Nedarim 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

From where is it derived that one takes an oath to fulfill a mitzva?

As it is stated in Psalms [chapter 119]: “

As it is stated in Psalms [chapter 119]: “

I have sworn and I will fulfill it, to observe the judgments of Your righteousness.”

Thus, David became obligated to fulfill the oath that he took to fulfill the mitzvot.

The Gemara had assumed that Rav Giddel’s intention was to teach that this oath takes effect.

Therefore, the Gemara wondered:

Is he not already under oath from Mount Sinai to fulfill the mitzvot? If so, his oath is an oath upon an oath,

which does not take effect to obligate him to bring an offering, as with other oaths of utterance [as we derive in Shevuot 27a, that an oath to fulfill a mitzva was excluded from the passage concerning an offering for an oath of utterance]!?

You might say that even though an oath to fulfill a mitzva was excluded from the obligation to bring an offering, nevertheless Rav Giddel came to innovate that this oath takes effect with regard to the prohibition “He shall not profane his word.”

This cannot be said. For Rav Giddel would not have needed to cite this verse from the Book of Psalms, which is considered “the words of tradition,” in order to prove his statement. Rather, we must know this principle from the Torah, from the fact that the Torah’s limitation “to do harm or to do good” was stated only in the passage concerning an offering for an oath of utterance, whereas no such exclusion was stated with regard to the prohibition “He shall not profane his word.”

If so, the difficulty arises: What is Rav Giddel saying!?

And we answer: Rav Giddel did not intend to innovate that the oath takes effect with regard to “He shall not profane his word,” as this is obvious.

Rather, Rav Giddel is teaching us this:

Rav Giddel teaches

that it is permitted for a person

to motivate himself

[it is permitted and proper for a person to swear in order to motivate himself] to fulfill mitzvot.

And this is what Rav Giddel said: From where do we know that it is proper to swear in order to fulfill a mitzva, and that even those scrupulous people who refrain from taking oaths do take an oath for this purpose? The verse states: “I have sworn and I will fulfill it, to observe the judgments of Your righteousness.” Thus, even King David acted in this manner.

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: One who says

in the language of an oath:

I will study

or

I will study this tractate—

has made a great vow

[he has taken a great oath]

to the God of Israel.

a. In Kehillot Yaakov, section 22, it is brought that Ramban’s view is unlike that of the Ran: there is not even a violation of “He shall not profane” [see also the marginal gloss to the Talmud, which cites this from Ramban in the portion of Mattot]. Ketzot HaḤoshen [73:5] asked: If so, what motivation is there in taking an oath that one is not obligated to fulfill? He answered that Ramban also agrees that there is a prohibition; he merely holds that there are not even lashes on account of “He shall not profane.” Kehillot Yaakov wrote there that Ramban’s words in his Milḥamot, chapter 3 of Shevuot, do not indicate this. He explained there the motivation provided by an oath that does not take effect [and cited that Ba’al Giddulei Teruma wrote similarly]: By nature, when people face a mitzva that is difficult for them to fulfill, they seek various strange grounds for leniency in order to make things easier for themselves. Through the oath, however, they will no longer seek grounds for leniency. For insofar as this matter might be permitted, the oath takes effect [and accordingly David did not swear in a general manner to observe the judgments of the Torah, for in that case it would accomplish nothing; rather, he swore in a manner that would include in his oath all the various and strange ways of permitting himself], and see further there. b. Kehillot Yaakov also cites the words of Meiri, who likewise holds that the oath does not take effect at all. He explains our sugya as teaching from David that this does not constitute a “vain oath,” like one who swears concerning a stone that it is a stone. Since he does so in order to motivate himself, it is not a “vain oath” [and the Ritva wrote similarly: Since it concerns a mitzva involving his own person, and he knows that he will fulfill his oath, it is not a vain oath]. Meiri added that this applies only if he ultimately fulfills his oath. But if he does not fulfill it in the end, it retroactively becomes a vain oath. Kehillot Yaakov tends to explain his intention as follows: Otherwise, there is no motivation here, since the oath that he took has already passed. In the texts before us it reads, “ I will rise early and study this chapter,” but Tosafot quoted, “One who says: I will study this chapter,” and this is also somewhat indicated by the Ran. See the Ran and Ritva, who cite several examples in which an oath is expressed in the language of a vow.

The Gemara wondered: Since Rav Giddel said that he “has made a great vow,” this indicates that it is an oath in every respect, even with regard to liability to bring an offering if he does not fulfill it.

