Nedarim 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

Even in the first cases,

that is, even in the earlier cases, regarding which the Gemara rejected the possibility that the Sages would agree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov—for example, where he could claim that it was not a dog or that he was not a king—even so, the Sages disagree with him.

And infer from it

that indeed

the Sages disagree with him.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from it

that they disagree with him in all the cases.

And the Gemara asks:

What conclusion was reached?

What is the ruling in this dispute?

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

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

Mishna:

Vows of exaggeration,

which are not valid vows—how so?

If one said: “Konam”

this object is forbidden to me

“if I did not see on this road people as numerous as those who came out of Egypt.”

Or if he said: “This object is Konam, forbidden to me,”

“if I did not see a snake”

whose girth was

“like the beam of an olive press.”

Gemara:

A tanna

taught in a beraita: Only

vows of exaggeration are

permitted.

But

oaths of exaggeration are

prohibited

by rabbinic decree, because of the severity of an oath.

And the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances of

“oaths of exaggeration,”

which are prohibited?

If you say that it is where he said:

“An oath—

if I did not see on this road

people as numerous as those who came out of Egypt,” and he did not prohibit anything with his oath—

But

anything—

something of substance—

did he say?

These words have no significance of this sort; what is there here to prohibit?

Abaye said:

For example,

where he said:

“An oath that I saw

on this road people as numerous as those who came out of Egypt.” Although this is an oath of exaggeration, he is rabbinically prohibited from swearing in this manner, because the Sages treated oaths stringently on account of the severity of an oath.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Rava: “If so,”

that he swore that he saw people as numerous as those who came out of Egypt, then even though people customarily speak this way about a large crowd, it is prohibited to swear in these words, since in fact he did not see people as numerous as those who came out of Egypt.

Why do I need it to say

that it is prohibited?

Furthermore,

an oath—

is taught analogously to a vow!

In the case of a vow, he prohibited produce to himself with a Konam if he had not seen people as numerous as those who came out of Egypt; likewise, in the case of an oath, it must be established that he swore regarding produce that he would not eat it if he had not seen people as numerous as those who came out of Egypt.

Rather, Rava said:

The beraita is discussing

one who says:

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

He is prohibited from eating the produce, even though people customarily refer to a very large crowd as “those who came out of Egypt,” because of the severity of an oath. Nevertheless, he is not prohibited by Torah law, since he did see people whom ordinary speech allows one to call “those who came out of Egypt.”

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

a nest of many ants gathered together in one place,

and gave them a name

and called them

“those who came out of Egypt,”

and he swore correctly!