daf bit: Shevuot 24

[cellio]

The g'mara discusses whether oaths that would include other oaths stand alone or are subsumed. For example, if one says "I will not eat bread" and then later says "I will not eat bread made of rye", and he then eats rye bread, has he violated one oath or two? On today's daf Raba ben Rabbah argues for multiple violations and describes a case (not involving oaths) where a single action requires five sin/guilt offerings: a ritually impure person who ate fat that is reserved for the altar, at a time other than the time of the offering, from an animal that was set aside for the altar, on Yom Kippur. R. Meir then raises one: it was Shabbat and he carried the food. (24b)

Violating (and being punished in accordance with) multiple laws with the same act is nothing new, we see.

Comments

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Have you been reading this? http://community.livejournal.com/talmud_daily/118636.html

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

What happens in non-monotonic logic systems? Such as "birds fly" combined with "penguins are birds but do not fly".

For example, I might say "I will not eat bread", and then say "I will eat rye bread". (I see this a lot with vegetarians, who proclaim themselves as such but claim chicken or fish is a viable exception)

I guess the answer should be obvious, that only one oath has been violated, except that if you buy into non-monotonic logic then in theory no oath has been violated.