POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 22
1) "MALKUS" FOR SPEAKING
(a) (Mishnah): R. Akiva: We never find that someone brings a
sacrifice for speaking!
2) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "KONAMOS" AND "SHEVU'OS"
(b) Question: But R. Akiva himself holds that one who curses
Hash-m brings a sacrifice!
(c) Answer: He means, we never find someone who creates a
prohibition (that entails a sacrifice) through speech;
1. There, the sacrifice is on account of his sin.
(d) Question: The prohibitions of Nezirus come through
speech, and they entail a sacrifice!
(e) Answer: There, the sacrifice is not for transgressing the
prohibitions, rather to (end the Nezirus and) permit him
to drink wine.
(f) Question: One creates Hekdesh through speech, and it
entails a sacrifice!
(g) Answer: R. Akiva refers to prohibitions one creates on
1. Hekdesh is forbidden to everyone.
(h) Question: Konamos is a prohibition on himself!
(i) Answer: He holds that Me'ilah (and therefore sacrifices)
do not apply to Konamos.
(j) (Rava): R. Akiva and Chachamim argue when he does not
specify, but if he specifies 'I will not eat any amount',
(all agree that) he is liable for any amount.
1. By specifying, he gives importance to any amount,
just like a creation.
(k) (Rava): R. Akiva and Chachamim argue when he swears 'I
will not eat';
1. But if he swore 'I will not taste', he is liable for
2. Objection: This is obvious!
3. Answer: One might have thought, 'tasting' refers to
eating (i.e. an olive's worth), as people commonly
say - Rava teaches, this is not so
(a) (Rav Papa): R. Akiva and Chachamim only argue regarding
Shevu'os, but all agree that regarding Konamos, one is
liable for any amount.
(b) Question: Why is this
(c) Answer: Konamos is also like specifying any amount, since
he does not mention eating.
(d) Question (Beraisa): (If one eats less than a Shi'ur from
each of) two Konamos, the amounts join up (to the
quantity for liability); two Shevu'os do not join up;
1. R. Meir says, Konamos have the same law as Shevu'os.
(e) Answer #1: The case is, he mentioned 'eating' in each
Konam (therefore, he is only liable for an olive's
2. If one is liable for any amount regarding Konamos,
there is no need to join up!
(f) Objection: If so, why do they join up? He did not *eat*
(i.e. an olive's worth) from either!
(g) Answer #2: The case is, he said 'Eating from both of
these is (forbidden) upon me like Konam (i.e. a
1. Question: If so, in the corresponding case of
Shevu'os he said 'I swear that I will not eat from
both of them' - why don't they join up?
(h) Answer #3 (Ravina): Rav Papa's law is only regarding
lashes, the Beraisa only speaks regarding a sacrifice.
2. Answer (Rav Pinchus): Because oaths are separate
regarding Chatas offerings (one brings a sacrifice
for each oath violated, even if he did not remember
in between), they do not join.
3. Question: Why does R. Meir say that Konamos have the
same law as Shevu'os?
i. Rav Pinchus' law would explain why Shevu'os do
not join, but why don't Konamos join (even
according to the opinion that there is Me'ilah
regarding Konamos, they are not separate
regarding Asham offerings)?
4. Correction: Rather, R. Meir says that Shevu'os have
the same law as Konamos (they join up), he does not
agree with Rav Pinchus.
(i) Question: This implies that Chachamim hold that (the
sacrifice for) Me'ilah applies to Konamos, in opposition
to a Beraisa!
1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven said 'This loaf is
Hekdesh', if he or anyone else eats it, they
transgress Me'ilah; therefore, it can be redeemed;
i. If he said 'This loaf is Hekdesh upon me', only
he transgresses Me'ilah if he eats it;
therefore, it cannot be redeemed;
3) DOES 'EATING' INCLUDE DRINKING?
(j) Answer: The opinions must be switched:
ii. Chachamim say, there is no Me'ilah for benefit
from Konamos, no matter who eats it.
1. R. Meir says, there is no Me'ilah for benefit from
Konamos, no matter who eats it.
(k) Question: Why does R. Meir say that Konamos do not join -
this implies that Me'ilah applies to them!
2. Chachamim say, only he transgresses Me'ilah if he
(l) Answer: He speaks according to Chachamim.
1. According to me, Me'ilah does not apply to Konamos;
(m) (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate dirt, he
2. According to you; it applies - but you should admit
that Konamos are like Shevu'os (they do not join).
3. Chachamim argue: Shevu'os do not join, for Rav
Pinchus' reason, but Konamos join.
(n) Question (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat dirt', how
much is he liable for? (According to Chachamim, but
surely R. Akiva obligates for any amount; the same is
true for the following two questions.)
1. Since he said 'eat', he refers to (the quantity of
eating,) an olive's worth;
(o) Question (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat Chartzan
(grape skins or pits), how much is he liable for?
2. Or - since it is not normally eaten, he means any
3. This question is not resolved.
1. Since they are eaten along with the grape, he refers
to the quantity of eating, an olive's worth;
(p) Question (Rav Ashi): If a Nazir swore 'I will not eat
Chartzan', how much is he liable for?
2. Or - since they are not normally eaten by
themselves, he means any amount?
3. This question is not resolved.
1. Since a Nazir if forbidden (and liable) for an
olive's worth, he refers to something he was
permitted, i.e. less than an olive's worth;
(q) Answer #1 (Mishnah): If one swore 'I will not eat', and
he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, he is
2. Or - since he said 'eat', he refers to an olive's
1. R. Shimon exempts him.
(r) Suggestion: We can resolve Rava's question ('I will not
eat dirt', how much is he liable for?)!
2. Question: Why do Chachamim obligate him? The oath
(we accepted on Sinai) already obligates him not to
eat them (so his oath does not takes effect)!
3. Answer #1 (Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan): Because his
oath takes effect on permitted food, it also takes
effect on forbidden food.
4. Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Torah only forbids him
from eating an olive's worth of these things, his
oath forbids him from eating any amount;
i. We find this according to Chachamim if he
specified (any amount), or according to R.
Akiva even without specifying.
5. Culmination of answer: A Nazir eating Chartzan is
like a regular person eating Neveilos - and
Chachamim say that it applies to any amount only if
1. Just as the quantity of Neveilos (without
specifying) is an olive's worth, also for dirt!
(s) Rejection: No - Rava is unsure about dirt, because it is
unfit to eat;
1. Neveilos are fit to eat, they are just forbidden.
(a) (Mishnah): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate and
drank, he is only liable once (lashes if warned, a
sacrifice if he forgot);
1. If he swore 'I will not eat and I will not drink'
and he ate and drank, he is liable twice.
(b) If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate wheat bread,
barley bread and spelt bread, he is only liable once.
1. If he swore 'I will not eat wheat bread, barley
bread or spelt bread', and he ate all three, he is
liable for each.
(c) If he swore 'I will not drink' and he drank many
beverages, he is only liable once;
1. If he swore 'I will not drink wine, oil or honey'
and he drank all three, he is liable for each.
(d) If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate things unfit to
eat or drank liquids unfit to drink, he is exempt.
(e) If he swore 'I will not eat', and he ate Neveilos,
Treifos, rodents or insects, he is liable;
(f) R. Shimon exempts him.
(g) If one swore 'Konam, I may not benefit from my wife if I
ate today' and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or
insects, she is forbidden to him.
(h) (Gemara - R. Chiya bar Avin): If one swore 'I will not
eat' and he drank, he is liable.
(i) We can learn this from a verse or from reasoning.
1. We can learn from reasoning: a person says 'Let us
taste something', and they eat *and drink*;