Commentary for Nedarim 31:11

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> זה חומר בשבועות מבנדרים וחומר בנדרים מבשבועות כיצד אמר קונם סוכה שאני עושה לולב שאני נוטל תפילין שאני מניח בנדרים אסור בשבועות מותר שאין נשבעין לעבור על המצות:

really means that he [actually] said, 'I will not eat'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Mishnah merely indicates that his oath bore reference to eating, but actually it was a negative one. ');">⁹</span> If so, it is obvious: why state it? — I might think it is a mispronunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a twisting of the tongue'. ');">¹⁰</span> which caused him to stumble;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Saying she-i-'okel instead of she-'okel, the difference in Hebrew being very slight. — This answer, as well as the discussion supra et passim on le-korban and lo korban, implies that the vows and oaths, as hypothetically posited in the Mishnah, were actually taken in Hebrew, not in another language. Thus Hebrew was generally spoken when the Mishnah was composed, and the Hebrew employed in the Mishnah would appear a natural, not an artificial language. V. M.H. Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar, Introduction. ');">¹¹</span> we are therefore taught [otherwise]. Abaye does not give R. Ashi's reason, because it is not stated, 'That I will not eat.' R. Ashi rejects Abaye's interpretation: he holds, 'that I will not eat' may also bear two meanings. [Thus: —] if one was being urged to eat, and he said, 'I will not eat, I will not eat, and then added, 'I [swear by] an oath', whether [he concluded] 'that I eat,' or, 'that I do not eat,' it implies, 'I will eat'. While the language, 'An oath that I will not eat,' may also be explained as meaning, 'I swear [indeed] that I will not eat.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text is not quite clear, but the general meaning appears to be this: When he says, 'lo akilna, lo akilna (I will not eat),' he may mean it positively, 'I will certainly not eat'; when he further adds, 'I swear that I will eat (she-'okel)' or 'that I will not eat' he is strengthening his first statement, for 'I swear that I will eat (she-'ohel)' may mean, 'I swear in respect of this matter of eating'. On the other hand, his first words may mean, 'I will not eat'? — of course I will! Hence the subsequent oath confirms this, for 'I swear that I will not eat (she-lo 'okel)' may mean, 'An oath may be imposed upon what I will no eat, but not upon what I will eat.' Hence, if Abaye's explanation is correct, that the Tanna teaches that she-'okel may imply a negative, he should also teach that she-lo 'okel may imply an affirmative. [MS.M. preserves a better reading: … if one was being urged to eat&nbsp;… whether (he concluded) 'that I eat' or 'that I do not eat' he means 'I shall not eat', while the language 'An oath that I will not eat' may be explained 'An oath that I do eat'. The meaning is thus clearer: When he first says 'I will not eat', his subsequent statement, whatever it is, will, on Abaye's explanation, be taken as confirming the first: If it is 'An oath that I eat' the particle [H] (v. supra p. 43. n. 4) denotes 'if' or ('that which') and he means 'I swear I eat'; if it is 'An oath that I do not eat' the particle is simply taken in the sense of 'that'. And thus similarly on Abaye's view, the phrase 'that I do not eat' could also be explained in a positive sense: 'I swear … if I do not eat', viz., where it was preceded by the statement 'I will eat'. This however, is impossible, in view of the Mishnah in Shebu'oth, which draws a distinction between 'that I will eat' and 'that I will not eat' and not between the circumstances that produced the oath.] ');">¹²</span> But the Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Mishnah in Shebu'oth. ');">¹³</span> states a general rule: <i>she-'okel</i> [always] means that I will eat, and she-lo 'okel, that I will not eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disregarding the special cases where the general tenor of a person's speech or the inflection of his voice reverses the literal meaning of his oath. ');">¹⁴</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IN THESE INSTANCES OATHS ARE MORE RIGOROUS THAN VOWS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Mishnah (15b) states that a vow in these terms is not binding. ');">¹⁵</span> YET THERE IS [ALSO] GREATER STRINGENCY IN VOWS THAN IN OATHS. E.G., IF ONE SAYS, 'KONAM BE THE <i>SUKKAH</i> THAT I MAKE,' OR, 'THE LULAB THAT I TAKE, OR, THE TEFILLIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. for these words. ');">¹⁶</span> THAT I PUT ON:' [WHEN EXPRESSED] AS VOWS THEY ARE BINDING, BUT AS OATHS THEY ARE NOT, BECAUSE ONE CANNOT SWEAR TO TRANSGRESS THE PRECEPTS.

Explore commentary for Nedarim 31:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.