Shevuot 40
אלא לרבא קשיא
<br> but according to Raba, it is difficult? - Raba may say to you, explain it thus: What is the binding force of a vow which is mentioned in the Torah? He who says: I take it upon me that I shall not eat meat, and that I shall not drink wine, as on the day that my father died, or, as on the day that So-and-So was killed; [he is prohibited from eating meat, etc.;] and Samuel said: only if he had already made a vow on that day. What is the reason Scripture says: If a man vow a vow unto the Lord - only if he vow in the matter which he had already vowed. - 'As on the day my father died'! This is self-evident? - 'As on the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed' is necessary. I might have thought that, since it is also prohibited even if he had not vowed, the fact that he vowed does not bring a prohibition upon him [because of his vow]; so that it [his present vow] is not based on a [previous] vow, [and hence is not a normal vow]; therefore he teaches us [that it is so based; and because perforce he mentions this clause, he mentions also the previous clause, though it is unnecessary]. And R. Johanan also holds this view of Raba, for when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said that R. Johanan said: [If one says:] 'Mibta that I shall not eat of thine', or, 'Issar that I shall not eat of thine', it is an oath. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said that R. Johanan said: [If one says: T swear] I shall eat', or, '[I swear] I shall not eat', [and he transgresses the oath,] it is a false oath; and its prohibition is [derived] from this [verse]: Ye shall not swear by My name falsely. [If one says: T swear] I have eaten' or, '[I swear] I have not eaten', [and it was untrue,] it is a vain oath, and its prohibition is [derived] from this [verse]: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Vows come under the prohibition of: He shall not break his word. <br>
אמר לך רבא תריץ ואימא הכי איזהו איסר נדר האמור בתורה האומר הרי עלי שלא אוכל בשר ושלא אשתה יין כיום שמת בו אביו כיום שנהרג בו פלוני ואמר שמואל והוא שנדור ובא מאותו היום
An objection was raised: Vain and false [oaths] are one. Does not this imply that just as a vain oath is in the past tense, so a false oath is in the past tense; hence, '[I swear] I have eaten' and '[I swear] I have not eaten' are false oaths! - Is this an argument? This is in its own category, and that is in its own category. And what is the meaning of: 'They are one'? That they were pronounced in one utterance; as it has been taught [in another connection]: Remember [the Sabbath day], and Keep [the Sabbath day] were pronounced in a single utterance, - an utterance which the mouth cannot utter, nor the ear hear. Granted, there they were pronounced in one utterance, as R. Ada b. Ahabah said, for R. Ada b. Ahabah said: Women are in duty bound to sanctify the [Sabbath]
מאי טעמא אמר קרא (במדבר ל, ג) איש כי ידור נדר לה' עד שידור בדבר הנדור
day, by decree of the Torah, for Scripture says: Remember and Keep; all who are included in the exhortation Keep are included in the exhortation Remember; and women, since they are included in Keep, are included also in Remember. But here, for what law is it necessary? But, [say then to teach us that] just as stripes are inflicted for a vain oath, so they are inflicted for a false oath; - Whither are you turning? - Well [then, say]: Just as stripes are inflicted for a false oath, so they are inflicted for a vain oath. But this is obvious: this is a negative precept, and that is a negative precept! - I might have thought, as R. Papa said to Abaye: He will not hold him guiltless at all,