Implied Question: The Gemara in Yoma (76b) asks how we can reconcile this with the Beraisa that states that if a person vows not to have Tirosh, he is forbidden from all kinds of sweet things (Rashi there says this is referring to fruits such as grapes and apples), but is allowed to have wine. [How can this be reconciled with our Gemara's statement that Tirosh is wine?]

Answer: The Gemara (ibid.) answers that regarding vows, we determine the definition of the vow based on how the word is commonly used (not how it is used in the Torah).

Question: According to Rebbi Yehudah who says that one is liable for entering the Mikdash if he is intoxicated because he ate a fig cake, and he does not derive "Sheichar-Sheichar" from Nazir, how does he know that drinking is included in eating?

Answer#1: He derives this from logic, as stated earlier (22b).

Answer#2: Alternatively, regarding the Mikdash he does not derive Sheichar-Sheichar, being that the Pasuk makes this prohibition dependent on not having a clear mind. This is as the Pasuk says, "To separate and rule." Accordingly, there is a logical reason to include other intoxicating items.

However, regarding Ma'aser it is understandable that this should be derived from Nazir. It is also slightly implied that according to Rebbi Yehudah who says one is liable for entering the Mikdash after eating a fig cake, he derives the Gezeirah Shaveh of "Sheichar-Sheichar" from Nazir.

Implied Question: One cannot ask that instead of deriving "Sheichar-Sheichar" (regarding Ma'aser Sheini) from Nazir, one should derive it from the Mikdash.

Answer: That case is dependent on logic, as I have explained (c).

Implied Question: However, one should not explain that we would compare stringently (from Nazir that a fig cake is not bought with Ma'aser Sheini money), but not leniently.

Answer: Even if we would derive from Nazir, a fig cake can still clearly be bought with Ma'aser Sheini money, as it is "fruit that comes from fruit" and grows from the ground (the two conditions for buying things with Ma'aser Sheini money).

Answer (to a): Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah derives that drinking is included in eating as taught by the Yerushalmi from the Pasuk, "And all blood you should not eat." It cannot be talking about congealed blood, as the Beraisa states that congealed blood is not considered food nor drink, but rather its own entity. The Torah says one should not eat blood (implying that drinking is called eating).

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that you cannot say that Sheichar refers to a fig cake, as we derive that wine bought with Ma'aser Sheini money can be bought together with its barrel, as stated in Eiruvin (27b)?

If the Torah would only write ba'Sheichar, I would think that it refers to a fig cake, but not to wine and its barrel. This is why the Torah stated wine, which implies that the container is included, and certainly a fig cake is included. The (now) extra Pasuk of "ba'Sheichar" should teach that grape juice that turned into vinegar is included.

Question#2: Additionally, how can the Gemara there derive from "in cattle" that the skin is permitted, from "in sheep" that the wool is permitted, from "in wine" that the barrel is permitted, and from "in Sheichar" that grape juice that turned into vinegar is permitted? Don't we need to derive from there, as the Gemara there states, that just as the specific examples are fruit from fruit etc.?

In any event, the Pasuk must say two specific examples of things that can be purchased. If the Gemara would have written cattle, I would think that only live animals may be purchased, not things that grow from the ground. If it would say wine, I would think only things that grow from the ground can be purchased, not live animals. This concept of needing at least two specifics is advanced in Kidushin (17a) regarding the present given to an Eved Ivri when he leaves the service of his master.

Answer: The Gemara there (Eiruvin 27b) derives from the extra letter Beis that is together with every word (ba'Yayin, ba'Sheichar, etc.). The Pasuk could have written, "cattle, sheep, wine, and Sheichar."

Being that the Torah wrote four examples, perhaps there is something that would not have been derived with only two examples. Here we are deriving that Sheichar needed to be said, as it is coming to say something other than a fig cake.

Question#1: How can we derive that the Beis of ba'Sheichar includes a fig cake? Why do we need it to be included? We should derive it is included in being bought from Ma'aser Sheini money from the Klal u'Perat u'Klal, which includes anything that is "fruit from fruit" and grows from the ground!

