Nedarim 50

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נדרי שגגות אם אכלתי ואם שתיתי ונזכר שאכל ושתה שאני אוכל ושאני שותה ושכח ואכל ושתה אמר קונם אשתי נהנית לי שגנבה את כיסי ושהכתה את בני ונודע שלא הכתו ונודע שלא גנבה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. VOWS IN ERROR: [IF ONE SAYS, 'KONAM,] IF I ATE OR DRANK, AND THEN REMEMBERED THAT HE HAD; OR, 'IF I EAT OR DRINK,' AND THEN FORGOT [HIS VOW] AND ATE OR DRANK; [OR] 'KONAM BE ANY BENEFIT WHICH MY WIFE HAS OF ME, BECAUSE SHE STOLE MY PURSE OR BEAT MY CHILD, AND IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNT THAT SHE HAD NOT BEATEN HIM NOR STOLEN; ALL THESE ARE VOWS IN ERROR. IF A MAN SAW PEOPLE EATING [HIS] FIGS AND SAID TO THEM, LET THE FIGS BE A KORBAN TO YOU,' AND THEN DISCOVERED THEM TO BE HIS FATHER OR HIS BROTHERS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom he would not have prohibited. ');">¹</span>

ראה אותן אוכלין תאנים ואמר הרי עליכם קרבן ונמצאו אביו ואחיו והיו עמהן אחרים בית שמאי אומרים הן מותרים ומה שעמהם אסורים ובית הלל אומרים אלו ואלו מותרין:

WHILE OTHERS WERE WITH THEM TOO — BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HIS FATHER AND BROTHERS ARE PERMITTED, BUT THE REST ARE FORBIDDEN. BETH HILLEL RULE: ALL ARE PERMITTED.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנא כשם שנדרי שגגות מותרין כך שבועות שגגות מותרות היכי דמי שבועות שגגות כגון רב כהנא ורב אסי הדין אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב והדין אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב דכל חד וחד אדעתא דנפשיה שפיר קמישתבע:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was taught: Just as vows in error are permitted, so are oaths in error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shebu. 28b. ');">²</span>

ראה אותן אוכלין: תנן התם פותחין בשבתות ובימים טובים בראשונה היו אומרים אותן הימים מותרים ושאר כל הימים אסורים עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד נדר שהותר מקצתו הותר כולו

What are oaths in error? — E.g., those of R. Kahana and R. Assi. One said, I swear that Rab taught this, whilst the other asserted, I swear that he taught this: thus each swore truthfully according to his belief.

אמר רבה דכולי עלמא כל היכא דאמר אילו הייתי יודע שאבא ביניכם הייתי אומר כולכם אסורין חוץ מאבא דכולהון אסורין ואביו מותר לא נחלקו אלא באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאבא ביניכם הייתי אומר פלוני ופלוני אסורין ואבא מותר

IF A MAN SAW PEOPLE EATING [HIS] FIGS. We learnt elsewhere: The Sabbaths and festivals are suggested as an opening [for regret].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if one made a self-denying vow, the Rabbi may ask him, 'Had you known that this is forbidden on Sabbaths and Festivals, would you have vowed?' Should he answer 'No', he is absolved. ');">³</span> Before then the ruling was that for those day's the vow is canceled, but for others it is binding; until R. Akiba taught: A vow which is partially annulled is entirely annulled. Rabbah said: All agree that if he said, 'Had I known that my father was among you I would have declared, "You are all forbidden except my father",' all are forbidden but his father is permitted. They differ only if he asserted, 'Had I known that my father was among you. I would have said, "So-and-so are forbidden and my father is permitted".'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former instance, the second declaration, apart from excluding his father, does not alter the vow at all, since just as he first vowed 'you are all forbidden', so now too. Therefore it is not regarded as even partially annulled. But in the second case, the actual form of the vow is changed from the inclusive you are all forbidden' to the detailed enumeration 'So-and-so are forbidden', even if the enumeration covered all. Because of these two factors, viz., the exclusion of his father and the change in form in respect to the rest, it is regarded as partially annulled. Thus the view of Beth Hillel is in accordance with R. Akiba's dictum, whilst Beth Shammai's decision agrees with the earlier ruling. In many cases we find Beth Shammai adhering to the older view; cf. Weiss, Dor, I, 183. ');">⁴</span>