Previous Folio / Nedarim Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 17a

hence the Bible teaches, [or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips] to do evil, or to do good etc.:1  just as doing good refers to something optional,2  so doing evil refers [only] to something optional. This excludes one who swears to annul a precept, and did not annul it,3  because it is not optional! — One verse is to exempt him from the sacrifice due for [violating] an oath, and the other is to exempt him [from punishment4  for having violated] the injunction concerning an oath.

MISHNAH. A VOW WITHIN A VOW IS VALID,5  BUT NOT AN OATH WITHIN AN OATH. E.G., IF ONE DECLARES, 'BEHOLD, I WILL BE A NAZIR IF I EAT [THIS LOAF].' 'I WILL BE A NAZIR IF I EAT [THIS LOAF],' AND THEN EATS [IT], HE IS LIABLE IN RESPECT OF EACH [VOW].6  BUT IF HE SAYS, 'I SWEAR THAT I WILL NOT EAT [THIS LOAF],' 'I SWEAR THAT I WILL NOT EAT [THIS LOAF],' AND THEN EATS [IT], HE IS LIABLE [TO PUNISHMENT] FOR ONE [OATH] ONLY.

GEMARA. R. Huna said: This holds good only if one says, 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day [if I eat this loaf]; I will be a nazir to-morrow [if I eat this loaf]', since an extra day is added, the [second] neziruth7  is binding in addition to the first.8  But if he says, 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day, I will be a nazir to-day,' the second neziruth is not valid in addition to the first. But Samuel said: Even if one declares, 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day, I will be a nazir to-day,' the second neziruth is binding. Now, according to R. Huna, [the Mishnah,] instead of teaching BUT NOT AN OATH WITHIN AN OATH, should teach, Sometimes A VOW WITHIN A VOW IS VALID, and sometimes not. [If one says,] 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day; behold, I will be a nazir to-morrow,' the vow within the vow is binding. But if he says, 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day, I will be a nazir to-day,'

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Lev. V, 4.
  2. V. Shebu. Sonc. ed.) p. 147 for notes.
  3. Teaching that no penalty is incurred.
  4. [I.e., the penalty of lashed for transgressing 'he shall not break his word'. He is however lashed for uttering a vain oath; v. Shebu. 29a (Tosaf).]
  5. Lit., 'there is a vow within a vow'.
  6. And he must observe two periods of neziroth of thirty days each. This double vow relating to the same thing is called a vow within a vow.
  7. Abstract noun from nazir, 'naziriteship'.
  8. And the full statutory period of thirty days must be observed for the second neziruth.

Nedarim 17b

 the second is not binding?1  — This is a difficulty.

We learnt: A VOW WITHIN A VOW IS VALID, BUT NOT AN OATH WITHIN AN OATH. How is this? shall we say that one declared, 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day. Behold, I will be a nazir tomorrow':2  then an analogous oath is: 'I swear not to eat figs. I swear not to eat grapes,' why should this second oath be invalid? But the invalidity of all oath within an oath arises thus: 'I swear not to eat figs, I swear not to eat figs.' Then an analogous vow in respect of neziruth is: 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day; Behold, I will be a nazir to-day; and it is stated, A VOW WITHIN A VOW IS VALID. This refutes R. Huna? — R. Huna answers you: The Mishnah applies to one who said: 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day. Behold, I will be a nazir to-morrow;'3  and an analogous oath is: 'I swear not to eat figs I swear not to eat figs and grapes,'4  the second oath being invalid. But did not Rabbah Say: [If one says,] 'I swear not to eat figs,' and then adds, 'I swear not to eat figs and grapes'; if he eats figs, sets aside [an animal for] a sacrifice and then eats grapes, the grapes constitute [only] half the extent [of his second oath],5  and a sacrifice is not brought for [the violation of] such. Front this we see that if one declares, 'I swear not to eat figs,' and then adds,' I swear not to eat figs and grapes': since the [second] oath is valid in respect of grapes, it is valid in respect of figs too? — R. Huna does not agree with Rabbah.

An objection is raised; If one made two vows of neziruth, observed6  the first, set aside a sacrifice,7  and then had himself absolved thereof [sc. the first vow], the second is accounted to him in [the observance of] the first.8  How is this? Shall we say that he declared, 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day; Behold, I will be a nazir tomorrow', why does the second replace the first; surely there is an additional day? But it is obvious that he said: 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day; Behold, I will be a nazir to-day.'

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. The point of the difficulty is that the Tanna should not draw a distinction between vows and oaths, when it can be drawn between vows themselves.
  2. The second vow being a real addition to the first.
  3. So that the second vow is identical with the first, save that a day is added.
  4. The second oath thus included the first, and added thereto.
  5. Which embraces grapes and figs.
  6. Lit., 'counted' — the days of his vow.
  7. Due on the expiration of neziroth.
  8. I.e., the term of neziroth already observed is accounted to the second view, since the first was revoked.