Nedarim 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

In the following beraita, which discusses one who took a vow using the Torah, our Sages disagreed as to whether it is speaking of a neder or of a shevu'a.

Their disagreement is fundamental: Can a person's vow be linked to a vow, to an issar, or to the offerings mentioned in the Torah, or is such linkage possible only to things that have been made sacred, and not to things written in the Torah?

The early authorities [the Ritva and the Ran] who hold that it is impossible to link a vow to something written in the Torah interpret the beraita as referring to an oath, in which a person confirms his words by swearing by the Torah.

The explanation of the following beraita is written according to the Ran and the Rosh, who interpret it as referring to one who swears and not to one who links his vow to another vow.

Three statements are taught in the beraita: the first clause, the middle clause, and the final clause.

It was taught in a beraita:

A. The first clause:

One who vows by "

the Torah,"

when a Torah scroll was before him, and he said, "By this Torah, I will do, or will not do, such-and-such a thing"—

he has said nothing,

since he swore by the parchment.

B. The middle clause: But if he vowed

by what is written in it—

his words stand,

since he swore by the name of the Lord written in the Torah.

C. The final clause:

And if he said, "

By it and by what is written in it"—

his words stand,

and this is an oath.

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the beraita:

It teaches

in the middle clause: "

By what is written in it—

his words stand."

If so, why did the tanna add the following in the final clause: "

By it and by what is written in it"?

Is it

necessary to say

that if he said this, his words stand?

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult.

This is the meaning of the beraita:

The first and middle clauses of the beraita speak of one who was holding a Torah scroll in his hand.

Therefore, in the first clause, where he swears by it, his words do not stand, since he swore by the parchment.

In the middle clause, where he swears by what is written in it, his words stand, because, while holding it in his hand, he swore by the name of the Lord written in it.

The final clause, by contrast, speaks of a case in which he is not holding the Torah scroll; rather, it is lying before him. In that case, if he says only, "By what is written in it," his intention is the parchment on which the Torah scroll is written.

Therefore, only if he says, "By it and by what is written in it," is the meaning of his words that he is swearing by the name of the Lord written in it.

And this is how Rav Naḥman distinguished the cases:

This—

the final clause, in which he says, "By it and by what is written in it"—speaks of a case

in which the Torah is lying on the ground,

as explained.

Whereas

this

that the beraita states in the first clause, "One who vows by the Torah," and in the middle clause, "One who vows by what is written in it"—speaks of a case

in which he is holding it

the Torah

in his hand.

Rav Naḥman explains his distinction:

If he makes his vow while the Torah scroll

is lying on the ground—

his mind is on the parchment,

meaning, his intention is to swear by the parchment, and his oath has no substance. Therefore, only if he says the formula, "By it and by what is written in it," does he intend to swear by the name of the Lord written in the Torah.

But if, when making his vow, he

is holding it

the Torah

in his hand,

and said that he was swearing by the Torah—

his mind is on the Divine Names in it.

And if you wish, say:

Let us interpret the beraita in one way, and not in two different ways as we interpreted it in the previous answer; rather, all three cases speak of a situation

in which it is lying,

the Torah is lying

on the ground.

And this is what the tanna teaches us

in the middle clause:

Even though it is lying,

the Torah is lying

on the ground,

and there would therefore be reason to say that he swore by the parchment in it, nevertheless,

since he said, "By what is written in it"—

it is effective,

since his intention is to swear by the name of the Lord in the Torah.

The final clause is superfluous, because when he says, "By it and by what is written in it," it is obvious that his intention is not to swear only by the parchment but also by the Divine Names in the Torah.

The redundancy of the final clause serves to reveal that the beraita is speaking of this situation: he is not holding the Torah scroll in his hand; rather, it is lying before him. Nevertheless, the middle clause teaches that if he says that he swears "by what is written in it," his intention is not the parchment but the Divine Names in the Torah.

And

the statements of the beraita are taught in the formulation of

"This case, and it is unnecessary to state the other case,"

it teaches.

For once the final clause reveals concerning the middle clause that the Torah scroll is not in his hand but is lying before him, there is no novelty at all in the final clause itself.

And if you wish, say,

it is possible to interpret the beraita differently:

The first and middle clauses speak of a case in which the Torah scroll is lying before him. Therefore, when he says, "By the Torah," he intends to swear by the parchment, whereas when he says, "By what is written in it," he swears by the Divine Names in it.

The final clause, by contrast, speaks of a case in which he is holding the Torah scroll in his hand, as Rav Naḥman interpreted it in his first answer. However, the final clause should not be read as saying that he swears "by it and by what is written in it," because that is obvious and is included in the words of the middle clause.

Rather, the final clause should be read [as stated, we have now interpreted it as speaking of a case in which he is holding the Torah in his hand] as saying that he swears "by it" alone!

[The reading below follows the version of the Ran!] And

the final clause teaches us: Since he is holding it

the Torah

in his hand,

then

even though he said only "

by it"—

it is considered as though he said "

by what is written in it,"

it is considered.

For by holding the Torah scroll in his hand, he intends to swear by what is stated in it, and not by the parchment.

Mishna:

One who says: "

A konam: my sleeping,"

or says: "A konam:

my speaking,"

or

my walking"—and the Gemara will explain the exact wording he used.

the Gemara will explain what his wording was.

And likewise,

And similarly,

one who says to his wife: "A konam: my relations with you"—

this is—

each and every one of these—

in violation of "He shall not profane his word."

Gemara:

It was stated:

One who said: "

A konam: my eyes regarding sleep today, if I sleep tomorrow."

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: He may not sleep today,

by rabbinic law,

lest he sleep tomorrow,

with the result that his condition will have been fulfilled and he will retroactively have been prohibited from sleeping today.

And Rav Naḥman said: He may sleep today,

if he wishes,

and we are not concerned lest he sleep tomorrow,

with the result that he will have retroactively violated the prohibition against profaning his word by sleeping today.

And Rav Yehuda concedes: When he says, “

And Rav Yehuda concedes: When one says: "

A konam: my eyes regarding sleep tomorrow, if I sleep today."

That he may sleep today,