Shevuot 28: Specific Wording of Oaths; Oaths Reliant on Other Oaths or in Succession

If a person swears not to eat a loaf but then ate from it, can that person ask for the loaf to be permitted? Will that person be exempt from liability if he ate only a particular amount of the the loaf?  The rabbis think about the person's words: "I will not eat IT"; "I will not EAT".   If one swears not to eat and s/he eats, permission the oath during that rest between "eat" and a specific item disqualifies the entire oath.  Similar considerations are examined regarding one who takes an oath of nazirut.  The rabbis speak of appropriate consequences for these transgressions, as well.

The Gemara explores the rules of logic to be applied to the transgression and the consequences when one swears that one will not eat this loaf if s/he eats the other loaf and s/he eats both.  The oath is then extended: what if one swears that s/he will not eat this loaf if s/he eats the other and s/he will not eat that loaf if s/he eat this one and s/he eats both.

The rabbis consider the case where a person swears s/he will not benefit from a certain thing if s/he eats or drinks and then forgets the promise.  The rabbis consider this case along with others where a person makes two oaths at one time; one conditional upon the other.  

The rabbis discuss oaths that are said in succession, like "I swear that I will not eat nine figs, I swear that I will not eat ten figs" or the opposite numbers.  The rabbis play with the details, for example: is this about the past or the future?  We learn that when there are two oaths, the second oath does not take effect but only when the oaths regard the future.  Oaths that are impossible to fill are considered to be false as soon as they are spoken aloud.  The number of offerings brought as a consequence is determined by the actual transgressions.