Nedarim 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

And this is a refutation of Rav Huna!

And we answer:

No.

Actually,

the beraita is speaking of a case where he said, “

I hereby become a nazir today; I hereby become one tomorrow.”

And what does it mean by “

the second naziriteship counted for him

as part of the first”? —

Except for that additional day,

which he must continue to observe as a nazir.

Alternatively,

the beraita is speaking of a case

such as where he accepted two naziriteships simultaneously,

as when he said, “I hereby become a nazir twice.” In that case, even according to Rav Huna, two naziriteships take effect upon him.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection

from a beraita:

As it is taught: It is written [Numbers 6], “

A nazir to consecrate naziriteship” —

from here

the Sages learned

that naziriteship takes effect upon naziriteship.

One might have thought

that it should be otherwise. For

is it not a matter of

a kal va-homer

that it should

be otherwise?

And just as a vow,

which is

stringent —

one oath does not take effect upon another oath,

nazirite status,

which is

lenient —

all the more so

should one naziriteship not take effect upon another naziriteship.

The verse therefore states: “

A nazir to consecrate naziriteship”!

From here, that naziriteship takes effect upon naziriteship.

And Rav Hamnuna analyzes the words of the beraita:

What are the circumstances?

How is this case being described?

If you say

that it is speaking of a case

where he said, “

I hereby become a nazir today; I hereby become a nazir tomorrow” —

it is impossible to say this.

Since, after all,

this,

such an obvious matter —

does it require a verse!?

Does one need a scriptural derivation for this?

Rather,

Rav Hamnuna demonstrates,

no,

the beraita must necessarily be speaking of a case

where he said, “I hereby become a nazir today; I hereby become a nazir today.”

And it teaches

in the beraita that

naziriteship takes effect upon naziriteship!

And this is difficult for Rav Huna!

The Gemara rejects Rav Hamnuna’s proof from the beraita:

No,

the beraita is not speaking in such a manner.

Rather,

here, with what are we dealing —

with

a case where he accepted two naziriteships simultaneously.

The verse teaches that both take effect.

The Gemara now proceeds to analyze the words of the beraita:

And what is the stringency,

in what way is the

oath more stringent than a vow,

as the beraita states?

If you say,

that the stringency of an oath is

because it takes effect,

that an oath takes effect

even upon something without substance,

such as when a person obligates himself by an oath to eat, whereas a vow takes effect only upon an object, which is something with substance —

on the other hand,

a vow is also more stringent, as

a vow

takes effect upon a mitzva,

preventing one from fulfilling it, such as when he forbids the sukka to himself so that he may not sit in it,

just as

it takes effect upon something

permitted!

But an oath does not take effect upon a mitzva; it takes effect only upon something permitted. A person cannot swear not to fulfill a mitzva, and if he swore not to sit in a sukka, his oath does not take effect.

Rather,

the stringency of an oath is

because it is written with regard to an oath, [Exodus 20], “

Shemot 20]: "

He will not absolve.”

We learned in the Mishna: One who swore, “

An oath that I will not eat,”

and then swore again, “

An oath that I will not eat,”

and ate —

he is liable for only one.

Rava said: If he seeks release from

the

first

oath, the

second oath takes effect upon him.

And

from where

do I learn this? —

From the fact that it does not teach

in the beraita, “

It is only

one

oath,”

and it teaches, “

He is liable for only one” —

it follows that only with regard to lashes is he not liable for two sets of lashes, but the second oath also has legal force.

The reason he is not lashed for the second oath as well is that as long as the first oath remains in force and obligates him,

there is no room for the second oath

[to est svobodnogo, nezanyatogo mesta],

to take effect, and it remains pending.

— vtoraya klyatva ne mozhet vkhodit v silu, i ee status ostayotsya neopredelennym.

But

when he seeks release

from

the other one,

the first oath,

the second oath takes effect

upon him.

Alternatively,

this is how the beraita should be understood:

It is liability that is absent

with regard to the second oath.

This,

the legal force of

an oath is present.

And

for what practical halakhic purpose?

In what matter is the legal force of the second oath expressed, given that he is not lashed for it?

[unclear: the text reads “lakh deRava”].

As Rava said:

If he

seeks release from the first —

the second takes its place.

And we inquire about this:

Shall we say that this supports Rava

from what we learned:

One who vowed two naziriteships, counted the first, set aside an offering, and sought release from it —

the second

naziriteship

counts for him in place of the first!

The Gemara rejects the proof, because it is possible to say that this ruling applies only to

a case where he accepted two naziriteships simultaneously.