1)

(a)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov now nquotes the Pasuk in Re'ei (also in connection with Ma'aser Sheini) "Venasata ha'Kesef be'Chol asher Te'aveh Nafshecha ... u'va'Yayin u'va'Sheichar ... ve'Achalta" as proof that the Lashon "Achilah" incorporates drinking. We cannot refute this proof as we did the previous one (from Anigron and Achsigron) - because "Sheichar" means specifically something that intoxicates (which Anigron and Achsigron do not).

(b)Nevertheless, we reject this proof too, on the basis of a Beraisa, which discusses that a Kohen who eats a Deveilah Ke'ilis - a dried fig from Ke'ilah, or who drinks honey and then serves in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(c)The Tana rules that - he is Chayav (because all of these sometimes intoxicate).

(d)Perhaps the second Pasuk too, is referring to that sort of Sheichar. So we finally learn that Achilah incorporates drinking from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sheichar" "Sheichar" - from Nazir, to whom the only beverage that the Torah forbids is wine.

(e)Rava proves from our Mishnah ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal ve'Shasah, Eino Chayav Ela Achas') that 'Achilah' incorporates Shesiyah - because otherwise, the Tana would not have needed to inform us that a Nishba who eats and drinks is Chayav only one set of Malkos (any more than he needs to inform us that he only receives one Malkos if he eats and works).

2)

(a)Abaye queries Rava's current proof from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal ve'she'Lo Eshteh, ve'Achal ve'Shasah, Chayav Shenayim' - because, if, as Rava asserts, Achilah incorporates Shesiyah, the Nishba ought to be Chayav only for 'she'Lo Ochal' (incorporating Shesiyah), and not for 've'she'Lo Eshteh', since this is a case of 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah' (no less than if he had said 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh, she'Lo Eshteh').

(b)Initially, Rava tries to answer Abaye's Kashya by inverting the wording of the Mishnah - to read 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh ve'she'Lo Ochal ... ', since even though Achilah incorporates Shesiyah, Shesiyah does not incorporate Achilah.

(c)The problem with the implication of the Seifa (that 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal ve'she'Lo Eshteh, ve'Achal ve'Shasah' would then be Chayav only one) creates with the Reisha is - why the Tana then presents the case of 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal (alone, which implies that the current case is Chayav two)', and not 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal ve'she'Lo Eshteh ... ').

(d)So Rava refutes Abaye's Kashya without inverting the cases, by poining out that 'Lo Ochal ve'Lo Eshteh' is different than 'Lo Ochal' on its own- since by adding 've'Lo Eshteh', the Nishba indicates that 'Lo Ochal' refers exclusively to eating (as if he was Mefaresh).

3)

(a)Rav Ashi tries to support Rava's ruling from our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Ochlin she'Einan Re'uyin la'Achilah, ve'Shasah Mashkin she'Einan Re'uyin li'Shesiyah, Patur', which implies that - if he drank beverages that were fit to drink, he would be Chayav, even though he only declared 'she'Lo Ochal'.

(b)We refute his proof however - by suggesting that maybe the Mishnah is speaking where he also said 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh'.

4)

(a)The problem with the ruling in our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Pas Chitin Pas Se'orin ... , Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas' is - how we know that the Nishba means to make an independent Shevu'ah on each item. Maybe he intends to make only one Shevu'ah, incorporating all the items that he mentioned?

(b)We answer that - the excessive Lashon indicates that he does. Because had he meant to make one Shevu'ah, he should have simply said ' ... Pas Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin'.

(c)In answer to the query that this Lashon would imply that he was forbidding on himself wheat bread, but barley and spelt kernels - we amend the suggested Lashon to 'Pas Chitin ve'shel Se'orin ve'shel Kusmin' (which would have sufficed had he wanted to include them all in one Shevu'ah).

(d)We refute this explanation too however, on the grounds that 'Pas Chitin ve'shel Se'orin ve'shel Kusmin' would imply that he was forbidding a loaf that contained all three species. So we finally amend the Lashon (that the Nishba should have said had he meant to make one Shevu'ah incorporating all three items) to - 'Pas shel Chitin, ve'Chein shel Se'orin ve'Chein shel Kusmin'.

(e)We have now proved that, from the fact that the Nishba chose to mention 'Pas' three times - it is clear that he meant to declare three Shevu'os, and not just one.

5)

(a)The problem with the ruling in our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Yayin, Shemen u'Devash, ve'Shasah, Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas' is that - if in the Reisha ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Pas Chitin Pas Se'orin ... '), we attributed the three sets of Malkos to the excessive Lashon of 'Pas', to what will we attribute it in this case?

