שבועות ג׳:ו׳ - ג׳:ז׳

נשבע לבטל את המצוה – because of the oath on a statement [to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story], but he is flogged because of an oath taken in vain.

שהיה בדין שיהיה חייב. כדברי ר' יהודה בן בתירא – meaning to say, that whereas according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, he is liable because of an oath on a statement for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: “Now if concerning matters of free choice, etc.”

שלא עשה בה לאו כהן – and in the Biblical verse it is written (Leviticus 5:4): “[Or when a person utters with his lips an oath] to bad or good purpose,” which implies a matter which has a positive (i.e., yes) and a negative (i.e., no), but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו. שבועה שלא אוכלנה – the reason that he said that “I will not eat” and then he repeats saying that I won’t eat it, he is not liable other than one [count], for the oath does not take effect on [another] oath, but if he stated first that he would not eat it and then repeats that he will not eat it and then repeats saying that he will not eat and he eats all of it, he is liable for two [counts], for if he stated that he will not eat it, he is not liable until he eats all of it, and if he repeats and states that he will not eat, since he ate from an olive’s [bulk], he is liable, therefore, the final oath takes effect and makes him liable when he eats from it an olive’s [bulk]. And when he repeats and eats all of it, he is liable because of the concluding oath.

שבועה שלא אוכלנה שבועה שלא אוכלנה – even though that from the second oath “that I will not eat it,” we learn that an oath does not take effect on [another] oat, The Mishnah teaches us a third oath to inform us that is an obligation for there isn’t in the last oaths but these oaths and they did not go to idleness but if they found a place, they would take place and if he did consulted with a Sage [for absolution] on the first [oath]. The second [oath] is neutralized in its place and he is forbidden in the manner because of the second oath, and similarly, if he consulted [with a Sage] on he two [oaths], the third takes effect, because the Sage uproots the vow from its essence and it is like he had not taken an oath and the second one takes effect retroactively for the first [oath] is like he it didn’t exist and similarly, when he consults [with a Sage] about the two [oaths], it is like they didn’t exist and the third [oath] takes effect retroactively.