## Nedarim Daf 16a

###### Nedarim 16a:1
[Nedarim 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין — רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — לָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ ״קׇרְבָּן״ וְלָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ ״הַקׇּרְבָּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna? It is** apparently the opinion of **Rabbi Meir. As, if** it is the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** there is a contradiction, because **he does not differentiate** whether one takes a vow by saying: **An offering, and he does not differentiate** whether he takes a vow by saying: **This offering.** In both cases the vow does not take effect, as he did not use the phrase: Like an offering. The mishna, by contrast, indicates that only a vow that is phrased: An offering that I will not eat of yours, or: This offering that I will eat of yours, does not take effect. If it is phrased: An offering I will eat of yours, it takes effect, as it indicates that his eating will be like an offering.


###### Nedarim 16a:2
[Nedarim 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:2)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״לַקׇּרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ״ — מוּתָּר. וְהָתְנַן: ״לַקׇּרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ״ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר: ״לַקׇּרְבָּן יְהֵא, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis: **Say the latter clause** of the mishna: If he says: That which **I will not eat of yours** is **not an offering,** the food is **permitted.** The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (13a) that if one said: That which **I will not eat of yours** will be **for an offering [*lekorban*], Rabbi Meir forbids** the food to him? **And Rabbi Abba said** that **it is rendered as one who says:** Your food **will be** to me **for an offering; therefore, I will not eat of yours.** The mishna appears to be incompatible with the opinion of Rabbi Meir as well.


###### Nedarim 16a:3
[Nedarim 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:3)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאָמַר ״לַקׇּרְבָּן״, הָא דְּאָמַר ״לָא לְקׇרְבָּן״ — דְּלָא הָוֵי קׇרְבָּן קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that this is **not difficult. That** mishna is referring to one **who said: For an offering [*lekorban*],** and the vow therefore takes effect. **This** mishna is referring to one **who said: Not for an offering [*la lekorban*],** where **he is saying that it should not be an offering,** and therefore the vow does not take effect.


###### Nedarim 16a:4
[Nedarim 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ, הָא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ, לָא שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one says: **An oath** that **I will not eat of yours,** or: **This** is **an oath that I will eat of yours [*she’okhal lekha*],** or: **Not an oath that I will not eat of yours,** the food **is forbidden.**


###### Nedarim 16a:5
[Nedarim 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** מִכְּלָל דְּהָא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ — דְּלָא אָכֵילְנָא מַשְׁמַע. וּרְמִינְהוּ: שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. שֶׁאוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל, שֶׁאָכַלְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי. מִדְּקָאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל, שֶׁאָכַלְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי, מִכְּלָל דְּשֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ — דְּאָכֵילְנָא מַשְׁמַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **By inference** from the mishna, it may be derived **that** the statement: **This is an oath that I will eat of yours, indicates that I will not eat. And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (*Shevuot* 19b): There are **two** basic types of **oaths that are** in fact **four:** An oath **that I will eat, and: That I will not eat;** an oath **that I ate, and: That I did not eat. From** the fact **that** the mishna **states:** That I will eat, in contradistinction to: **That I will not eat; that I ate, and** in contradistinction: **That I did not eat,** it may be derived **by inference that** an oath **that I will eat of yours [*she’okhal lekha*] indicates:** An oath **that I will eat.** This contradicts our mishna.


###### Nedarim 16a:6
[Nedarim 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״שֶׁאוֹכַל״ שְׁתֵּי לְשׁוֹנוֹת מַשְׁמַע. הָיוּ מְסָרְבִין בּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וְאָמַר: ״אָכֵילְנָא אָכֵילְנָא״, וְתוּ: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל״ — דְּאָכֵילְנָא מַשְׁמַע. אֲבָל אָמַר: ״לָא אָכֵילְנָא לָא אָכֵילְנָא״, וְתוּ אָמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל״ — ״דְּלָא אָכֵילְנָא״ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** The phrase: **That I will eat [*she’okhal*], indicates two expressions,** depending on the context in which it is used. How so? If **they were importuning [*mesarevin*] him to eat, and he said: I will eat, I will eat, and** he **furthermore** said: **An oath that I will eat [*she’okhal*], it indicates: That I will eat. However,** if **he said: I will not eat, I will not eat, and he furthermore said: An oath that I will eat [*she’okhal*], he is saying: That I will not eat.** The oath is intended to reinforce his refusal to eat.


