Talmud for Nedarim 2:2

קָרְבָּן לֹא אֹכַל לָךְ, קָרְבָּן שֶׁאֹכַל לָךְ, לֹא קָרְבָּן לֹא אֹכַל לָךְ, מֻתָּר. שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אֹכַל לָךְ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֹכַל לָךְ, לֹא שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אֹכַל לָךְ, אָסוּר. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִים. וְחֹמֶר בַּנְּדָרִים מִבַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת, כֵּיצַד, אָמַר, קוֹנָם סֻכָּה שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה, לוּלָב שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹטֵל, תְּפִלִּין שֶׁאֲנִי מֵנִיחַ, בַּנְּדָרִים אָסוּר, בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מֻתָּר, שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין לַעֲבֹר עַל הַמִּצְוֹת:

"Korban, I shall not eat from you," "Korban if I eat from you," "Not korban if I do not eat from you" — it is permitted. [For it is like swearing by the korban (the offering), i.e., "By the life of the offering if I eat something from you."] "Shevuah (an oath), I shall not eat from you" [We do not say that he means: "By the life of the oath, as we do with "korban," for since an oath has no substance, it is not possible to say: "By the life of the oath"], "Shevuah if I eat from you" [Sometimes this connotes "I shall not eat from you." As when one importunes his friend to eat, and the other says: "I shall not eat, I shall not eat," adding: "Shevuah if I eat from you," in which instance it connotes: "I shall not eat from you," viz.: "May I be in transgression of an oath if I eat from you."], "Not shevuah if I do not eat from you" — it is forbidden. This is a stringency of oaths over vows. [We cannot understand this as referring to "Shevuah, I shall not eat from you, etc." For since we learned: "This is a stringency, etc.," the implication is that a vow obtains, but that it does not have the stringency of an oath. But "it is permitted" was taught in respect to "Korban, I shall not eat from you," which is not a vow at all. Therefore, we must understand it as referring to what we learned above (2:1): "Konam that I not sleep, that I not eat" comes under "He may not break his word," which was understood as a rabbinic ordinance, a vow not "taking" with something lacking in substance. And this is a stringency of oaths over vows; for an oath "takes" even with something lacking in substance.] And a stringency of vows over oaths: How so? (If one says:) "Konam" if I make a succah, if I take a lulav, if I wear tefillin. With vows it is forbidden; with oaths it is permitted, for there is no oath in transgression of mitzvoth. [For (with oaths) one forbids a thing to himself, so that there is no appearance of vowing to void a mitzvah; for he did not take this upon himself, but (just) forbade the object to himself. So that if he fulfills the mitzvah, it is a mitzvah being performed by means of a transgression. This is similar to one's being obligated to eat matzoh on Pesach night and finding only matzoh of tevel or of hekdesh, which it is forbidden to eat. But with all "shevuah" terminology, one forbids himself to do a thing. And since he is commanded to do the mitzvah, he can in no way release himself from this obligation. And if one said: "A korban upon me if I wear tefillin," the vow takes, and he must bring an offering if he wears tefillin.]

Explore talmud for Nedarim 2:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.