Study Nedarim folio 16B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
גמ׳ ״חומר״, מכלל דנדר הוא. והא ״מותר״ קתני!
Talmud: It is stated in the Mishnah: This is a stringency of oaths vis-à-vis vows. The Talmud presumes that the Mishnah is referring to the distinction stated in previous mishnayot between saying: An offering that I will not eat of yours, and saying: An oath that I will not eat of yours. The Talmud asks: Should it be derived by inference that the statement: An offering that I will not eat of yours, is a valid vow by rabbinic law, and it is merely less stringent than the corresponding oath, which takes effect by Torah law? But doesn’t the Mishnah teach that it is permitted for him to eat, implying that the vow does not take effect at all?
אסיפא דאידך בבא קתני. ״שבועה שאיני ישן״, ״שאיני מדבר״, ״שאיני מהלך״ — אסור. זה חומר בשבועות מבנדרים.
The Talmud answers: This is taught with regard to the latter clause of the other section. As opposed to a vow that is taken with regard to a matter that does not have actual substance, which takes effect only by rabbinic law, as articulated in the Mishnah (14b) and Talmud (15a), the subsequent Mishnah (15b) teaches that if someone says: An oath that I will not sleep, or: That I will not speak, or: That I will not walk, this activity is forbidden to him. It is concerning this contrast that the Mishnah says: This is a stringency of oaths vis-à-vis vows.
חומר בנדרים מבשבועות כיצד כו׳. רב כהנא מתני: אמר רב גידל אמר רב. ורב טביומי מתני: אמר רב גידל אמר שמואל. מנין שאין נשבעין לעבור על המצות? תלמוד לומר: ״לא יחל דברו״, ״דברו לא יחל״ — אבל מיחל הוא לחפצי שמים.
§ It is stated in the Mishnah that there is a stringency of vows vis-à-vis oaths. How so? Whereas a vow can override a mitzva, an oath cannot. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Giddel said that Rav said, and Rav Tavyumei teaches the same statement with a different attribution, i.e., Rav Giddel said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that one cannot take an oath to transgress the mitzvot? The verse states: “He should not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3). It is inferred that his word, i.e., the prohibition he accepted upon himself, he should not profane. However, he may profane it for the desires of Heaven. If he took an oath to act against the will of God, the oath does not take effect.