אִישׁ֩ כִּֽי־יִדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר לַֽיהוָ֗ה אֽוֹ־הִשָּׁ֤בַע שְׁבֻעָה֙ לֶאְסֹ֤ר אִסָּר֙ עַל־נַפְשׁ֔וֹ לֹ֥א יַחֵ֖ל דְּבָר֑וֹ כְּכָל־הַיֹּצֵ֥א מִפִּ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה׃
Apabila seorang laki-laki bernazar kepada Yang Mahakekal atau bersumpah untuk mengikat dirinya dengan suatu larangan, janganlah ia melanggar perkataannya; ia harus melakukan segala sesuatu sesuai dengan apa yang keluar dari mulutnya.
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
HALAKHAH: “All substitute names1Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman who clearly intend to vow the vow of a nazir, to become a nazir for the Eternal.” This makes it clear that making a vow of nazir, like any other vow, is implicitly an invocation of God’s name. The speaking of any vow therefore is an invocation of God’s name and this should be avoided; cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 1. In this the vow of nazir is not different from any other vow. for nazir vows are like nazir vows,” etc. “All substitute names for vows are like vows,” etc. It is written12From the list mentioned in the Mishnah. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names for vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names for oaths are like oaths. One reads that6The text is quoted from Nedarim 1:1, Notes 12–22. at the start of the first Chapter of Nedarim, up to: Rebbi Ismael stated: “any person who vows a vow of nazir”. From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.
Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim
HALAKHAH: “A vow inside a vow is possible,” etc. 39The entire Halakhah is also in Šebuot 3:8. Rebbi Yose asked: An oath, an oath, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following40Mishnah Šebuot 3:8.: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat, an oath that I shall not eat. If he ate, he is guilty only once.” Because he said this. Therefore, if he had not said this, he would be guilty for each of the oaths41This paragraph admits of two quite different interpretations. The first, by R. David Fraenckel, notes that in the question, the three oaths are mentioned before the object of the oath is specified, but in the Mishnah the object is specified before the second oath is pronounced. In the Mishnah, the second and third oaths are void since the loaf is already forbidden. But in R. Yose’s question, nothing is forbidden when the second and third oaths are pronounced; therefore, they all are valid and with one act the person who then eats the loaf commits three sins in one act.
The second, not very likely, explanation, by R. Moses Margalit, assumes that many loaves are before the person when he makes the multiple oath and one may assume that each single oath refers to a different loaf. Therefore, if he eats all of them he is guilty for each loaf separately since the Mishnah states only that if he expressly refers to the same loaf each time he swears, he is guilty only once.. 42There is a parallel in the Babli, Šebuot 28b/29a. Avime the brother of Ḥefa43In the Babli, he is called ‘Epha. In the Babli, where Avime is called “his brother”, Avime is the superior scholar. In the Munich ms., the notation “his brother” is missing. said, I studied vows, I studied oaths. Ḥefa wanted to examine him: There were five loaves before him and he said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf. Then he said, these two loaves. Then he said, these three loaves. Then he said, these four loaves. Then he said, these five loaves. Then he ate the first, what are the rules? He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately44Assuming that the first loaf was included in every subsequent oath.. He said to him, he is guilty only once. From the moment he mentioned “oath” about it, he made it like carcass meat4Forbidden food, Deut. 14:21.. From there on he is as if he wanted to apply oaths to prohibitions, but no oath can be applied to prohibitions. He examined him a second time. There were five loaves and he said, an oath about these five loaves. Then he said, these four. Then he said, these three. Then he said, these two. Then he said, this single one. Then he ate all of them? He said to him, he is guilty only once. He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately. If somebody had said, an oath that I shall not eat five, and he ate four, would he be free from punishment45Since he did not keep his oath. But in Avime’s opinion, the first oath voids all the subsequent ones.? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable following Ḥefa’s brother in the last case, following Ḥefa in the first46In no case can an oath be added to an oath..
The second, not very likely, explanation, by R. Moses Margalit, assumes that many loaves are before the person when he makes the multiple oath and one may assume that each single oath refers to a different loaf. Therefore, if he eats all of them he is guilty for each loaf separately since the Mishnah states only that if he expressly refers to the same loaf each time he swears, he is guilty only once.. 42There is a parallel in the Babli, Šebuot 28b/29a. Avime the brother of Ḥefa43In the Babli, he is called ‘Epha. In the Babli, where Avime is called “his brother”, Avime is the superior scholar. In the Munich ms., the notation “his brother” is missing. said, I studied vows, I studied oaths. Ḥefa wanted to examine him: There were five loaves before him and he said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf. Then he said, these two loaves. Then he said, these three loaves. Then he said, these four loaves. Then he said, these five loaves. Then he ate the first, what are the rules? He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately44Assuming that the first loaf was included in every subsequent oath.. He said to him, he is guilty only once. From the moment he mentioned “oath” about it, he made it like carcass meat4Forbidden food, Deut. 14:21.. From there on he is as if he wanted to apply oaths to prohibitions, but no oath can be applied to prohibitions. He examined him a second time. There were five loaves and he said, an oath about these five loaves. Then he said, these four. Then he said, these three. Then he said, these two. Then he said, this single one. Then he ate all of them? He said to him, he is guilty only once. He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately. If somebody had said, an oath that I shall not eat five, and he ate four, would he be free from punishment45Since he did not keep his oath. But in Avime’s opinion, the first oath voids all the subsequent ones.? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable following Ḥefa’s brother in the last case, following Ḥefa in the first46In no case can an oath be added to an oath..