Shevuos 24a

שבועות כ״ד ע״א

Shevuot 24a

Learn Shevuos 24a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 24a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

How ריש לקיש and רבי יוחנן explain the dispute between the רבנן and רבי שמעון about an oath not to eat followed by eating נבילות, and how forbidden food can count as 'eating' for an oath.

Overview

The משנה taught that if a person swore 'I will not eat' and then ate נבילות, the רבנן say he is liable and רבי שמעון exempts him. ריש לקיש explains that the oath was about less than a כזית. רבי יוחנן explains that the oath covered permitted food too, so it is an איסור כולל. The amud opens with ריש לקיש's point that איסור כולל only works for prohibitions that come on their own, not for an oath a person takes on himself. The גמרא then shows how each one explains רבי שמעון. For ריש לקיש, רבי שמעון holds that even a tiny amount is already forbidden by the Torah. For רבי יוחנן, רבי שמעון rejects איסור כולל, as seen from his ruling about eating נבילה on יום הכפורים. Next the גמרא challenges רבי יוחנן with the rule of לאו והן: how could his oath exist in the positive form? It answers, following רבא, that the oath was a general 'I will not eat', and real food, even forbidden food, counts as eating, while dirt does not. רב מרי brings support from a משנה about a קונם vow. The גמרא begins to reject that proof, and the argument continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (8)

1. Responseריש לקיש limits the inclusive-prohibition rule
2. ChallengeWhat is רבי שמעון's reason according to רבי יוחנן?
3. Resolutionרבי שמעון rejects inclusive prohibition
4. ProofProof: eating נבילה on יום הכפורים
5. ChallengeHow can רבי יוחנן's oath work in the positive?
6. ResolutionThe oath was a general 'I will not eat,' like רבא's case of dirt
7. Proofרב מרי brings support that eating forbidden food counts as eating
8. RejectionThe גמרא starts to push away רב מרי's proof