if I eat this, and: I will not eat this if I eat that, and he ate this one intentionally with regard to itself, i.e., at the time he ate it he was aware that he had taken an oath that would render it forbidden if he ate the other, but unwittingly with regard to the other, i.e., he did not remember that in eating it he rendered the second one forbidden, and then he ate that one intentionally with regard to itself but unwittingly with regard to the other, he is exempt, as both conditions were fulfilled only unintentionally.
(28b:3)זו בשגגת עצמה ובזדון חבירתה וזו בשגגת עצמה ובזדון חבירתה חייב
(28b:3)If he ate this one unwittingly with regard to itself, having forgotten that it would be forbidden if he ate the other, but intentionally with regard to the other, understanding that with his action he rendered the other forbidden, and that one unwittingly with regard to itself but intentionally with regard to the other, he is liable to bring offerings for unwittingly breaking his oaths, as the conditions were fulfilled intentionally and the oaths took effect.
(28b:4)שתיהן בשוגג פטור
(28b:4)If he ate both of them unwittingly he is exempt, as both conditions were fulfilled only unintentionally.
(28b:5)שתיהן במזיד אשניה מיחייב אראשונה פלוגתא דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש
(28b:5)If he ate both of them intentionally, he is liable to receive lashes for eating the second loaf, while for the first loaf his status depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish with regard to an uncertain forewarning.
(28b:6)אמר רב מרי אף אנן נמי תנינא (ארבעה נדרים התירו חכמים נדרי זרוזין נדרי הבאי נדרי שגגות נדרי אונסין)
(28b:6)Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna (Nedarim 20b) as well that if one takes an oath with a condition but then fulfills the condition only unwittingly, he is exempt: The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority: Vows of exhortation, vows of exaggeration, unwitting vows, and vows whose fulfillment is impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control.
(28b:7)נדרי שגגות כיצד קונם אם אכלתי ואם שתיתי ונזכר שאכל ושתה שאיני אוכל שאיני שותה שכח ואכל ושתה מותר ותני עלה כשם שנדרי שגגות מותרין כך שבועות שגגות מותרות
(28b:7)The mishna elaborates (see Nedarim 25b): Unwitting vows, how so? If one says: A certain item is forbidden to me like an offering [konam] if I ate or if I drank, and he then remembers that he ate or drank, or if one says: This loaf is konam for me if I will eat or if I will drink, and he then forgets and eats or drinks, the item is permitted. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to that mishna: Just as unwitting vows are dissolved, so are unwitting oaths dissolved, since he fulfilled the condition while lacking awareness that he was doing so.
(28b:8)(שבועות שגגות ה"ד לאו כי האי גוונא שמע מינה)
(28b:8)The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unwitting oaths? Is it not a case like this, where he takes an oath with a condition and then fulfills the condition of the oath unwittingly? Conclude from that mishna that there is support for Rava’s opinion.
(28b:9)עיפא תני שבועות בי רבה פגע ביה אבימי אחוה אמר ליה שבועה שלא אכלתי שבועה שלא אכלתי מהו אמר ליה אינו חייב אלא אחת א"ל אישתבשת הרי יצאה שבועה לשקר
(28b:9)§ It is related that the Sage Eifa learned tractate Shevuot in the academy of Rabba. His brother Avimi met him and tested him concerning the halakhot of oaths. Avimi said to him: If one says: On my oath I did not eat, and then again: On my oath I did not eat, what is the halakha? Eifa said to him: He is liable only once if he ate. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue. Since the oaths are about the past, it is not a question of whether the second oath takes effect. Each time, a false oath was issued, and each was a separate transgression.
(28b:10)שבועה שלא אוכל תשע ועשר מהו חייב על כל אחת ואחת אמר ליה אישתבשת אי תשע לא אכיל עשר לא אכיל
(28b:10)Avimi asked him further: If one said: On my oath I will not eat nine pieces and on my oath I will not eat ten, what is the halakha? Eifa replied: He is liable for each and every one of the oaths, as the scope of the second oath is broader than that of the first. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue: If he may not eat nine, he may not eat ten. The oath not to eat ten cannot take effect, since it is an action already prohibited by the oath not to eat nine.
(28b:11)שבועה שלא אוכל עשר ותשע מהו אינו חייב אלא אחת אמר ליה אישתבשת עשר הוא דלא אכיל הא תשע מיהא אכיל
(28b:11)Avimi asked him further: If one said: On my oath I will not eat ten and on my oath I will not eat nine, what is the halakha? Eifa replied: He is liable for only one oath. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue. According to the first oath, it is ten that he may not eat, but he may still eat nine, so the second oath takes effect, in that it prohibits him from eating nine.
(28b:12)אמר אביי זימנין דמשכחת לה להא דעיפא כדמר דאמר רבה שבועה שלא אוכל תאנים וענבים וחזר ואמר שבועה שלא אוכל תאנים
(28b:12)Abaye said: There are times when you find that the ruling of Eifa with regard to an oath not to eat ten followed by an oath not to eat nine applies, as in the case mentioned by the Master. As Rabba says: In the case of one who says: On my oath I will not eat figs and grapes together, and then says: On my oath I will not eat figs,
