Nedarim 17b — the Talmud in English

There is no vow within a vow!

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

We learned:

we learned in the Mishna:

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

And we examined it:

What are the circumstances?

If you say

if it is stated in a case such as

he said: “

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

Behold,

the equivalent of it

similarly,

with regard to an oath,

it must be said that he swore: “

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

And if so,

why does an oath not take effect upon an oath?

For the second oath is not of the same kind as what he swore in the first, 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, he said: “

An oath that I will not eat figs,”

and he again said

the same oath: “

An oath that I will not eat figs.”

And consequently,

the equivalent of it,

similarly,

with regard to naziriteship,

where the Mishna said that naziriteship takes effect upon naziriteship,

what are the circumstances? -

In a case such as

he said: “

I am a nazirite today,”

and he again said: “

I am a nazirite today.”

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

It is difficult for Rav Huna!

And we answer:

Rav Huna can say to you: Our Mishna,

our Mishna speaks as I established it, in a case such as

he said: “

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

And therefore the second naziriteship takes effect.

But

the equivalent of it,

similarly,

with regard to an oath,

it concerns

his saying an oath: “

an oath

that I will not eat figs,”

and he again said: “

An oath that I will not eat figs and grapes

together” -

does not take effect

his second oath.

And the practical difference is: if he forgets his first oath and is deliberate regarding 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 concerning the figs he already swore 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, because the figs and grapes together were included in his oath, and it cannot take effect partially.

And the Gemara raises an objection: we find in Rabba’s words an opposite position, that since his second oath takes effect with regard to the grapes, it takes effect with regard to the figs as well!

And Rabba said:

one who says: “

An oath that I will not eat figs,”

and he again said: “

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

the offering of an oath of utterance for the transgression of eating the figs,

and he again ate grapes -

they would become for him

the

grapes “

half a measure”

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

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

Evidently,

it is proven from Rabba’s words that

where he said: “

An oath that I will not eat figs,”

and he again said: “

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

by virtue of

since

an oath took effect upon the grapes, it also takes effect upon the figs!

And we answer:

Rav Huna -

does not hold like Rabba,

but in his view one must say the opposite: since an oath does not take effect partially, just as the second oath did not take effect upon the figs, it did not take effect upon the grapes either.

He raises an objection

from a beraita, in which we learned:

One who accepted two naziriteships.

And

he counted the first, set aside an offering, and asked about it -

it counted for him

the naziriteship

second in

the conduct of the naziriteship

first.

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?

For there is an additional day,

of the second naziriteship, the thirty-first day, which was not included in the first naziriteship!

Rather, it is obvious

that the beraita speaks in a case such as

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

And therefore, if he asked about the first after its fulfillment, the second naziriteship counted for him in the conduct of the first naziriteship.