Question#2: Additionally, how can we say this refers to a fig cake? The Gemara here implies that if not for the Gezeirah Shaveh of "Sheichar-Sheichar" we would derive from the word "Sheichar" itself that a fig cake can be bought with Ma'aser Sheini money!

Answer: The Gemara there is discussing a fig cake that is mixed with water, and even so it is more important than grape juice that became vinegar (we need this to be included from the Beis). Our Gemara is discussing a fig cake that is not mixed with water (which we do not included from the Beis).

Question: Why do we need the Gezeirah Shaveh of "Sheichar-Sheichar?" We should derive that drinking is included in eating from the fact that we include grape juice that became vinegar, and the Torah says, "And you will eat!" [This implies that "eating" applies to liquids that one drinks, and hence to drinking.]

Answer#1: Being that we derive this from the extra Beis, it is possible to say that it is eaten through Anigron (as the Gemara answered regarding Tirosh), which would not require anything that causes intoxication.

Answer#2: Alternatively, "And you will eat" is not referring to the things included by the letter Beis.

Proof: It is clear this is true, as "And you will eat" is clearly not referring to the other things included which are barrels, skin, and shearings of wool.

Question: Perhaps it is referring to congealed wine, which is why it says "And you will eat?"

Answer: It is possible that the congealed wine is not fit to eat unless one soaks it in water and then drinks it.

Question: Perhaps the Beraisa is coming to teach us this very fact, that drinking is not included in eating!

Answer: If so, it should have said that if someone swore not to eat and he drank, he is exempt.

However, now there is no reason to deduce from the Beraisa that drinking is not included in eating. Even if it was included in eating, he is only liable one Korban, just like a person who ate two different times and forgot once.

Question: If so, why does it say he ate and drank? Even if he drank twice he should be liable for two Korbanos! Being that his second oath is valid for eating, it also works for drinking. We say a similar thing later (24b) regarding someone who took an oath not to eat figs, and he then said he would not eat figs and grapes. (Being that the second oath is valid for the grapes, it is valid again for the figs.)

Answer#1: The Gemara is asking one of two potential questions (with this being the unasked question).

Answer#2: Alternatively, being that he first swears that he will not drink, he is revealing that when he later swears he will not eat that he is only swearing regarding eating, not drinking.

The Gemara later concludes that even if he first swore that he would not eat, he is showing that he is not including drinking (when he later swears not to drink).

Question: According to the Tana earlier who included fig cakes, and he derived from the word "Sheichar" in Kerisus (13b) that other intoxicating things (such as fig cakes) are included and the Torah said, "Do not drink," the implication is that eating is included in drinking!

Answer#1: Being that one would have to eat a fig cake, the main logic is that "Do not drink" is written because of the other intoxicating beverages (not because of fig cakes).

Answer#2: Alternatively, Sheichar only refers to intoxicating beverages such as honey and milk. This is why it says, "Do not drink." Fig cakes are included due to the logic that they are also intoxicating.

Question: He does not have to explain himself in order to permit himself to eat other things! Even if he would swear "I will not eat," if only means that he will not eat certain types of bread he is not forbidden in anything else.

Even though we generally say, "words in the heart are not considered words," this is when what is in his heart contradicts what he is saying. However, if his thoughts are not contradictory to his speech (and they merely define what he is saying), they are valid (regarding oaths and vows). This is also somewhat implied in the Gemara later.

Answer: Even so, it is a Mitzvah to reveal to the world (to clearly state) that he wants to permit himself to eat certain things.

Explanation: He only forbids himself from having that person's drinks.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that we do not have this text, and it is a mistake. Rather, the text should read, "Is he liable due to a Klal u'Perat?"

Opinion#2: It appears that this text can be explained. This is what it means. Can we say here regarding Shevuas Bituy that his general Shevuah is on bread made of wheat, barley, and rye that is less than the amount for which he is liable? In other words, he is saying that if he eats from each type less than the amount, but together they make up the amount for which he is liable, that he is indeed liable. He is thinking that if he eats this amount from all of them altogether he should be liable, as his intent is that these small amounts should add up. He is considering the small amounts of eating from each type as important (because it can combine to form a Shiur).

