Shevuos Daf 22 חג השבועות דַף 22

In the Mishnah, Rebbe Akiva and the Rabbonon argued if one who swore not to eat is only liable for eating a כזית. Three limitations are made about this machlokes. (1) Rava says they only argue בסתם – about a non-specific [shevuah] (i.e., where he simply swore not to eat), but במפרש – regarding one who specifies in his shevuah not to eat even a minimal amount, all agree he is liable for eating a כל שהוא, because מפרש נמי כבריה דמי – one who specifies a minimal amount is akin to eating a whole creature, which is liable for a כל שהוא, because his specification gives it significance. (2) Rava also says that all agree that one who swears "שלא אטעום" – that I will not taste is liable even for a כל שהוא. (3) Rav Pappa says that the machlokes only applies to shevuos, but regarding קונמות (i.e., nedarim), all agree he is liable for eating a כל שהוא, because he does not mention the word “eating” in his neder (and instead prohibits the item).

Rava says that if one swears not to eat, and then eats עפר – dirt, he is exempt from liability, because dirt is not edible. Rava asked, if one explicitly swore “I will not eat dirt,” how much dirt must he consume to be liable? Since he swore not to “eat,” is a כזית required (the normal shiur for eating), or do we say כיון דלאו מידי דאכלי אינשי הוא – since it is not something which people eat, the shevuah prohibits even a כל שהוא? The question is left unresolved. Rava asked further, assuming that the above shevuah prohibits even a כל שהוא, what if one swore not to eat חרצן – grapeseed? Since it is eaten as part of a “mixture” (i.e., as part of a grape), is it considered normal food and requires a כזית for liability, or since it is not eaten alone, he intended to prohibit even a כל שהוא? This too is left unresolved. Finally, Rav Ashi asked, assuming the above case requires a כזית, what if a nazir swore not to eat חרצן? Since a כזית of חרצן is already prohibited to him, do we assume he meant to forbid even a כל שהוא, or do we say he meant standard eating, i.e., a כזית (and his shevuah is ineffective, being redundant)? The Gemara proves that his intent is for a כזית.

Shmuel said that if one swears שלא אוכל – “that I will not eat,” and then drank, he is liable. Shmuel said this can be demonstrated either from logic or from a passuk. איבעית אימא סברא – If you want, say it is logical, because a person tells his friend, נטעום מידי – “Let us taste (i.e., eat) something, and they go and eat and drink, indicating that drinking was included in his statement. ואיבעית אימא קרא – And if you want, say it is a passuk which proves that שתיה בכלל אכילה – drinking is included in eating. Reish Lakish quoted a passuk saying "ואכלת" – and you shall “eat” in Yerushalayim the maaser (sheni) of "דגנך ותירושך" – your grain and your “tirosh,” meaning wine, proving that drinking is included in the term “eating.” This proof is rejected, because it may refer to consuming wine as an ingredient in a food dish, such as "אניגרון". The Gemara will ultimately bring a gezeirah shavah (שכר שכר) teaching that one may purchase an intoxicating drink with maaser sheni money, proving that drinking is included in “eating.”