Nedarim 35

ותיובתא דרב הונא

This contradicts R. Huna! — No. After all, [it means that he said,] 'Behold, I will be a <i>nazir</i> to-day; Behold, I will be a <i>nazir</i> to-morrow; and how is it accounted to him? With the exception of that additional day. Alternatively, [it means], e.g that one undertook two periods of neziruth simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring. 'I vow two periods of neziroth'. ');">¹</span>

לא לעולם הריני נזיר היום הריני נזיר למחר ומאי עלתה לו לבר מההוא יומא יתירא אי נמי כגון שקיבל שתי נזירות בבת אחת

R. Hamnuna objected: To vow a vow of a Nazirite, declaring themselves it Nazirite [into the Lord]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 2. ');">²</span>

מתיב רב המנונא נזיר להזיר מכאן שהנזירות חל על הנזירות שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה שבועה חמורה אין שבועה חלה על שבועה נזירות קלה לא כל שכן תלמוד לומר נזיר להזיר מכאן שהנזירות חלה על הנזירות

teaches hence [we learn] that neziruth falls upon neziruth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a vow of neziruth is binding upon one who is already a nazir, translating thus:&nbsp;… of a nazirite, when he is already a nazirite to the Lord. ');">³</span>

היכי דמי אילימא דאמר הריני נזיר היום הריני נזיר למחר הא קרא בעיא אלא לאו דאמר הריני נזיר היום הריני נזיר היום וקתני נזירות חל על נזירות

For I would think, does it [the reverse] not follow <i>a fortiori</i>: If an oath, which is [more] stringent, is not binding upon another oath; how much more so neziruth, which is less rigorous!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The greater stringency of oaths is explained below. To shew that the second is binding-surely it is obvious! ');">⁴</span>

לא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקיבל עליו שתי נזירות בבת אחת

Therefore it is stated, 'a nazirite, declaring himself a nazirite to the Lord'; from which [we learnt] that neziroth falls upon neziroth. Now how is this? Shall we say, that one said, 'Behold, I will be a <i>nazir</i> to-day; Behold, I will be a <i>nazir</i> to-morrow, — is a verse necessary? But presumably it applies to one who said, 'Behold, I will be a <i>nazir</i> to day, Behold, I will be a <i>nazir</i> to-day;' and it is stated that the second [vow of] neziruth is binding in addition to the first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts R. Huna. ');">⁵</span>

ומאי חומרא דשבועה מנדר אילימא משום דחיילא אפילו על דבר שאין בו ממש נדר נמי חמור שכן חל על המצווה כרשות אלא משום דכתיב בה בשבועה לא ינקה

— No. This refers to one who undertook two [periods of] neziruth simultaneously.

שבועה שלא אוכל שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל אינו חייב אלא אחת אמר רבא אם נשאל על הראשונה שניה חלה עליו ממאי מדלא קתני אינו אלא אחת וקתני אינו חייב אלא אחת רווחא הוא דלית לה כי מיתשיל על חבירתה חיילא

Now, wherein is an oath more rigorous than a vow? Shall we say in so far that it is applicable even to the abstract:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 13b, a.l. ');">⁶</span>

לישנא אחרינא חיובא הוא דליכא הא שבועה איכא למאי הלכתא לכדרבא דאמר רבא נשאל על הראשונה עלתה לו שניה תחתיה

but a vow too is more stringent, since it is as valid in respect to a precept as in respect to anything optional?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah on 16a. ');">⁷</span>

לימא מסייע ליה מי שנדר שתי נזירות ומנה את הראשונה והפריש קרבן ונשאל עליה עלתה לו שניה בראשונה

— But it is because it is written in reference thereto, he shall not be held guiltless [that taketh my name in vain].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 7. ');">⁸</span>

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>