Nedarim 17a — the Talmud in English

The verse says:

in the passage concerning the offering for an oath of utterance: “Or a person, when he swears, expressing with the lips

to do harm or to do good,”

just as “

doing good”

is optional, so too “

doing harm”

is optional; this excludes one who swore to annul the mitzva but did not annul it, for the matter is not in his authority.

And since this is so, why do we need to learn this law from “He shall not profane his word,” which implies: but he may profane matters of Heaven!?

And we answer:

one verse—“

“to do harm or to do good,” which is stated in the passage concerning the offering for an oath of utterance—

to exempt him from an oath-offering;

and we still would not know that he also does not violate the prohibition of “He shall not profane his word,” for the exclusion was stated in the passage concerning the offering for an oath of utterance.

And one

verse—“He shall not profane his word,” but he may profane matters of Heaven—

to exempt him from the prohibition of an oath,

namely, from “He shall not profane his word.”

Mishna:

An additional distinction between a vow and an oath is explained in our Mishna, between the taking effect of two vows one upon the other, and the taking effect of two oaths one upon the other.

There is a vow

that takes effect

within

upon

a vow.

But there is no oath

that takes effect

within

upon

an oath.

How so?

If he vowed twice concerning Nazirite observance, as, for example,

he said: I am a nazir

if I eat

this loaf of bread, and he repeated and said

I am a nazir if I eat

this loaf,

and he ate

the loaf—then he is

obligated

to observe two periods of Nazirite observance, one after the other,

for each and every one

of his two statements, “I am a nazir.”

But if he swore twice, and said:

An oath that I shall not eat

this loaf, and he again swore:

An oath that I shall not eat

this loaf

, and he ate—

he is obligated only

for one oath

.

Гемара — талмудическое обсуждение Мишны.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: They taught

in our Mishna, that the two periods of Nazirite observance took effect,

only

in a case such as

where he said: I am a nazir today,

and he repeated and said

I am a nazir tomorrow.

For since an additional day is added,

since he added an additional day in the second period of Nazirite observance, beyond the first period of Nazirite observance, and on that day his second Nazirite observance takes effect,

Nazirite observance takes effect upon Nazirite observance.

But

if

he said: I am a nazir today,

and he repeated and said

I am a nazir today,

since he added nothing in his second period of Nazirite observance—

Nazirite observance does not take effect upon Nazirite observance.

And Shmuel said: Even if he said “

I am a nazir today,” “

I am a nazir today”—

Nazirite observance takes effect upon him

upon him.

And we object:

And according to Rav Huna,

who said that if he did not add anything in his second period of Nazirite observance, the second period of Nazirite observance does not take effect upon him, this is difficult:

Instead of teaching,

in the place where the tannay taught in our Mishna the distinction between an oath and a vow, that there is a vow within a vow, but

there is no oath within an oath—

let him teach

this distinction with regard to vows themselves—

There is a vow within a vow, and there is no vow within a vow.

How so?

If he said “

I am a nazir today,” “

I am a nazir tomorrow”—

there is a vow within a vow.

But if he said “

I am a nazir today,” “

I am

a nazir today”