Nedarim 25b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

How are

vows of error

that do not take effect?

A person says: “This thing is konam to me,”

if I ate and if I drank.

And he remembered that he had eaten and drunk.

Or he made the konam dependent upon the condition

that I eat and that I drink.

And he forgot

his vow,

and ate and drank.

C.

He said: “My wife is konam to me,”

because of

her having stolen my purse and her having struck my son.

And it became known that she had not struck him, and it became known that she had not stolen.

D.

He saw them eating figs, and said: “Behold, you are a sacrifice to me,” and it turned out that they were his father and his brothers, and there were others with them—

The House of Shammai say: They are permitted, and those who were with them are forbidden.

And the House of Hillel say: Both these and those are permitted,

because a vow that did not take effect with regard to part of them did not take effect in its entirety.

Gemara:

A tanna

in a beraita

taught: Just as vows of error are permitted, so oaths of error are permitted.

And we raised it

What are oaths of error?

For example, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi,

when they were disputing the words of Rav:

This one,

he

said: “An oath,”

I swear

that this is what Rav said.

And that one,

while this one

said: “An oath that this is what Rav said,”

the opposite.

For each and every one—

according to his own understanding, he rightly brought it before the claimant.

And therefore, although it is clear that one of them is mistaken, neither of them is liable on account of his oath, since the one who was mistaken was certain of his words and swore according to his error.

We learned in the Mishna:

He saw them eating,

and prohibited them so that they should not eat, and his father and his brothers were among them—all are permitted.

The Gemara now discusses a vow or an oath of which part was permitted, whether all of it is permitted.

We learned there: We open

an opening for the dissolution of his vow, for one who prohibited himself from meat and wine for one year, and he knows that during the year there are Shabbatot and festivals on which it is a mitzva to drink wine and eat meat—

on Shabbatot and on Yom Tov—

saying to him: If you had remembered at the time of your vow that it is forbidden to refrain from drinking wine and eating meat on Shabbat and Yom Tov, would you have vowed concerning them as well? And if he says no, on this basis they dissolve it for him.

At first they would say: Those days

—

Shabbatot and festivals—are permitted, and all the other days are forbidden.

Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: A vow of which part was permitted—

all of it is permitted!

And Rabba and Rava disputed the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages:

And according to Rabba’s method, it must be prefaced that the one who made the vow has the ability, after he hears that his father is among those included in his vow, to retract his prohibition of his father, which was certainly a vow of error, in two ways:

The first: to regret entirely the wording in which he included his father among those prohibited, and to say: Had I known that my father was among them, I would not have said “all of you,” but I would have specified the names of those who were prohibited, and I would not have included my father among them.

And the second: to remain with the wording in which he said “all of you,” and to retract what he did not add to his words, “except my father.”

Rabba said: According to everyone—

wherever he says: “Had I known

at the time I made my vow

that Father was among you, I would have said “

All of you are forbidden except Father”—

all of them are forbidden, and his father is permitted.

Since this vow remains as it was, and this is not a vow of which part was permitted, because it is clear that he did not intend to prohibit his father, and it has now become clear that he did not include him when he said “all of you”; and this is not a vow of which part was permitted.

They did not dispute,

the Sages and Rabbi Akiva,

except concerning one who says: “Had I known that Father was among you, I would have said “

So-and-so and so-and-so are forbidden, and Father is permitted,”

for by this he nullifies the wording of the vow.

And his claim that, had he known, he would have said this is for the honor of his father, for he should not have said “all of you” when his father was among them, since the matter appears as though he was prohibiting his father.

And in this the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disputed whether we say that a vow of which part was permitted is entirely permitted, since here, too, the vow of “all of you” does not remain in its entirety, and the wording of the vow does not remain as it was, but is amended with regard to part of the vow.