שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּמֵזִיד; אַכְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ וַהֲדַר אַכְלֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ – מִיחַיַּיב, אַכְלֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ וַהֲדַר אַכְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה – חַיָּיב, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָאו שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה – פָּטוּר.

In a case where he ate both of them intentionally, if he ate the loaf whose consumption was his condition and then ate the forbidden loaf, he is liable to receive lashes. If he ate the forbidden loaf and then ate the loaf whose consumption was his condition, his liability is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. According to the one who says that an uncertain forewarning is deemed a valid forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes. According to the one who says that an uncertain forewarning is not deemed a valid forewarning, he is exempt. Since when he was forewarned for eating the forbidden loaf it was uncertain whether it would actually become forbidden, that forewarning is not sufficient for him to be liable to receive lashes.

תְּלָאָן זוֹ בְּזוֹ, ״לֹא אוֹכַל זוֹ אִם אוֹכַל זוֹ, לֹא אוֹכַל זוֹ אִם אוֹכַל זוֹ״, וְאָכַל זוֹ בִּזְדוֹן עַצְמָהּ וּבְשִׁגְגַת חֲבֵירְתָּהּ, וְזוֹ בִּזְדוֹן עַצְמָהּ וּבְשִׁגְגַת חֲבֵירְתָּהּ – פָּטוּר;

If one took an oath with regard to two loaves such that he rendered them interdependent, this one on that one, saying: I will not eat that if I eat this, and: I will not eat this if I eat that, and he ate this one intentionally with regard to itself, i.e., at the time he ate it he was aware that he had taken an oath that would render it forbidden if he ate the other, but unwittingly with regard to the other, i.e., he did not remember that in eating it he rendered the second one forbidden, and then he ate that one intentionally with regard to itself but unwittingly with regard to the other, he is exempt, as both conditions were fulfilled only unintentionally.

זוֹ בְּשִׁגְגַת עַצְמָהּ וּבִזְדוֹן חֲבֵירְתָּהּ, וְזוֹ בְּשִׁגְגַת עַצְמָהּ וּבִזְדוֹן חֲבֵירְתָּהּ – חַיָּיב;

If he ate this one unwittingly with regard to itself, having forgotten that it would be forbidden if he ate the other, but intentionally with regard to the other, understanding that with his action he rendered the other forbidden, and that one unwittingly with regard to itself but intentionally with regard to the other, he is liable to bring offerings for unwittingly breaking his oaths, as the conditions were fulfilled intentionally and the oaths took effect.

שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּשׁוֹגֵג – פָּטוּר;

If he ate both of them unwittingly he is exempt, as both conditions were fulfilled only unintentionally.

שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּמֵזִיד – אַשְּׁנִיָּה מִיחַיַּיב, אַרִאשׁוֹנָה – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.

If he ate both of them intentionally, he is liable to receive lashes for eating the second loaf, while for the first loaf his status depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish with regard to an uncertain forewarning.

אֲמַר רַב מָרִי, אַף אֲנַן נַמִי תָּנֵינָא: אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים. נִדְרֵי זֵרוּזִין, נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי, נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת, נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין.

Rav Mari said: We learn in the mishna ( Nedarim 20b) as well that if one takes an oath with a condition but then fulfills the condition only unwittingly, he is exempt: The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority: Vows of exhortation, vows of exaggeration, unwitting vows, and vows whose fulfillment is impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control.

נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת כֵּיצַד? ״קוֹנָם אִם אָכַלְתִּי וְאִם שָׁתִיתִי״ וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, ״שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכֵל שֶׁאֵינִי שׁוֹתֶה״, שָׁכַח וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה – מוּתָּר; וְתָנֵי עֲלָהּ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת מוּתָּרִין, כָּךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁגָגוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת.

The mishna elaborates (see Nedarim 25b): Unwitting vows, how so? If one says: A certain item is forbidden to me like an offering [ konam ] if I ate or if I drank, and he then remembers that he ate or drank, or if one says: This loaf is konam for me if I will eat or if I will drink, and he then forgets and eats or drinks, the item is permitted. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to that mishna: Just as unwitting vows are dissolved, so are unwitting oaths dissolved, since he fulfilled the condition while lacking awareness that he was doing so.

שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁגָגוֹת הֵיכִי דָּמֵי, לָאו כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא? שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unwitting oaths? Is it not a case like this, where he takes an oath with a condition and then fulfills the condition of the oath unwittingly? Conclude from that mishna that there is support for Rava’s opinion.

עֵיפָא תָּנֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת בֵּי רַבָּה, פְּגַע בֵּיהּ אֲבִימִי אֲחוּהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי״, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִישְׁתַּבַּשְׁתְּ, הֲרֵי יָצְאָה שְׁבוּעָה לַשֶּׁקֶר.

§ It is related that the Sage Eifa learned tractate Shevuot in the academy of Rabba. His brother Avimi met him and tested him concerning the halakhot of oaths. Avimi said to him: If one says: On my oath I did not eat, and then again: On my oath I did not eat, what is the halakha ? Eifa said to him: He is liable only once if he ate. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue. Since the oaths are about the past, it is not a question of whether the second oath takes effect. Each time, a false oath was issued, and each was a separate transgression.

״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל תֵּשַׁע, וְעֶשֶׂר״, מַהוּ? חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִישְׁתַּבַּשְׁתְּ, אִי תֵּשַׁע לָא אָכֵיל, עֶשֶׂר לָא אָכֵיל.

Avimi asked him further: If one said: On my oath I will not eat nine pieces and on my oath I will not eat ten, what is the halakha ? Eifa replied: He is liable for each and every one of the oaths, as the scope of the second oath is broader than that of the first. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue: If he may not eat nine, he may not eat ten. The oath not to eat ten cannot take effect, since it is an action already prohibited by the oath not to eat nine.

״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל עֶשֶׂר, וְתֵשַׁע״, מַהוּ? אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִישְׁתַּבַּשְׁתְּ, עֶשֶׂר הוּא דְּלָא אָכֵיל, הָא תֵּשַׁע מִיהָא אָכֵיל.

Avimi asked him further: If one said: On my oath I will not eat ten and on my oath I will not eat nine, what is the halakha ? Eifa replied: He is liable for only one oath. Avimi said to him: You have confused the issue. According to the first oath, it is ten that he may not eat, but he may still eat nine, so the second oath takes effect, in that it prohibits him from eating nine.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: זִימְנִין דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לָהּ לְהָא דְּעֵיפָא כִּדְמָר, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל תְּאֵנִים״,

Abaye said: There are times when you find that the ruling of Eifa with regard to an oath not to eat ten followed by an oath not to eat nine applies, as in the case mentioned by the Master. As Rabba says: In the case of one who says: On my oath I will not eat figs and grapes together, and then says: On my oath I will not eat figs,