The Gemara rejects this: But if he had said it that way, perhaps his oath could be interpreted to prohibit only bread made from a mixture of all these grains.

The Gemara suggests: If the specification in the mishna serves merely to ensure that his oath does not extend to other foods, have him say: Bread made from wheat and so from barley and so from spelt. Why do I need to repeat: Bread, bread, each time? Conclude from it that the point of repeating the word bread each time is to individuate each statement as a separate oath.

§ The mishna teaches: If he said: On my oath I will not drink, and then he drank several kinds of liquids, he is liable to bring only one offering. If he says: On my oath I will not drink wine, or oil, or honey, and he drank all of them, he is liable to bring an offering for each and every one. The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the case of the bread, the ruling of the mishna is understood, as you said that the word bread before barley, and the word bread before spelt are superfluous and serve to extend his liability so that each is considered an independent oath. But here, where there is no superfluous language, what was there to say? Perhaps the oath comes to ensure that he exempts himself so that the oath does not extend to other liquids. Since that is a possibility, he should not be liable for breaking three separate oaths when he drank all three liquids.

Rav Pappa said: We are dealing here with a situation where all three liquids are placed before him. Under the circumstances, if he merely wished to indicate that his oath is limited to these liquids, he could have said: On my oath I will not drink these. Since he instead specified the liquids in the oath, it was in order to indicate that each should be considered as a separate oath. The Gemara challenges: But had he said: I will not drink these, perhaps his oath would be interpreted as meaning: It is these liquids, which are before me right now, that I will not drink, but I will drink other wine, oil, and honey.

The Gemara answers: Rather, if he merely wished to indicate that his oath is limited to these types of liquids, it would be a case where he said: On my oath I will not drink liquids such as these. The Gemara challenges: Had he said it that way, perhaps it could be interpreted as referring to the volume of the liquids: I will not drink liquids such as these, but I will drink less than this or more than this.

The Gemara answers: Rather, if he merely wished to indicate that his oath is limited to these types of liquids, it is a case where he said: On my oath I will not drink from these types of liquids. The Gemara challenges: But had he said it that way, perhaps his oath would be interpreted to mean: I will not drink these types of liquids in general, but I will drink these particular liquids in front of me.

The Gemara suggests: If the point of the specification of the liquids in the mishna was merely to ensure that his oath does not extend to other liquids, have him say: On my oath I will not drink these and liquids of their types. Since he instead specified: Wine, oil, and honey, one may conclude that his intention was to individuate each liquid as a separate oath.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: We are dealing with a case in which another is importuning him to drink, as he said to him: Come, drink wine, and oil, and honey with me; if he wanted him to desist, he should have said: On my oath I will not drink with you. Under these circumstances, why do I need him to specify: Wine, and oil, and honey? The specification of the liquids serves to indicate his intention to render himself liable for each and every one.

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (36b) with regard to an oath concerning a deposit, that if one says to his bailee: Give me my wheat, barley, and spelt that are in your possession, and the bailee lies and says: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable to bring only one guilt-offering. But if the bailee says: On my oath I do not have in my possession any wheat, barley, or spelt that belong to you, he is liable to bring a separate offering for each and every one.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says with regard to that mishna that he is liable even if the value of all three species combines to amount to as little as one peruta.

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this. One said: When the bailee says: On my oath I do not have in my possession any wheat, barley, or spelt that belong to you, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering only for violating the specific oaths for individual types of grain, and he is not liable for violating a general oath that he does not have anything in his possession. Consequently, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the different types of grains can be combined to amount to one peruta is referring only to the oath in the first clause of the mishna where he did not specify the grains. And one said: He is also liable for violating a general oath, and in the latter clause of the mishna he is liable for violating four oaths: One general oath that he does not have anything in his possession and three specific oaths, one for each type of grain. Consequently, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement applies also to where he specifies the grains, and he is liable to bring one offering even when all three species combine to amount to only one peruta.

The Gemara asks: Here, in the case of one who takes an oath that he will not eat wheat bread, barley bread, or spelt bread, what is the halakha? Is there a dispute as to whether he is considered to have taken a general oath alongside the specific oaths?

Rava said: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of an oath of a deposit, he is liable for the general oath and for the specific oath, since if a bailee takes an oath denying that he is in possession of a deposit and then takes another oath to the same effect, he is liable for taking two false oaths on a deposit. Here, with regard to an oath to prohibit oneself from eating, if it enters your mind that he is bound by a general oath, why would he be liable for the specific oaths? He is already under an oath due to the general oath, and an oath cannot take effect when the matter it prohibits is already forbidden by another oath.

§ The mishna teaches that if one said: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate foods that are inedible, he is exempt. If he said: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate the meat of unslaughtered carcasses, he is liable. The Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult. You said that if one said: On my oath I will not eat, and he ate foods that are inedible, or drank liquids that are not potable, he is exempt. And then the mishna teaches that if one says: On my oath I will not eat, and then he ate the meat of unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot, repugnant creatures or creeping animals, he is liable. What is different about the first clause that he is exempt and what is different about the latter clause that he is liable? Non-kosher animals are also unfit to be eaten.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The first clause is where he took an oath not to eat without specifying what is included in it. Presumably, his oath did not include items that are not ordinarily eaten. And the latter clause is a case where he specifies what it is he will not eat, e.g., unslaughtered carcasses, and nevertheless eats them.

The Gemara asks: You may also raise a difficulty with regard to the case where he specifies that he will not eat non-kosher items: Why? He is under oath from Mount Sinai, and an oath does not take effect to prohibit that which is already forbidden.

Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan all say that this is a case where he incorporates into the oath that he will not eat some permitted items, along with the statement concerning the forbidden items. Since the oath takes effect with regard to the permitted items, it extends also to the forbidden ones.

And Reish Lakish says: You find that one is liable for eating non-kosher food as the result of an oath only if it is an oath where he specifies that it includes a half-measure, and in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one is not liable for eating a half-measure unless it is specified in the oath. Since eating a half-measure is not prohibited by Torah law, the oath takes effect. Alternatively, you find that one is liable if he took the oath without specifying that the oath prohibits less than the usual measure, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that a person renders himself prohibited from eating any amount by taking an oath not to eat.

The Gemara asks: Granted, it is understood why Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say like Reish Lakish, as he interprets the mishna so that it is in accordance with the opinion of everyone; but what is the reason that Reish Lakish does not say like the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan?

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could say to you: When we say that a more inclusive prohibition, which adds additional aspects to the prohibition for the same individual, can take effect where there already is a prohibition in place,