Nedarim 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

There is no vow within a vow!

And we conclude:

This is difficult.

We learned

in the Mishna:

There is a vow within a vow, but there is no oath within an oath.

And we raised the following question concerning it:

What are the circumstances?

If you say

that it is referring to a case such as

where he said, “

I am a nazirite today; I am a nazirite tomorrow.”

Then

correspondingly,

in an analogous case

with regard to an oath,

it should have to be a case where he swore, “

I will not eat figs, and then he repeated and said: An oath that I will not eat grapes.” -

If so,

why does the second oath not take effect upon the first oath?

For the second oath is not similar to what he swore in the first oath, and this is not at all an oath upon an oath?

Rather, what are the circumstances in which an oath does not take effect upon an oath? -

For example, where he said, “

An oath that I will not eat figs,”

and then he repeated and said

the same oath, “

An oath that I will not eat figs.”

And consequently,

correspondingly,

in an analogous case,

with regard to nazirite status,

where the Mishna states that one nazirite term takes effect upon another,

what are the circumstances? -

It is referring to a case such as

where he said, “

I am a nazirite today,”

and then repeated and said, “

I am a nazirite today.”

And it teaches: There is a vow within a vow!

This is difficult for Rav Huna!

And we answer:

Rav Huna could have said: Our Mishna

is speaking as I interpreted it, namely, in a case such as

where he said, “

I am a nazirite today; I am a nazirite tomorrow.”

Therefore, the second nazirite term takes effect.

But

correspondingly,

in an analogous case

with regard to an oath,

it is referring to a case where he said

an oath, “

An oath that

I will not eat figs,”

and then repeated and said, “

An oath that I will not eat figs and grapes

together” -

it does not take effect,

his second oath.

The practical difference is that if he forgets his first oath and knowingly violates the second, and eats figs and grapes together, he is not liable at all.

For he is not liable for eating the figs, since an oath does not take effect upon an oath, and he already swore concerning the figs in the first oath.

And he is also exempt for the grapes, because his second oath was that he would not eat grapes and figs together, and since his second oath did not take effect with regard to the figs, it did not take effect with regard to the grapes either. The figs and grapes together were included in his oath, and it cannot take effect by halves.

The Gemara raises an objection: We find an opposing principle in the statement of Rabbah, that since his second oath takes effect with regard to the grapes, it takes effect with regard to the figs as well!

But Rabbah said:

One who says, “

An oath that I will not eat figs,”

and then repeats and says, “

An oath that I will not eat figs and grapes,”

his oath takes effect.

And

therefore, if

he ate figs and set aside an offering

for the oath of utterance violated by eating the figs,

and then ate grapes -

the grapes would be

the

“half-measure”

of his second oath, which includes figs and grapes together, while he had already set aside an offering for the figs, since he is liable for them independently by virtue of his first oath; and if he now brings an offering for eating the grapes, it turns out that he is bringing an offering for half the measure of his second oath.

And one does not bring an offering for half a measure.

Apparently,

as is demonstrated by Rabbah’s statement,

that

where he said, “

An oath that I will not eat figs,”

and then repeated and said, “

An oath that I will not eat figs and grapes” -

since

the oath takes effect with regard to the grapes,

it also takes effect with regard to the figs!

And we answer:

Rav Huna

does not hold like Rabbah. Rather, in his view, one must say the opposite: Since an oath cannot take effect by halves, just as the second oath did not take effect with regard to the figs, it did not take effect with regard to the grapes either.

The beraita raises an objection

from what we learned in it:

One who undertook two nazirite terms,

and

counted the first, set aside an offering, and asked for its annulment -

the second

counts for him

as the observance of the

first

nazirite term.

And the Gemara infers:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that he said, “

I am a nazirite today; I am a nazirite tomorrow” -

why does the second count for him as the first?

Is there not an extra day,

of the second nazirite term—the thirty-first day—which was not included in the first nazirite term?

Rather, it is obvious

that the beraita is speaking of a case such as

where he said: I am a nazirite today; I am a nazirite today.

Therefore, if he asks for annulment of the first after completing it, the second nazirite term counts for him as the observance of the first nazirite term.

Therefore, if he asked to have the first period annulled after completing it, the second period of naziriteship counts for him through the observance of the first period of naziriteship.