speaking forgetfully during prayer does not invalidate it. He likewise says: Analogy dictates that whoever forgetfully commits an act prohibited in the consecrated state owes no compensatory penalty.

It has also been said: Killing game falls under liability for what is destroyed, like the blood money payable for a person killed. This differs from using perfume and wearing clothing, which fall under personal comfort. Likewise, shaving the hair and trimming the nails actually fall under personal comfort, not the destruction of something valuable, since what is removed has no value. Thus, the most balanced opinion is that no expiation is due for any of these acts, except compensation for killing game.

A consistent application of this principle means that whoever forgetfully does something he has sworn not to do does not break his oath, whether the oath involves divorce, emancipation, or anything else. This is because whoever forgetfully does what is prohibited neither sins nor disobeys; breaking an oath stands in the same relation to oaths as sin does to commands and prohibitions. Likewise, whoever forgetfully comes into contact with impurity during prayer need not repeat it, because this falls under committing a prohibited act. This differs from failing to purify oneself from ritual impurity, which falls under omitting a commanded act.

If it is said: Abstention in fasting is commanded, which is why intention is required for it. By contrast, abstention in these other cases is not commanded, since intention is not required for it.

The reply is: There is no doubt that intention is obligatory in fasting; without it, one would receive no reward;