Posthaste
‘And He Simply Uttered Bread’
(Shavuos 26b)
Shmuel, on our daf, cites a rule: “If one decides, in his mind, to swear a certain oath [to prohibit something upon himself], it can only be valid if he utters it with his lips.” He derives this from the pasuk (Vayikra 5:4), “Or if a person will swear, expressing his lips to do harm or to do good, anything that a person will express in an oath, but it was concealed from him, and then he knew – and he became guilty regarding one of these matters.”
The Gemara finds difficulty with Shmuel’s statement, and questions: “If one decides in his mind” obviously means even where he did not express with his lips, in such case he would surely be liable. The Gemara answers that what is meant is, “Where he decided in his mind to utter with his lips but did not.” The Gemara therefore rules that if one swore not to eat bread but his intention was really to restrict only wheat bread, he is permitted to eat barley bread or any other type of bread.
Unintended Diet
Tosafos (s.v. “gamar b’libo”) note a contradiction. From our Gemara it remains obvious that subsequent to one’s oath, it is possible to clarify what was meant as long as it does not contradict what he actually said. In this case, bread usually means wheat bread. On the other hand, the Gemara in Nedarim (27b) indicates that one may not modify his oath to limit its scope.
The Gemara there cites the following example: A person trying to make his point to his friend exclaimed, “If I am wrong, I swear not to eat food.” Later, when proven wrong, he wished to limit his oath to that day only. The Gemara rules that since he did not so specify “today,” we assume he meant that he will never eat. Tosafos answer that, as we noted, bread generically refers to wheat bread. However, swearing not to eat food leaves no indication that his intention was only for today.
A Slip of the Tongue
Ramban (Novella ad. loc.), in answer to Tosafos’s question, explains that failing to say wheat bread is a slip of the tongue, and as a rule a person is not bound by an oath uttered in error due to a slip of the tongue. He cites an example from our Gemara which also cites the case where he swore not to eat barley bread but really meant wheat bread and rules that he may eat barley bread, since he uttered barley in error. And not only that – obviously, since he did not say wheat bread, he may eat wheat bread as well.
A Stitch in Time…
Rosh (Nedarim 16a, chap 2:6) says that if a person tells his friend, “I swear I will not eat from your food,” he is not believed to subsequently say that he was in error and really meant, “I will eat your food.” Bach (Yoreh Deah 237 s.v. “amar la’chaveiro”) asks if thus, according to the Rosh, in our Gemara a person should not be believed to say that he said barley in error.
Korban Nesanel (to the Rosh, Nedarim, chap.2:sk 20), answers that a person is only believed to clarify his intent if he does so immediately after he uttered the oath. The Rosh’s case is where he did not clarify until sometime later.
