Commentary for Nedarim 35:10

כגון שקיבל עליו שתי נזירות בבת אחת

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. Raba said: If he was absolved of the first, the second becomes binding. How is this deduced? Since it is not stated, It is only one [oath], but, HE IS LIABLE [TO PUNISHMENT] FOR ONE [OATH] ONLY: thus, there is no room for it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for the second to impose a penalty, since that is incurred on account of the first. ');">⁹</span> but if the first is revoked, the second becomes binding. A different version [of Raba's dictum] is this: There is no penalty [for the second], yet it is an oath. For what purpose is it so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is not punished for violating the second, whilst he is already bound by the first, what does it matter whether we regard the second as an oath or not? ');">¹⁰</span> — For Raba's dictum. For Raba said: If he was absolved of the first, the second takes its place. Shall we say that the following supports him: If one made two vows of neziruth, observed the first, set aside a sacrifice, and was then absolved thereof, the second [vow] is fulfilled in [the observance of] the first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the second is actually valid. ');">¹¹</span> — [No.] This refers e.g., to one who vowed two periods of neziruth simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the second is binding; but if one declares, 'I swear not to eat this loaf, I swear not to eat this loaf', it may be that his second statement has no validity at all. For further notes on this passage v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 150ff. ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Nedarim 35:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.