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 24
1) EATING OBJECTS UNFIT FOR FOOD
(a) According to Reish Lakish, we understand why R. Shimon
exempts (one who swore 'I will not eat' and ate
Neveilos...) - because he holds that one is lashed for
eating any amount of forbidden food, the oath does not
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): One is lashed for eating any
amount of forbidden food; the quantity of an olive's
worth only pertains to bringing a sacrifice.
(b) Question: According to R. Yochanan, why does R. Shimon
exempt? (The oath should take effect, it is Kolel
permitted and forbidden food!)
(c) Answer: R. Shimon argues on the principal of Kolel.
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): One who eats a Neveilah on
Yom Kipur is not liable for eating on Yom Kipur. (If
the animal died before Yom Kipur, the prohibition of
eating on Yom Kipur, even though it includes all
permitted food, does not apply to forbidden food.
Rashi - even if it died on Yom Kipur, since it was
forbidden to eat before Yom Kipur (the meat was
flesh of a living animal), the prohibition of Yom
Kipur does not take effect; Tosfos - it was
forbidden because it was not slaughtered; Riztva -
if it died on Yom Kipur, the prohibition of flesh of
a living animal went away, the prohibitions of Yom
Kipur and Neveilah both take effect).
(d) According to Reish Lakish, we understand why he brings a
sacrifice for this oath - the oath takes effect in the
positive (I will eat less than an olive's worth of
Neveilos, Reish Lakish holds that the Torah permits this)
and the negative.
(e) Question: According to R. Yochanan, the oath takes effect
in the negative (I will not eat Neveilos or slaughtered
animals), but not in the positive (an oath from Sinai
already forbids him to eat Neveilos)!
(f) Version #1 - Answer: The oath takes effect in the
positive regarding a rotting Neveilah (it is unfitting to
eat, the Torah permits it)
1. We infer from Rava that when one specifies, eating
unfitting food is considered eating.
(g) Version #2 - Rashi - Answer #2 (to Question 3:c, 23B):
(In both clauses, he said 'I will not eat';) in the first
clause, he is exempt as Rava taught;
2. Question (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat dirt',
how much dirt must he eat to be liable?
1. (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate
dirt, he is exempt;
(h) Support (Rav Mari - Mishnah): If one swore 'Konam, I may
not benefit from my wife if I ate today' and he ate
Neveilos... she is forbidden.
2. In the second clause, he is liable, because
Neveilos, Treifos...are considered fitting to eat
(they are just forbidden).
(i) Rejection: That is no proof - there is different, since
he ate before swearing, when he swore he considered his
act to be 'eating';
2) "ISUR KOLEL"
1. Here, when he swears before eating, we have no
source that he considers this eating!
(a) (Rava): (The general rule is that a second prohibition
does not take effect on something already forbidden.) The
opinion that a second prohibition takes effect when it is
Kolel (it also forbids things that were previously
permitted) learns from a prohibition that is Mosif (it
forbids the forbidden object to more people or in more
ways), which takes effect;
3) MULTIPLE TRANSGRESSIONS FOR ONE EATING
1. The opinion that a Kolel prohibition does not take
effect on a previous prohibition, even though a
Mosif prohibition takes effect, distinguishes as
follows: regarding Mosif, since it puts new
prohibitions on the forbidden object, it also takes
effect regarding the old prohibition;
(b) (Rava): According to the opinion that a Kolel prohibition
takes effect on a forbidden object, if one swore 'I will
not eat figs', and later swore 'I will not eat figs or
grapes', since the latter oath takes effect regarding
grapes, it also takes effect regarding figs.
i. Regarding Kolel, the fact that new things
become forbidden is no reason to put an
addition prohibition on something already
(c) Objection: This is obvious!
(d) Answer: One might have thought, only Kolel prohibitions
of the Torah take effect on forbidden things, not a
prohibition (such as an oath) which a person made by
himself - Rava teaches, this is not so.
(a) Question (Rava brei d'Rabah - Mishnah): One can be liable
four Chatas offerings and an Asham for eating (slightly
more than) an olive's worth: a Tamei person who ate
Chelev that was Nosar from Kodshim, on Yom Kipur;
1. R. Meir says, if it was also Shabbos and he took the
food from a private domain and swallowed it in a
public domain, he is also liable for transferring
(b) Answer #1: The Tana only lists prohibitions the Torah
imposed, not prohibitions he put on himself.
2. Chachamim: That liability is not for eating.
3. Summation of question: According to Rava, Chachamim
can find a fifth Chatas: if he had sworn 'I will not
eat figs or Chelev' - since the oath applies to
figs, it also applies to Chelev!
1. Question: But one Chatas is for eating Kodshim while
Tamei - he made it Kodshim!
(c) Answer #2: The Tana only lists prohibitions which cannot
be annulled (but a person can annul an oath).
2. Answer: No, the case is, it was a firstborn, the
Torah made it Kodesh when it was born.
1. Question: But one can annul the act of making an
(d) Answer #3: The Tana only lists liability for unvarying
offerings, the sacrifice for transgressing Shevu'as Bituy
is Oleh v'Yored.
2. Answer: We already established the case to be a
1. Question: But the Chatas for a Tamei person who ate
Kodshim is an Oleh v'Yored!
(e) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): The Tana only lists liability that
depends on eating a certain quantity;
2. Answer: The Mishnah speaks of a Nasi; it is like R.
Eliezer, who says that a Nasi brings a goat for
Tum'ah of the Mikdash or Kodshim
1. One can be liable for an oath for eating any amount
(if he specifies).
(f) Answer #5 (Rav Ashi of Avirya): The Tana only lists
liability for transgressions of Kares (had he sinned
intentionally), transgressing an oath is only a Lav.
2. Question: One can be liable for eating Hekdesh, even
less than an olive's worth!
3. Answer: That also has a minimal quantity, it must be
worth a Perutah.
1. Question: The Asham is for benefit from Kodshim,
which is only a Lav!
2. Answer: The Tana only lists liability for Chatas
offerings for transgressions of Kares.