(b)Rav Papa therefore establishes the case - where those three items were lying in front of the Nishba, in which case he could have simply said 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Eilu'.

(c)Assuming that he wanted to forbid those species on himself, it would not have sufficed to say ...

1. ... that however - because that would have implied that his Shevu'ah pertains specifically to the specific beverages that he sees, and to no others.

2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh k'Gon Eilu' - because that would imply others that comprised the same Shi'ur as those that he saw.

3. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh mi'Miyn Eilu' - because that would imply that he will not drink the likes of those three beverages, but that those beverages themselves, he will.

(d)What he ought then to have said is - 'she'Lo Eshteh Eilu u'Miynaihu'.

6)

(a)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika establishes the case quite differently. According to him, our Mishnah is speaking about - someone whose friend is trying to convince him to drink those three beverages together with him.

(b)Had he wanted to forbid them with one Shevu'ah, he should have replied - 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Imach'.

(c)The extent of the Shevu'ah will then be confined to that one occasion.

7)

(a)We will learn in the Mishnah in the fifth Perek 'Ten li Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin she'Yesh li be'Yadcha, Shevu'ah she'Ein lach be'Yadi K'lum, Eino Chayav Ela Achas'. To be Chayav three Ashamos, he would have had to respond - 'Shevu'ah she'Ein lach be'Yadi Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin'.

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan says that even one P'rutah will combine to obligate the Nishba, he means - to bring one Asham.

8)

(a)Rav Acha and Ravina argue over the Mishnah currently under discussion. One says 'a'Perati Mechayev, a'Kelali Lo Mechayev', by which he means that - the Nishba is Chayav three Ashamos (for 'Yayin, Shemen u'Devash', but that he is not Chayav to bring a fourth Asham for 'Shevu'ah she'Ein lach be'Yadi'.

(b)The other one says - 'a'Kelali Nami Mechayav', and he is Chayav to bring four Ashamos.

(c)Their Machlokes affects Rebbi Yochanan - inasmuch as, according to the first opinion, his statement pertains specifically to the Reisha, whereas according to the second opinion, it pertains equally to the Seifa.

(d)This cannot mean that, according to the latter opinion, Rebbi Yochanan will obligate the Nishba to bring four Ashamos (which is impossible, since all three items are worth only one P'rutah between them) but that - he will be Chayav to bring one Asham for 'Shevu'ah she'Ein lach be'Yadi'.

9)

(a)We reject the suggestion that the Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina might also extend to our case, where someone makes a Shevu'ah forbidding wine, oil and honey on himself and that he might also be Chayav four sets of Malkos - which is impossible - seeing as he would already be 'Mushba ve'Omeid ... ' after having said 'Shevu'ah she'Ein lach be'Yadi' (and 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah) ...

(b)... and the reason that it is possible in the case of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is - because the Torah specifically obligates the Nifkad to bring an Asham, each time he swears afresh that he has the Pikadon (overriding the general principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah').

10)

(a)The problem with the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos ... Chayav' is that - it clashes with the Reisha 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Ochlin she'Einan Re'uyin le'Achilah ... , Patur'.

(b)Nor will it suffice to simply answer that the Seifa speaks by Mefaresh (when the Nishba specifically included Neveilos and T'reifos in the Shevu'ah) - because he is already 'Mushba ve'Omeid me'Har Sinai', in which case, the Shevu'ah ought not to take effect.

(c)To answer the Kashya, Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan establish the Seifa by an 'Shevu'as Kolel' - where the Nishba combined permitted foods together with Neveilos and T'reifos in his Shevu'ah.

(d)Resh Lakish establishes it by Chatzi Shi'ur, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - even by S'tam.

2. ... Rebbi Akiva - by Mefaresh.

11)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan declines to learn like Resh Lakish - because he prefers to establish the Mishnah unanimously.

(b)Resh Lakish, on the other hand, declines to learn like Rebbi Yochanan, because he does not hold of Isur Kolel by Shevu'ah - though he concedes Isur Kolel by 'Isur ha'Ba me'Eilav' (an Isur Torah, not of his own making [as we will now explain]).

12)

(a)In fact, the Machlokes Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish is a Machlokes Tana'im. According to the Rabbanan, someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur - is Chayav a Korban Chatas (as well as Malkos for eating Neveilah).

(b)Despite the fact that the Isur Neveilah preceded the Isur of Yom Kipur, we do not apply the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' because Yom Kipur is an Isur Kolel ...

(c)... inasmuch as when Yom Kipur enters, one becomes forbidden to eat even Kasher foods.

(d)Rebbi Shimon exempts him from a Chatas - because he holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' even by an Isur Kolel.