Nedarim 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him: When he takes an oath –

according to our understanding,

it is according to our understanding that he

takes the oath.

And we do not imagine

that he is referring to

ants,

who saw a nest of ants and called them those who emerged from Egypt! And we challenge this:

and

if

according to his own understanding,

according to what he has in mind, of which we are unaware,

does a person not take an oath according to his own understanding?

But was it not 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 admitted part of his fellow’s claim against him, whom they administer an oath concerning the remainder,

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

And the Gemara infers:

To exclude what

do they administer the oath to him according to their understanding and not according to his understanding? –

Is it not

the case that

to exclude

a situation

where he brings them mosaic pieces (iskunderei),

intending to take out pieces of mosaic and give them to the claimant,

and gives them the name coins,

calling them coins according to his own understanding, so that he takes an oath according to his own understanding that he has already paid the claimant coins.

And from the fact that it says

that they administer the oath to him

“according to our understanding,”

by inference

you learn

that a person does take an oath according to his own understanding!

And we answer:

No,

they do not administer an oath to him in order to exclude the case of mosaic pieces that he called coins, for a person does not take an oath according to his own understanding; rather,

it is to exclude the case of Rava’s reed.

For there was a certain man who was owed

who was a creditor to

his fellow a sum of coins.

He came before Rava

to sue him.

The claimant said to him,

the borrower:

Go and repay me!

He said to him,

the borrower:

I have repaid you!

Rava said to him,

to the borrower:

If so, go and take an oath to him that you repaid him.

He went,

the lender,

and brought a reed

and brought a hollow cane,

and put coins inside it,

filling the hollow of the cane with coins equal to the amount of the debt,

and walked leaning on it,

as though he needed to lean on a cane,

and came with it to the court.

The borrower said to him,

the lender,

“Take this cane in your hand”

while I take an oath to you, since I must hold the Torah scroll.

He took

the borrower

a Torah scroll, and took an oath that he had repaid him everything that he had in his possession!

That lender became angry and broke

it in his anger,

that cane, and those coins spilled onto the ground.

And it was discovered that it was true,

and it turned out that indeed,

the man had made a true claim.

And so that he would not resort to such measures, the court administers the oath to him according to their understanding—not because a person takes an oath according to his own understanding.

But the Gemara still challenges this:

And still, does a person not take an oath

a person

according to his own understanding?

But was it not taught in a beraita: And similarly we find concerning Moses our teacher, when he administered an oath to Israel in the plains of Moab

concerning their observance of the Torah,

he said to them:

“Know that I am not administering an oath to you according to your understanding, but according to my understanding and according to the understanding of the Omnipresent!”

As it is stated [

Deuteronomy 29 ]

“And not with you alone.”

And it continues.

What did Moses say to Israel?

Is it not

the case that

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

words,

changing the words concerning which I administered an oath to you,

and you will say

and justify your words, that

“according to our understanding”

we took the oath;

therefore he said to them

Moses, I am administering an oath to you

according to my understanding.

To exclude what? –

Is it not

that Moses intended

to exclude

the possibility

that they would give a name,

that they would call

idolatry

“a deity,”

and swear to obey it, instead of the Holy One, blessed be He.

By inference, a person does take an oath according to his own understanding!

And we reject this:

No,

Moses was not concerned that they might take an oath according to their own understanding by independently calling an idol a deity, as one need not be concerned to such an extent.

Rather, Moses’ concern was that

idolatry is called

in the Torah itself

“a deity,”

as it is written [

Exodus 12 ]

“And against all the deities of Egypt

I shall execute judgments,” and he was concerned that they might take an oath according to the understanding of this deity.

We challenge this: If that was the concern, he had no need to administer an oath to them according to his understanding. Rather,

let him administer an oath to them

that he should administer an oath to them

that you will fulfill mitzvot,

as there is no concern that, concerning fulfillment of the mitzvot, they might take an oath regarding something else.

And we answer: Even in an oath concerning fulfillment of mitzvot, there is a concern that they might take an oath concerning mitzvot that are not the mitzvot of God, since the term “mitzvot” also

can mean –

the command of the king.

And it is still difficult:

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

And we answer: “All the mitzvot”

can mean

also

the mitzva of tzitzit

alone.

As the master said: The mitzva of tzitzit is equivalent to all the mitzvot in the Torah.

And we challenge this:

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

And we answer: This expression

can mean one Torah,

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

And we challenge this:

Let him administer an oath to them,

that Moses should administer an oath to them

that you will fulfill Torahs!

And we answer: The plural “Torahs” can also

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

And we challenge this:

Let him administer an oath to them that you will fulfill Torahs and mitzvot!

And we answer:

“Torahs” –

can mean the law of the meal-offering.

“Mitzvot” –

can mean the command of the king.

And we still challenge this:

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

And we answer:

“The entire Torah” –

can mean idolatry.

As it was taught in a beraita: Idolatry is severe,

it is

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

And we challenge this:

Let him administer an oath to them that you will fulfill idolatry and the entire Torah!

Alternatively, six hundred and thirteen mitzvot!

And therefore the Gemara offers another answer:

Rather, Moses our teacher chose an expression that was not burdensome.

And administering the oath according to his understanding was the easiest course.