We can learn from a verse that 'eating' includes drinking:

Opinion #1 (Reish Lakish): "V'Achalta (Ma'aser Sheni of)... Tiroshecha" - 'Tirosh' is wine, and it says 'you will eat'!

Rejection: Perhaps he eats Anigron (a food made with wine).

(Rabah bar Shmuel): Anigron is a beet dish. Achsigron is made from other cooked vegetables.

Opinion #2 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): "(You will buy with Ma'aser money)... uva'Yayin uva'Shechar... v'Achalta" discusses eating wine!

Question: Perhaps here also, he eats Anigron!

Answer: "Shechar" connotes something that is Meshaker (intoxicates).

Question: Perhaps it refers to Ke'ilis figs (which intoxicate)!

Beraisa: If one ate Ke'ilis figs, drank honey or milk and entered the Mikdash, he is liable.

Answer: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Shechar-Shechar" from a Nazir.

Just like Shechar written about a Nazir refers to wine, also that written about Ma'aser.

(Rava): Our Mishnah also teaches that 'eating' includes drinking.

(Mishnah): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate and drank, he is liable only once.

If 'eating' includes drinking, we understand the need to teach this;

However, if 'eating' does not includes drinking, this is (no Chidush at all,) like saying that he is liable only once for eating and doing Melachah!

Question (Abaye): if you will say 'eating' includes drinking, the Seifa is difficult!

(Seifa): If he swore 'I will not eat and I will not drink' and he ate and drank, he is liable twice.

Once he says 'I will not eat', he is already forbidden to drink;

The oath not to drink should not take effect, just like one who swears twice 'I will not drink' (the second oath does not take effect)!

Answer #1 (Rava): The case is, first he swore 'I will not drink' and then he swore 'I will not eat';

'Eating' includes drinking, but 'drinking' does not include eating.

Objection: Rava admits that if he swore 'I will not eat' and then 'I will not drink', he is liable only once;

If so, the Reisha should teach thos! It is a bigger Chidush than when he swore only 'I will not eat'!

Answer #2: Really, he swore first 'I will not eat';

Since he then swore 'I will not drink', this shows that he did not include drinking in his first oath.

(Rav Ashi): The end of our Mishnah also teaches that 'eating' includes drinking.

(Mishnah): If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate things unfit to eat or drank liquids unfit to drink, he is exempt.

Inference: If he ate things proper to eat or drank liquids proper to drink he is liable, even though he swore only not to eat!

Rejection: Perhaps the case is that he also swore not to drink.

(Mishnah): If he swore... ('I will not eat wheat bread, barley bread and spelt bread', and he ate all three, he is liable for each).

Question: Perhaps he did not intend to make three separate oaths. He only wanted to permit other kinds of bread!

Answer #1: If so, he should have said 'wheat, barley and spelt.'

Objection: That would forbid (only) eating these grains raw!

Answer #2: Rather, (if he only wanted to permit other kinds of bread) he should have said 'bread of wheat, barley and spelt.

Objection: That could mean, he will not eat wheat bread, or raw barley or spelt!

Answer #3: Rather, he should have said 'bread of wheat and of barley and of spelt.'

Objection: Perhaps (he thought that) that would forbid only bread made of all three grains!

Answer #4: Rather, he should have sworn 'I will not eat bread of wheat, and similarly of barley, and similarly of spelt.'

There was no need to say 'bread' each time. Rather, he did so to make a separate oath for each.

(Mishnah): If he swore... 'I will not drink (wine, oil or honey' and he drank all three, he is liable for each).

Question: Granted, when he swore 'I will not eat wheat bread, barley bread... ', he is liable for each. Since he did not need to say 'bread' each time, it is extra to make each a separate oath;

Regarding the drinks, why are they separate oaths? Perhaps he intended to permit other drinks!

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): The case is, the drinks are in front of him;

He should have sworn 'I will not drink these.' (Rather, he detailed each to make separate oaths).

Objection: Perhaps (he thought that) this does not forbid all wine, oil or honey.It forbids only what is in front of him!

Answer #2: Rather, he should have sworn 'I will not drink (drinks) like these.'

Objection: (Perhaps he thought) this forbids only the quantity in front of him, but he may drink more or less!

Answer #3: He should have sworn 'I will not drink these types (of drinks).'

Objection: (Perhaps he thought) this forbids other wine, oil and honey, but not what is in front of him!

Answer #4: He should have sworn 'I will not drink these or their types.'

Answer #5 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The case is, Reuven was pressuring Shimon 'come drink wine, oil and honey with me.' It would have sufficed for Shimon to say 'I will not drink with you';

'Wine, oil or honey', is extra, to make each a separate oath.

(Mishnah): If Yehudah claimed that he deposited wheat, barley and spelt with Levi, and Levi swore (falsely) 'I don't have anything of yours', he is liable only once;

If he swore 'I don't have wheat, barley or spelt of yours', he is liable for each one (that he has).

(R. Yochanan): If he has a Perutah's worth of wheat, barley and spelt altogether, they join up, and he is liable.

(Rav Acha or Ravina): (In the Seifa) he is liable only for the individual oaths (on each Min (species)). There is no collective (all-inclusive) oath (to be liable for a Perutah altogether. R. Yochanan, who says that they join up, refers to the Reisha, in which there is only a collective oath.)

(The other of Rav Acha and Ravina): He is liable for the individual oaths and for a collective oath. (R. Yochanan refers to the Reisha and Seifa.)

Question: What is the law here (swearing not to eat or drink particular foods)?

Answer (Rava): A Shomer (watchman) is liable for each false oath (since he could have admitted), he is liable for a collective oath and individual oaths;

Here, we cannot say that there is a collective oath. If there were, he is already bound to keep it, so the individual oaths would not take effect!

(Mishnah): If he swore 'I will not eat... '

Question: In the Reisha, if he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate or drank things not proper to eat or drink, he is exempt;

In the Seifa, if he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, he is liable. What is the difference?

Answer #1: In the Reisha he swore Stam 'I will not eat.' In the Seifa, he specified ('I will not eat Neveilos... ')

Question: Even if he specifies, why is he liable? He is already bound by the oath of Sinai not to eat them!

Answer #1 (Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan): Because his oath takes effect on permitted food, it also takes effect on forbidden food.

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Torah forbids him only to eat a k'Zayis of these things. His oath forbids him from eating Mashehu;

His Shevu'ah takes effect according to Chachamim if he specified (Mashehu), or according to R. Akiva even without specifying.

We understand why R. Yochanan did not answer like Reish Lakish. He prefers to establish the Mishnah like Chachamim and R. Akiva.

Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish answer like R. Yochanan?

Answer: The principle of Kolel (if an Isur forbids something that was permitted, it also takes effect on things already forbidden) applies only to prohibitions that the Torah imposed;

It does not apply to Isurim that one imposes through oaths!