###### Nedarim 16a:7
[Nedarim 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:7)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״שֶׁאוֹכַל״ דִּשְׁבוּעָה — ״שֶׁאִי אוֹכַל״ קָאָמַר. אִם כֵּן, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מֵיקַם לִישָּׁנָא הִיא דְּאִיתְּקִיל לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** that the phrase: **That I will eat [*she’okhal*],** cited in the mishna **with regard to an oath, is** actually **saying** that **he said: That I will not eat [*she’i okhal*].** The Gemara asks: **If so,** the prohibition **is obvious,** as he explicitly took an oath not to eat. **What** is the purpose **of stating** this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **he blundered** in properly **upholding the wording,** i.e., he mispronounced the vow, as his intention was to say: An oath that I will eat [*she’okhal*], the mishna **teaches us** that he meant that he will not eat.


###### Nedarim 16a:8
[Nedarim 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:8)

אַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר טַעַם כְּרַב אָשֵׁי — דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁאִי אוֹכַל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye did not state** the **reason** for the ruling of the mishna that was stated **by Rav Ashi, as** the mishna **does not teach** the case of: **That I will not eat [*she’i okhal*].** Rather, it teaches the case of that I will eat [*she’okhal*].


###### Nedarim 16a:9
[Nedarim 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:9)

וְרַב אָשֵׁי נָאדֵי מִן טַעַם דְּאַבָּיֵי. קָסָבַר ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ נָמֵי, מַשְׁמַע שְׁתֵּי לְשׁוֹנוֹת. הָיוּ מְסָרְבִין בּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל וְאָמַר: ״לָא אָכֵילְנָא לָא אָכֵילְנָא״, וְאָמַר נָמֵי: ״שְׁבוּעָה״, בֵּין ״שֶׁאוֹכַל״ בֵּין ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ — הָדֵין ״אָכֵילְנָא״ מַשְׁמַע דְּאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Ashi turned away [*nadei*] from the reason that Abaye** stated, because **he held** that the phrase: **That I will not eat, also indicates two expressions,** depending on the context. For example, if **they were importuning him to eat and he said: I will not eat, I will not eat, and** subsequently **he** also **said: An oath,** then, in this case, **whether** the wording of the oath was: **That I will eat, or: That I will not eat, this** expression **indicates that he is saying: I will eat.** The statement: An oath that I will not eat, should be interpreted rhetorically in this context: Did I take an oath that I will not eat? Certainly I did not, as I will eat.


###### Nedarim 16a:10
[Nedarim 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:10)

וְאִיכָּא לְתָרוֹצַהּ נָמֵי לִישָּׁנָא ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ — ״שְׁבוּעָה דְּלָא אָכֵילְנָא״ קָאָמַר. אֶלָּא תַּנָּא פַּסְקַהּ: ״שֶׁאוֹכַל״ — ״דְּאָכֵילְנָא״ מַשְׁמַע, וְ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״ — ״לֹא אוֹכַל״ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there is also** a way **to interpret the expression: An oath that I will not eat,** as **indicating** its straightforward meaning, i.e., that he is **saying: An oath that I will not eat.** Therefore, the mishna cannot be interpreted in this manner. **Rather, the *tanna*** in tractate *Shevuot* clearly **established a principle: That I will eat, indicates that I will eat, and: That I will not eat, indicates I will not eat.** Therefore, the correct version of the mishna must be: That I will not eat [*she’i okhal*].


###### Nedarim 16a:11
[Nedarim 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/16a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִים, וְחוֹמֶר בַּנְּדָרִים מִבַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. כֵּיצַד? אָמַר: ״קֻוֽנָּם סוּכָּה שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה״, ״לוּלָב שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹטֵל״, ״תְּפִילִּין שֶׁאֲנִי מַנִּיחַ״ — בַּנְּדָרִים אָסוּר, בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר, שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין לַעֲבוֹר עַל הַמִּצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **This** rule, that oaths can render actions, which do not have actual substance, either prohibited or obligatory, **is a stringency of oaths vis-à-vis vows,** which do not take effect with regard to matters that do not have actual substance. **And** there is also **a stringency of vows vis-à-vis oaths. How so?** With regard to one who **said: Making a *sukka* is *konam* for me,** or: **Taking a *lulav* is** *konam* **for me,** or: **Donning phylacteries is** *konam* **for me, in** the case of **vows,** the items are rendered **forbidden,** and he may not perform the mitzva until the vow is dissolved. However, **in** the case of similar **oaths,** these items are **permitted, as one cannot take an oath to transgress the mitzvot.**