This Week's Article

Multiple Shevuot

Shevuot (3:7) | Yisrael Bankier | 31 minutes ago

The Mishnah (3:7) discusses a case where one made a shevuah that he would not eat a loaf a bread, then followed that shevuah with two consecutive shevuot not to eat from the loaf. The Mishnah teaches that if he then ate it, he would only be liable one korban for the violation. The Bartenura explains that this is because once a shevuah is in place another shevuah cannot apply on top of it. The Bartenura however explains that if he first made a shevuah not to eat the entire loaf then followed it with a shevuah not to eat from it, he would be liable for both. The reason is that since the first shevuah only forbade consuming the entire loaf and the second shevuah forbade eating a kezayit's worth, there was room for the second sheuvah to take effect. We shall try to understand this principle.

The Yerushalmi in Nedarim (2:3) records the following discussion (as explained by R' Chaim Kaneivsky). Avimi told Cheifa his brother that he had thoroughly studied both nedarim and shevuat. Chiefa tested him with the following cases. The first is if one had five loaves in front of him. If he first made a shevuah that he would not eat one, then followed it with a shevuah that he would not eat two (together), then three, then four, then five and then eat all five, how many times would be liable for eating the first? Avimi answered it would be five times. Cheifa however responded that after the first neder, the first loaf already become assur, consequently, he would only be liable once.

The next question was the opposite of the first. The individual first made a shevuah not to eat all five, then not to eat four, then three, then two and finally a shevuah not to eat one. If the person then at all five, how many times would he be liable? Avimi responded he would only be liable to one korban. Cheifa however reasons that after the first shevuah, if he only ate four of them, then he would be exempt. Consequently, there is room for the shevuah of four to take hold. Therefore, if he ate all five he would liable five times.

Rav Chaim explains that Avimi and Cheifa argue about the reason why a shevuah does not apply onto of another one. He explains that according to Cheifa this is based on the broader principle of ein issur chal al issur. In other words, in general, once an object is already assur a further issur cannot apply to it. In the first case, where the shevuot increased in scope, the first loaf can only become assur once and therefore he would only be liable once.^1^ []{dir="rtl"}In the second case, as explained above, is because since the first shevuah did not prohibited what the later shevuah was trying to achieve, all five shevuot work. This appears to be consistent with the Bartenura's understanding above.

Avimi however understands that the reason why a shevuah does not apply top of another shevua is because it is mushba ve'omed -- a shevua is already in place. In the first case, when he makes the second shevuah regarding two loaves, even though the first loaf is already assur, since the second loaf was permitted, the second shevuah is a new shevuah and not mushba ve'omed. Consequently, five shevuot would apply to that first loaf. In the second case, if he eats all five loaves, the second shevuah against eating four did not add anything -- the person was already mushba ve'omed -- consequently he would only be liable for one violation.

Interestingly the Yerushalmi concludes with R' Yossi who maintains that the halacha is like Avimi in the last case, but like Cheifa in the first. R' Chaim explains that this is because in principle he agrees with Cheifa that the reason is because ein issur chal al issur. In the last case however, he understands that when the person first made a shevua against eating five, it is not understood as being against eating all five, but any of the five. Consequently, after the first shevua, all the loaves are assur and ein issur chal al issur.

^1^ One might ask that since the second shevuah encompassed more than the first, it should be considered an issur kollel and take hold. Rav Chaim explains that this case would not be considered an issur kollel. An issur kollel is if, for example, where one said he was not going to eat meat. It is a broad general issur that encompasses even non-kosher meat and would apply also to it. If however, he specified kosher and non-kosher meat, then it would not be considered an issur kolel a not apply to the non-kosher meat. The same is true in this case and the number is similar specifying.

Download

Calendar