דרבי יהודה בן בתירא ורבנן קמיפלגי? דתנן: נשבע לבטל את המצוה ולא ביטל – פטור. לקיים את המצוה ולא קיים – פטור. שהיה בדין שיהא חייב, כדברי רבי יהודה בן בתירא; דאמר רבי יהודה בן בתירא: ומה אם הרשות, שאינו מושבע עליה מהר סיני – הרי הוא חייב עליה; מצוה, שמושבע עליה מהר סיני – אינו דין שיהא חייב עליה?
between these amora’im parallels the disagreement between R' Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis? As we learned in a Mishnah (27a): If one took an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva and he did not refrain, he is exempt from bringing an offering for an oath on an utterance. If one took an oath to perform a mitzva and he did not perform it, he is also exempt, though it would have been fitting to argue that he is liable to bring the offering, in accordance with the statement of R' Yehuda ben Beteira. As R' Yehuda ben Beteira said: What? If, with regard to an oath concerning an optional matter, for which one is not under oath from Mount Sinai, he is liable for breaking it, then with regard to an oath about a mitzva, for which he is under oath from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he would be liable for it?