Nedarim 31

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מני מתניתין רבי מאיר היא דאי רבי יהודה לא שני ליה קרבן ולא שני ליה הקרבן

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Whose view is taught in our Mishnah? — R. Meir's; for if R. Judah's, he recognises no distinction between a korban and Oh, korban.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is argued from the fact the Mishnah does not include the form 'korban be what I might eat of yours', as permissible, as it does in the case of 'Oh, korban', which could be included according to R. Judah's opinion that the particle 'as' is necessary to render the oath binding, v. supra. ');">¹</span>

אימא סיפא לקרבן לא אוכל לך מותר והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר ואמר רבי אבא נעשה כאומר לקרבן יהא לפיכך לא אוכל לך

Then consider the latter clause [IF HE SAYS,]. 'WHAT I MIGHT NOT EAT OF YOURS BE NOT A KORBAN UNTO ME,' HE IS PERMITTED. But we learnt: [If one says,] 'That which I might not eat of yours be not for a korban unto me': R. Meir forbids [him]. And R. Abba observed thereon: It is as though he said, 'let it [i.e., your food] be for a korban, therefore I may not eat of yours.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then why not assume the same here? ');">²</span>

לא קשיא הא דאמר לקרבן הא דאמר לא לקרבן דלא הוי קרבן קאמר:

— There is no difficulty: in the latter case he said, 'le-korban' [for a korban]; but here [in our Mishnah] he said, 'la'-korban,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Ran. cur. edd. lo le-korban. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שבועה לא אוכל לך הא שבועה שאוכל לך לא שבועה לא אוכל לך אסור:

which means: let it not be a korban.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מכלל דהא שבועה שאוכל לך דלא אכילנא משמע ורמינהו שבועות שתים שהן ארבע שאוכל ושלא אוכל שאכלתי ושלא אכלתי מדקאמר שלא אוכל שאכלתי ושלא אכלתי מכלל דשאוכל לך דאכילנא משמע

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IF HE SAYS, 'I TAKE] AN OATH [THAT] I WILL NOT EAT OF YOURS,' [OR] 'OH OATH THAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gemara. ');">⁴</span>

אמר אביי שאוכל שתי לשונות משמע היו מסרבין בו לאכול ואמר אכילנא אכילנא ותו שבועה שאוכל דאכילנא משמע אבל אמר לא אכילנא לא אכילנא ותו אמר שבועה שאוכל דלא אכילנא קאמר

I EAT OF YOURS,' [OR 'I TAKE] NO OATH [THAT] I WILL NOT EAT OF YOURS,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This even according to R. Meir, for the Talmud states (Shebu'oth 36a) that R. Meir holds that the positive may be inferred from the negative in oaths. ');">⁵</span>

רב אשי אמר שאוכל דשבועה שאי אוכל קאמר אם כן פשיטא מאי למימרא מהו דתימא מיקם לישנא היא דאיתקיל ליה קא משמע לן

HE IS FORBIDDEN.

אביי לא אמר טעם כרב אשי דלא קתני שאי אוכל

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. This proves that 'Oh oath that I eat of yours implies that I will not eat. Now this contradicts the following: Oaths are of two categories, which are extended to four, viz., '[I swear] that I will eat,' 'that I will not eat,' 'that I have eaten, 'that I have not eaten'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two categories are affirmative and negative oaths referring to the future, which are extended to include similar oaths in the past. ');">⁶</span>

ורב אשי נאדי מן טעם דאביי קסבר שלא אוכל נמי משמע שתי לשונות היו מסרבין בו לאכול ואמר לא אכילנא לא אכילנא ואמר נמי שבועה בין שאוכל בין שלא אוכל הדין אכילנא משמע דאמר

Now, since he enumerates, 'that I will eat,' 'that I will not eat,' 'that I have eaten.' 'that I have not eaten, it follows that [the phrase,] 'that I eat of yours' implies, 'I will eat'? — Abaye answered: 'That I eat' has two meanings. If one was being urged to eat, and he replied: 'I will eat, I will eat, moreover. [I take] an oath that I eat,' it implies, 'I will eat.' But if he said, 'I will not eat, I will not eat,' and then added: '[I take] an oath that I eat,' it implies, 'I will not eat'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. then means: 'I swear in this matter of eating' — viz., that I will not eat. [The whole turns on the meaning attached to [H]. The particle [H] may denote 'that' or 'if' (or 'that which'). In the first instance, the circumstance favours the former interpretation: 'An oath that I eat', i.e., 'I swear that I eat'. In the latter, he probably meant: 'An oath if (or that which) I eat, i.e., 'I swear not to eat', (or, 'By oath be forbidden that which I eat); cf. Shebu. 19b.] ');">⁷</span>

ואיכא לתרוצה נמי לישנא שבועה שלא אוכל שבועה דלא אכילנא קאמר אלא תנא פסקה שאוכל דאכילנא משמע ושלא אוכל לא אוכל משמע:

R. Ashi answered: 'That I eat,' in connection with an oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Mishnah, when employing this phrase in connection with oaths. ');">⁸</span>

<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.