If so, the difficulty arises:

Is he not already under oath from Mount Sinai

to study Torah,

and an oath does not take effect upon an oath

to obligate him to bring an offering for the second oath if he does not fulfill it!? You might say that when Rav Giddel said “a great vow,” he did not intend to say that it is a full-fledged oath. Rather,

what is Rav Giddel teaching us

—

that even

mere motivation,

to motivate himself to study Torah, is a great matter—

The difficulty arises: This is

the first statement of Rav Giddel,

[his first dictum], so why did Rav Giddel need to state it twice!?

And we answer: In fact, when Rav Giddel said “a great vow,” he meant that it is a full-fledged oath in every respect. As for what was difficult for you—he is already under oath from Mount Sinai—

Rav Giddel is teaching us this:

Rav Giddel teaches that the oath takes effect, and this is his innovation:

Since, if he wished, he could exempt himself

[if he wished to exempt himself] from the Torah obligation of Torah study that is stated explicitly in the Torah, he could exempt himself

through the recitation of Shema in the morning and evening.

For we do not find an explicit obligation in the Torah to study Torah all day and all night. The mitzva “You shall contemplate it day and night” is a verse in Joshua, and is not explicit in the Torah.

Indeed, every Jew is obligated to study the entire Torah and know it, as it is stated: “You shall teach them diligently to your children”—that the words of Torah should be sharp in your mouth. As long as a person has not studied the entire Torah and does not know it, he is commanded at every free moment to study Torah, according to his strength and ability, in order to know what he does not yet know.

However, this matter—that a person must study Torah during all his free time—is only a consequence of the obligation to study the Torah; it is not stated explicitly in it. Therefore, he can swear that he will study Torah at a particular time, since one may swear concerning anything that is not stated explicitly in the Torah.

And

for this reason the oath takes effect upon it.

Rav Giddel came to teach us this innovation: An oath takes effect regarding something that is not explicit in the Torah, even though one is obligated in it by Torah law, as derived by the Sages.

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

One who says to his fellow:

“Let us rise early

in the morning

and study this chapter,”

or who sets another time with his fellow to study a chapter of Torah, even without mentioning the language of a vow or an oath—

He must rise early!

He must arrive before his fellow to study, because this is implied: Just as I awaken you for a mitzva, so will I awaken myself regarding the matter when we do what we accepted upon ourselves. Once he has accepted it upon himself, he is obligated in it, since an undertaking concerning a mitzva does not require the language of an oath.

And from where is it derived that his words include that he should arrive before his fellow?

As it is stated

in Ezekiel [chapter 3]: “

And He said to me: Arise, go out to the valley, and there I will speak with you.

And I went out to the valley, and behold, the glory of the Lord

was standing there.”

Thus, the Almighty preceded Ezekiel.

Rav Yosef said:

One whom they

excommunicated in a dream requires ten people

among whom the Divine Presence rests, in order

to release him

from his excommunication, because it is possible that he was excommunicated as an agent of the Omnipresent.

And this

applies when those ten are among those

who teach halakha

[who teach Gemara] to others, because they are fit for the Divine Presence to rest among them —

but

if they

teach

only themselves and do not teach others—

no.

Tosafot.

And if there is no one who teaches halakha

[if he cannot find someone who teaches others],

even if they teach

only themselves, it is satisfactory.

If there is no one

[if he cannot immediately find ten] who teach or are taught—

let him go and sit at a crossroads

[he should go and sit at a crossroads], where he will be able to find ten who can release him from his excommunication.

And

in the meantime,

he should greet ten people with peace

[he should greet ten ordinary people with peace, so that this will protect him from suffering],

until he encounters ten who study halakha

[until ten people who teach or study halakha happen to be available to him] and they release him together from his excommunication.

He said,

asked

Ravina of Rav Ashi:

If the dreamer

knew

who

had excommunicated him

[who this person was who excommunicated him in the dream],

what is the ruling: may he release him

alone [can that person release him by himself], since this is the law concerning every excommunication, that the one who excommunicates has the authority to release the person by himself?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: It is not effective without ten who teach or study halakha, because:

It is possible that

they appointed him as an agent to excommunicate him

[although the one who excommunicated him was made an agent to excommunicate him] from Heaven, but

they did not appoint him as an agent to release him

[he was not made an agent of the Omnipresent to release him from the excommunication].

He said,

asked

Rav Aḥa of Rav Ashi:

If

they excommunicated him and released him

in his dream

[they excommunicated him and also released him in a dream],

what

is the ruling? Does he require a formal release, or does the principle apply that “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted”?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa:

It is written [Jeremiah 23]: “The prophet who has a dream, let him recount the dream; and the one with whom My words are, let him speak My words truthfully. What is straw to grain, declares the Lord,” and we learn:

Just as grain cannot exist

[produce]

without straw

[chaff]—