Nedarim 32

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> חומר מכלל דנדר הוא והא מותר קתני

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. MORE RIGOROUS? That implies that they are [valid] vows;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Save that their binding character is not so rigid as that of oaths; but if not binding at all, the term is inapplicable. ');">¹</span> but it is taught, He is permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah 25b; that indicates that these vows are quite invalid. ');">²</span>

אסיפא דאידך בבא קתני שבועה שאיני ישן שאיני מדבר שאיני מהלך אסור זה חומר בשבועות מבנדרים:

— This is taught in reference to the second clause of the other section: [viz.,] [If one says,] ['I swear] on oath not to sleep,' or, 'talk,' or 'walk,' he is forbidden [to do so]: IN THESE INSTANCES OATHS ARE MORE RIGOROUS THAN vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as stated in the Mishnah on 14b, such vows are indeed binding, but as explained by Rabina (v. 15a), only by Rabbinical Law; whereas oaths of a similar nature are Biblically valid. ');">³</span> YET THERE IS GREATER STRINGENCY IN VOWS THAN IN OATHS etc. R. Kahana recited, R. Giddal said in Rab's name, and R. Tabyomi recited, R. Giddal said in Samuel's name: Whence do we know that one cannot swear [a valid oath] to violate the precepts? Front the verse, When a man&nbsp;… swear an oath&nbsp;… he shall not break his word,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 3. ');">⁴</span>

חומר בנדרים מבשבועות כיצד כו': רב כהנא מתני אמר רב גידל אמר רב ורב טביומי מתני אמר רב גידל אמר שמואל מניין שאין נשבעין לעבור על המצות תלמוד לומר לא יחל דברו דברו לא יחל אבל מיחל הוא לחפצי שמים

[this implies,] he may not break his word,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when it refers to human, optional matters. ');">⁵</span> but he must break a word [i.e., an oath] in respect of Heavenly matters.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the subject of the vow is obligatory. ');">⁶</span>

מאי שנא נדר דכתיב איש כי ידור נדר לה' לא יחל דברו שבועה נמי הא כתיב או השבע שבועה לה' לא יחל דברו

Now, why are vows different: because it is written, When a man vow a vow unto the Lord&nbsp;… he shall not break his word?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Implying that it is binding even when referring to Divine, non-optional matters. This is inferred by regarding unto (k) as meaning against: i.e., when a man vows contrary to the Lord's precepts. ');">⁷</span> But [of] oaths too it is written, or swear an oath unto the Lord he shall not break his word?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Not actually; but as to the Lord immediately precedes or swear an oath, it may he regarded as referring to it. ');">⁸</span>

אמר אביי הא דאמר הנאת סוכה עלי הא דאמר שבועה שלא אהנה מן הסוכה

— Abaye answered: In that case [vows] one says: 'The pleasure of the <i>sukkah</i> be forbidden me';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is binding, as one may not coy that which he has vowed not to enjoy. ');">⁹</span> but in this case [oaths] one says; 'I swear that I shall not benefit from the sukkah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the oath falls primarily upon the person. v. supra 2b; but one cannot free himself from a Biblical obligation. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבא וכי מצות ליהנות ניתנו אלא אמר רבא הא דאמר ישיבת סוכה עלי והא דאמר שבועה שלא אשב בסוכה

Raba objected: Were the precepts then given for enjoyment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Technically speaking, one cannot be said to drive physical enjoyment from the fulfilment of a precept, and therefore a vow in these terms would not be binding. One's highest enjoyment should be in obedience to God's word. [Apart from its halachic implications, the object of this saying was to keep the ethical principle free from any admixture of the idea of utility V. Lazarus, M. Ethics of Judaism, I, p. 284.] ');">¹¹</span> But Raba answered: There [in the case of vows] one says, 'The sitting in the <i>sukkah</i> be forbidden me';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the vow falls upon the sukkah, which is rendered forbidden, and upon the person; therefore it is valid. ');">¹²</span>

ושאין נשבעין לעבור על המצות מהכא נפקא ליה מהתם נפקא ליה דתניא יכול נשבע לבטל את המצוה ולא ביטל יכול יהא חייב

but here [oaths] one says, 'I swear not to sit in the sukkah'. Now, do we learn that one cannot swear to transgress the precepts from this verse: do we not rather deduce it from elsewhere? For it was taught: If one swears to annul a precept, and does not, I might think that he is liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For swearing falsely. ');">¹³</span>