Nedarim 16a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “Korban, I shall not eat of yours; korban, I shall eat of yours; ‘for a korban, I shall not eat of yours’—it is permitted”:

Earlier, in the Mishna on 10b, Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagreed: According to the first tanna, who is Rabbi Meir, one who says, “Jerusalem, what I eat of yours,” is forbidden, even though he did not say “like Jerusalem,” with the kaf of comparison; whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds: One who says “Jerusalem” [and any other expression to which he did not add the kaf of comparison] has said nothing.”

The Gemara infers from that which we learned, “Korban, I shall not eat of yours—it is permitted,” that if he had said, “Korban, I shall eat of yours” [that is, “what I eat of yours shall be upon me like a korban”], he would indeed have been forbidden, even though he did not say “like a korban”—

And if so, it necessarily follows that

whose is the Mishna?

It is Rabbi Meir’s, for he does not distinguish between ‘korban’ and ‘like a korban’,

that is: he does not require the kaf of comparison—

And if so,

say its latter clause: “

For a korban, I shall not eat of yours,”

it is permitted.

But

since our Mishna is Rabbi Meir’s, the following is difficult:

But did we not learn

in the Mishna above, 13a:

One who says: “

For a korban, I shall not eat of yours,”

Rabbi Meir forbids, and Rabbi Abba said

[above, 13b], in explanation of Rabbi Meir’s reason: Because

it becomes as though he said, “

For a korban shall be

[what I eat of yours]

therefore I shall not eat of yours.”

And how did we learn: “For a korban, I shall not eat of yours—it is permitted,” in our Mishna, which is according to Rabbi Meir!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This—

the Mishna above—

is where he said “

for a korban

[with the lamed having a sheva] ‘I shall not eat of yours,’” which can be interpreted: “For a korban shall it be; therefore I shall not eat of yours,” and therefore he is forbidden to eat from what belongs to his fellow.

This—

our Mishna—

is where he said “

le-korban”

[with the lamed having an open vowel],

that “

it shall not be a korban”

he is saying,

and once again it is not applicable to say: “For a korban shall it be; therefore I shall not eat of yours.”

Mishna:

One who says “

An oath: I shall not eat of yours,”

which implies: “By an oath! I shall not eat of yours.”

Or he said: “

This is an oath that I shall eat of yours,”

which likewise implies that I shall not eat of yours. Or: “

For an oath

[with the lamed having an open vowel ]

I shall not eat of yours,”

which implies: “What I shall not eat of yours shall not be forbidden to me by an oath; but what I shall eat of yours shall be forbidden by an oath,” for “from a negative you hear a positive”—

And therefore, in all these cases, he is

forbidden.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “This is an oath that I shall eat of yours,” and so on—it is forbidden:

This implies that

if he said, “

This is an oath that I shall eat of yours,”

his expression is not interpreted as “an oath that I shall eat,” but

that “

I shall not eat”

is implied,

as though he said: “By an oath, what I eat of yours shall be upon me,” and therefore he is forbidden to eat.

And raise a contradiction

from a Mishna in Shevuot:

Oaths are two, which are four,

that is: two explicit oaths in Scripture, “Or a person, when he swears, expressing with his lips to do harm or to do good,” and the Sages derived two additional oaths—

Two oaths concerning the future, which are explicit in Scripture: “An oath

that I shall eat”

[that is, “to do good”]

and “

an oath

that I shall not eat”

[that is, “to do harm”].

Two additional oaths concerning the past, from the Sages’ exposition: “An oath

that I ate”

and “

an oath

that I did not eat.”

And we infer:

Since the tanna says: “

that I shall eat and that I shall not eat,”

and “

that I ate and that I did not eat,”

it follows that just as “I ate and I did not eat” means “yes and no,” so too “that I shall eat and that I shall not eat” means “yes and no”—

This implies that “

This implies that “

that I shall eat of yours” “

I shall eat”

is implied,

for if “that I shall eat” is interpreted as “what I eat shall be upon me by an oath,” as in our Mishna, then “I shall eat and I shall not eat” are both “no,” and not “yes and no”!?

Said

he answered,

Abaye: “

That I shall eat”

has two possible meanings,

and everything depends on the circumstances:

If

they were pressing

[urging]

him to eat, and he said “

I shall eat, I shall eat,”

and then

he added by saying: “

An oath that I shall eat,”

then

‘I shall eat’

But if he said “

is implied.

