Nedarim 24b — the Talmud in English

Even in the first cases,

that is, even in the earlier cases, concerning which the Gemara rejected that there is a reason that the Sages would agree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, such as that he can claim that it is not a dog, or that it is not a king, nevertheless the Sages disagree with him.

And learn from it

indeed

the Sages disagree with him.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

that they disagreed with him in all the cases.

And the Gemara discusses:

What was concluded concerning it?

How was the halakha decided in this dispute?

Come and hear, for Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And so Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

Mishna:

Vows of exaggeration,

which are not vows—how so?

He said: konam

this thing is forbidden to me,

if I did not see on this road as many as those who came out of Egypt.

Or he said: konam, this thing is forbidden to me,

if I did not see a snake

whose thickness was

like the beam of an oil press.

Gemara:

The tannai

in a beraita: only

vows of exaggeration—

are permitted.

But

oaths of exaggeration—

are forbidden

by rabbinic decree because of the gravity of an oath.

And the Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances of “

oaths of exaggeration,”

which are forbidden?

If you say that he said, “

An oath—

if I did not see on this road as many as those who came out of Egypt,”

and he did not forbid anything through his oath—

But

anything,

something that has substance,

did he say!

But there is no meaning whatsoever to statements of this kind, so what is there here to forbid?

Abaye said:

for example,

he said, “

An oath that I saw on this road as many as those who came out of Egypt,” and although it is an oath of exaggeration, he is forbidden to swear in this manner, by rabbinic decree, because the Sages were stringent with oaths on account of the gravity of an oath.

on this road people as numerous as those who went out of Egypt.” Although this is an oath based on exaggeration, he is forbidden by rabbinic decree to swear in this manner, because the Sages imposed greater stringency with regard to oaths due to their severity.

Rava said

in astonishment

to him: If so,

that he swore that he saw as many as those who came out of Egypt, then even if it is the way of people to say this concerning a large crowd, it is forbidden to swear in this language, since in fact he did not see as many as those who came out of Egypt, and

why do I need it to say

that it is forbidden?

And furthermore,

an oath—

it teaches it in a form analogous to a vow!

And in the vow, the matter concerns his forbidding produce to himself with konam if he did not see as many as those who came out of Egypt; likewise, in the oath we must establish that he swore concerning produce that he would not eat it if he did not see as many as those who came out of Egypt.

Rather, Rava said:

the beraita is speaking

of one who says, “

The produce of the world shall be forbidden to me by an oath if I did not see on this road as many as those who came out of Egypt.”

And he is forbidden to eat the produce, even though it is the way of people to call a great multitude “those who came out of Egypt,” because of the gravity of an oath. Although he is not forbidden by Torah law, since he did see as many as “those who came out of Egypt” in the language of people.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps this man saw a nest of ants,

that is, he saw many ants concentrated in one place,

and gave them the name

and called them

“those who came out of Egypt,”

and he swore properly!