Nedarim 25a — the Talmud in English

He said to him: When he swears -

according to our understanding,

it is according to our understanding that he

swears.

And we do not bring to mind

we do not conceive that it is referring to

ants,

who saw a nest of ants and called them those who came out of Egypt! And we object:

And

if

according to his own understanding,

according to what he brings to mind, of which we do not know,

does a person not swear?

But it was taught in a beraita: When they,

the court,

administer an oath to him,

to one who is obligated by Torah law to take an oath, such as one who admits to his fellow's claim in part, so that they administer an oath to him concerning the remainder,

they say to him: Know that it is not according to the condition in your heart that we administer an oath to you, but rather according to our understanding and according to the understanding of the court!

And the Gemara analyzes:

To exclude what

do they administer an oath to him according to their understanding and not according to his understanding? -

Is it not

is it not the case that

to exclude

for example

that he brings them out as iskunderei,

for the possibility that he will take out pieces of mosaic and give them to the claimant,

and he designates them as zuzim,

and on his own understanding calls them zuzim, and he swears, according to his understanding, that he has already paid the claimant zuzim.

And from the fact that he says

that they administer an oath to him

"according to our understanding,"

by implication

this you learn,

that a person does swear according to his own understanding!

And we resolve:

No,

they administer an oath to him to exclude the iskunderei that he called zuzim, because a person does not swear according to his own understanding, but rather

to exclude the reed of Rava.

For there was a certain man who was owed

who was a creditor

money by his fellow.

He came before Rava

to sue him.

The claimant said to him

the claimant said to

the borrower: Go, pay me!

He said to him

the borrower:

I paid you!

Rava said to him

to the borrower:

If so, go and swear to him that you paid him.

He went,

the lender went,

and brought a reed

and brought a hollow reed,

and put money inside it,

he filled the hollow of the reed with money equal to the amount of his debt,

and he would lean and go,

as though he needed to lean on a staff,

and came with it to the court.

The borrower said to him

the borrower said to

the lender: Hold this reed in your hand

while I swear to you, for I must hold the Torah scroll.

He took

the borrower took

a Torah scroll, and swore that he had paid him everything that he had in his possession!

That lender became angry, and broke

and broke in his anger

that reed, and those coins spilled onto the ground.

And it was found that it was true,

and it was found that indeed it was true,

a man had sued.

And in order that he should not take such steps, the court administers an oath to him according to their understanding, and not because a person swears according to his own understanding.

But the Gemara still objects:

And still, does he not do

a person

to swear according to his own understanding?

But it was taught in a beraita: And likewise we find concerning Moses our teacher, when he administered an oath to Israel in the plains of Moab

concerning the observance of the Torah,

he said to them:

Know that it is not according to your understanding that I administer an oath to you, but rather according to my understanding and according to the understanding of the Omnipresent!

As it is stated [

Deuteronomy 29 ] "

And not with you alone."

And he completes.

What did Moses say to Israel?

Is it not

is it not the case that

this is what he said to them: Perhaps you will alter

words,

you will change the words concerning which I administered an oath to you,

and you will say

and explain your words, that

according to our understanding

we swore,

therefore he said to them

Moses, Behold, I administer an oath to you

according to my understanding.

To exclude what? -

Is it not

is it not that Moses intended

to exclude

to remove the possibility

that they designate as a deity,

that they will call

idolatry "

deity,"

and swear to obey it, instead of the Omnipresent.

By implication, a person does swear according to his own understanding!

And we reject this:

No,

Moses was concerned lest they swear according to their understanding by independently calling idolatry by the name deity, for one need not be concerned to such an extent.

Rather, Moses's concern was because

idolatry is called

in the Torah itself

deity,

as it is written [

Exodus 12 ] "

and against all the deities of Egypt I shall execute judgments," and he was concerned that they would swear according to this deity.

.

And we wonder: If it is because of this concern, there is no need for him to administer an oath to them according to his understanding. Rather,

let him administer an oath to them

that he should make them swear

that you fulfill mitzvot,

and concerning the fulfillment of the mitzvot there is no concern that they will swear concerning something else.

And we resolve: Even in an oath concerning the fulfillment of mitzvot there is concern that they will swear concerning mitzvot that are not the mitzvot of the Omnipresent, since "mitzvot" also

can mean -

the commandments of the king.

And there is still cause for wonder:

Let him administer an oath to them that you fulfill all mitzvot!

And we resolve: "All mitzvot"

can mean

also

the mitzva of ritual fringes

alone.

For the Master said: The mitzva of ritual fringes is equivalent to all the mitzvot in the Torah.

And we wonder:

Let him administer an oath to them that you fulfill Torah!

And we resolve: This expression

can mean one Torah,

whereas we were commanded concerning two Torahs, the Written and the Oral.

And we wonder:

And let him administer an oath to them

that Moses should make them swear

that you fulfill Torahs!

And we resolve: "Torahs" can also

mean: the law of a meal-offering, the law of a sin-offering, the law of a guilt-offering.

And we wonder:

And let him administer an oath to them that you fulfill Torahs and mitzvot!

And we resolve:

"Torahs" -

can mean the law of the meal-offering.

"Mitzvot" -

can mean the commandments of the king.

And we still wonder:

And let him administer an oath to them that you fulfill the entire Torah!

And we resolve:

"The entire Torah" -

can mean idolatry.

For it was taught in a beraita: Severe

it is

idolatry, for anyone who denies it is as though he acknowledges the entire Torah.

And we wonder:

And let him administer an oath to them that you fulfill idolatry and the entire Torah!

Alternatively, six hundred and thirteen mitzvot!

And therefore the Gemara answers in another manner:

Rather, Moses our teacher chose a matter that is not burdensome.

And administering an oath according to his understanding is the easiest way.