But if he said “

I shall not eat, I shall not eat,”

and then

he further

said: “

An oath that I shall eat,”

then

‘I shall not eat’

he is saying,

that is, what I eat of yours shall be forbidden to me by an oath.

Rav Ashi said

to answer in another manner:

‘That I shall eat,’ in ‘an oath that I shall eat,’ means that I shall not eat.

[In Shevuot 20a we read]:

Rav Ashi said: Teach [the text as] ‘an oath that I shall not eat of yours’.

That is: This which we learned in our Mishna, “This is an oath that I shall eat of yours,” should not be taught in this way, but rather, “This is an oath that I shall not eat of yours,” which certainly means “I shall not eat”; but the ordinary expression “that I shall eat” means “I shall eat.”

And we ask:

If so, it is obvious

and

what is it coming to say [what novelty is there in this]!?

it might have been said: The wording was distorted for him

And we answer: There is a novelty in the matter, for

it might have been said: It is an expression that was distorted, for his tongue stumbled over it,

that is: It is a distorted expression, and it is only his tongue that stumbled over it; and in Shevuot 19a: “It might have been said: his tongue stumbled over it.”

That is, it could have been said that the expression “that I shall not eat” is merely a distortion of speech, for people do not ordinarily use the expression “that I shall not eat,” but rather “that I shall not eat,” and his tongue stumbled, in that he lengthened the vowel of the shin, “that I shall eat,” so that it resembles one saying “that I shall not eat,” but in fact he intended to say only “that I shall eat.”

It teaches us

that our Mishna says that his expression is interpreted according to its plain meaning, and he is forbidden to eat.

And the Gemara explains:

Abaye did not state Rav Ashi’s reason,

who said, “Teach [the text as] ‘that I shall not eat,’” because

it does not teach “

that I shall not eat.”

And Rav Ashi withdrew

[he was moving away and distancing himself]

from Abaye’s reason,

which interprets the expression “that I shall eat” in two meanings, in accordance with the circumstances.

Because

he holds,

Rav Ashi: Just as you say that the expression “that I shall eat” has two meanings, so you can also say: “

that I shall not eat”

also has two possible meanings.

For if

they were pressing him to eat, and he said: “

I shall eat, I shall eat,”

and he also said: An oath, whether “

that I shall eat”

or “

you can interpret it as follows:

that I shall not eat”

[and he swore both “an oath that I shall eat” and “an oath that I shall not eat”]—

you can interpret:

‘This—I shall eat—is implied; he said’ [“I shall eat this” is the meaning of his expression].

That is: Even when he used the expression “that I shall not eat,” if they had first urged him to eat, his expression is not necessarily interpreted as “I shall not eat,” but you can interpret it as: “Did I swear to you that I shall not eat? But I already told you that I shall eat,” and he will not be forbidden by the oath to eat.

And it is also possible to resolve the expression

[and you can interpret the expression] according to its plain meaning: “

An oath that I shall not eat”—

he is saying an oath that I shall not eat.”

And if it is as you say, why does the tanna use the expression “that I shall eat” once with one meaning and once with the other meaning, whereas with “that I shall not eat” the tanna uses only one meaning, namely, “I shall not eat”!?

It necessarily follows that the interpretation of the expressions does not change,

but the tanna determined

[established decisively]: “

That I shall eat”

means ‘I shall eat’

in every case

; and “

that I shall not eat”

means ‘I shall not eat’

in every case.

in every case.

Mishna:

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishnayot we learned two distinctions between vows and oaths:

The first: A thing that has no substance, such as one who forbids sleep; in a vow he is forbidden only by rabbinic law, since it has no substance, whereas in an oath he is forbidden by Torah law.

The second: The three expressions, “Korban, I shall not eat of yours,” “This is a korban that I shall eat of yours,” and “For a korban, I shall not eat of yours,” which do not take effect to forbid him from eating with his fellow when he says them in this wording, which is the wording of a vow; but if he says those same expressions in the wording of an oath, they take effect.

And the Mishna concludes:

This—

these distinctions that we learned between vows and oaths—

is a stringency

in

oaths over vows,

for in an oath they take effect, but not in a vow.

And there is a stringency in vows over oaths—

how so?

If he said: ‘Konam, the sukka that I make,’

‘the lulav that I take,’ ‘the phylacteries that I put on’—in vows,

he is

forbidden

to perform the mitzva.

Whereas

with oaths

he is

permitted, for one does not swear to transgress the mitzvot,

and the Gemara will explain the reason for the distinction between a vow and an oath.