The Gemara concludes that in the monetary case where the oath is on the general claim and the specific claim, when he swears again and again it is also referring to the minute amounts from each type. However, regarding a Shevuas Bituy where he cannot mean that the Shevuah should take effect for both the general and specific oath for an entire amount, we have no reason to say that he meant to forbid himself on a small amount of each which would combine to transgress the general prohibition.

Question: This is slightly difficult. Being that both the first and second part of the Mishnah discuss Neveilos and Treifos, why does the first part of the Mishnah use the phrase, "food that is not fit" as opposed to the second part that explicitly states Neveilos and Treifos?

Implied Question: One should not ask that the entire Mishnah could be discussing a case where he explicitly stated what was forbidden in his oath, and the first case is where he did not include anything that is permitted together with the things that are forbidden. [Why can't this be the explanation of the Mishnah?]

Answer: The Mishnah implies that only if someone ate food that was "unfit" is he exempt. However, if he ate regular food he would be liable. [Accordingly, the first case cannot be where he did not include anything that is permitted together with the things that are forbidden, as this would not be a valid oath at all.]

Implied Question: Despite the fact that there are Tannaim who do not hold that an Issur Kollel adds another prohibition, we do not worry about their opinion. [Why not?]

Answer#1: This is because these opinions are not stated in the Mishnah.

Answer#2: Additionally, there is no reason to worry about Tannaim who do not hold that an Issur Kollel adds a prohibition because Rebbi Shimon explicitly argues for this reason (in the Beraisa on 24a), as he does not hold an Issur Kollel adds a prohibition. [Everyone else will agree.]

Question: Why don't we say the case is where he explicitly says what he means, and is therefore according to all opinions?

Answer: If the case is where he explicitly says what he means the Mishnah would be unlike Rebbi Akiva, as our Mishnah implies that if he would say what he said in general terms that he would be exempt (if he ate less than a Shiur).

Question: Why don't we say that the reason that Rebbi Yochanan argues with Reish Lakish is because Rebbi Yochanan holds in Yoma (73b) that sinning with less than a Shiur is forbidden according to Torah law? Accordingly, he is sworn from Har Sinai not to eat even a minute amount of forbidden food!

Answer: Being that it is only a Torah prohibition (but one is not given the punishment stated by the Torah unless he eats the full amount) he is not considered to be sworn from Har Sinai not to do so, as I explained earlier (see TOSFOS 22B, DH AHETEIRA).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a negative prohibition cannot take effect when there is already a positive prohibition in place. [Being that the positive prohibition of less than a Shiur is still in effect, even if it is not the full-fledged prohibition, how can the negative prohibition take effect?]

This is evident from the Gemara later (25a) that asks that if a person swore not to give a present to a poor person the oath is invalid, as he is sworn from Har Sinai to give charity. This is as the Pasuk states, "You shall surely give to him."

The Gemara also asks in Sanhedrin (83a), how do we know that an impure Kohen who eats impure Terumah is not liable to be punished with death? The Pasuk says, "And they will die because of it for they have made it mundane." This excludes Terumah that had already been made mundane (i.e. impure). The Gemara in Chulin (113b) explains that this is due to the principle that one transgression does not take effect when another transgression is already present, even though one only transgresses a positive commandment if he eats impure Terumah.

Answer#1: Even so, if he eats less than the amount forbidden by the Torah which is only a prohibition and not the full-fledged positive prohibition, it is not called that he is sworn from Har Sinai not to do so.

Answer#2: Additionally, it is possible to establish that this is referring to a case where he benefited in an abnormal fashion which is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law, just like less than the amount forbidden by the Torah is only forbidden by Rabbinic law according to Reish Lakish.

This explanation is more understandable than the first explanation. According to the first explanation there is a difficulty. The Gemara should still say that Rebbi Yochanan did not agree with Reish Lakish. Being that he holds that less than the amount is still forbidden by the Torah, this would not qualify for a Korban Shevuah because there is no "Yes or no (see RASHI 24a, DH BISHLAMA L'REISH LAKISH for an explanation of this concept)." How could a person swear that he will eat less than the amount of the Torah prohibition if he is sworn from Har Sinai not to do so? [A Korban Shevuah is only brought if the subject of the oath could be done and could remain undone (see RASHI ibid.)]