## Nedarim Daf 17a

###### Nedarim 17a:1
[Nedarim 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/17a:1)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב״. מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת, אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת. יָצָא נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִּיטֵּל — שֶׁאֵין הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **the verse states:** “Or if anyone swears clearly with his lips **to do evil, or to do good”** (Leviticus 5:4). From the juxtaposition of evil and good it is derived that **just as the doing of good,** which is interpreted as obligating himself to take a positive action, is referring to a **permitted** activity, e.g., to eat, **so too, the doing of evil,** which is interpreted as prohibiting himself from something, refers only to that which is **permitted,** e.g., not to eat. This **excludes** one who **takes an oath to nullify a mitzva and does not nullify it;** he is not liable for violating the oath, **as the permission** to nullify it **is not in his power.**


###### Nedarim 17a:2
[Nedarim 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/17a:2)

חַד קְרָא לְמִיפְטְרֵיהּ מִקׇּרְבַּן שְׁבוּעָה, וְחַד לְמִיפְטְרֵיהּ מִן לָאו דִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that both verses are necessary. **One verse:** “To do evil or to do good,” which is stated in the context of the *halakhot* of offerings, is necessary **to exempt him from** bringing **an offering for** violating **an oath, and one** verse: “He shall not profane,” is necessary **to exempt him from the prohibition for** violating **an oath.**


###### Nedarim 17a:3
[Nedarim 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/17a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** יֵשׁ נֶדֶר בְּתוֹךְ נֶדֶר, וְאֵין שְׁבוּעָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד? אָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם אוֹכַל״, ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״, וְאָכַל — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **There is a vow within a vow.** It is possible to impose an additional prohibition, by means of a vow, on an item that is already forbidden by means of a vow. **But there is no oath within an oath.** If one takes an oath twice with regard to the same action, the second oath does not take effect. **How so?** If one **said: I am hereby a nazirite if I eat,** and then repeated: **I am hereby a nazirite if I eat, and** then **he ate, he is obligated** to observe naziriteship for thirty days **for each and every one** of the vows, as both vows took effect. However, if he said: I hereby take **an oath that I will not eat,** and repeated: I hereby take **an oath that I will not eat, and** then **he ate, he is liable** to bring an offering **for only one** violation of an oath.


###### Nedarim 17a:4
[Nedarim 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/17a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הַיּוֹם״ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לְמָחָר״, דְּמִיגּוֹ דְּקָא מִיתּוֹסַף יוֹמָא יַתִּירָא — חָיְילָא נְזִירוּת עַל נְזִירוּת. אֲבָל אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הַיּוֹם״, ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הַיּוֹם״ — אֵין חָלָה נְזִירוּת עַל נְזִירוּת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הַיּוֹם״, ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הַיּוֹם״ — חָלָה נְזִירוּת עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Huna said: They taught** that there is a vow within a vow **only where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today,** and then he said: **I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow. As since an additional day** of naziriteship **is added** by the second vow, an additional thirty-day obligation of **naziriteship takes effect upon** the first term of **naziriteship. However,** if **he said: I am hereby a nazirite today,** and then repeated: **I am hereby a nazirite today,** a vow of **naziriteship does not take effect upon** a previous vow of **naziriteship,** and he must observe only one term of naziriteship. **And Shmuel said** that **even** if **he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite today,** a second vow of **naziriteship takes effect with regard to him,** as one can apply two obligations of naziriteship to himself one after the other.


###### Nedarim 17a:5
[Nedarim 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/17a:5)

וּלְרַב הוּנָא, אַדִּתְנָא אֵין שְׁבוּעָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁבוּעָה, לִיתְנֵי: יֵשׁ נֶדֶר בְּתוֹךְ נֶדֶר, וְאֵין נֶדֶר בְּתוֹךְ נֶדֶר. ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הַיּוֹם, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לְמָחָר״ — יֵשׁ נֶדֶר בְּתוֹךְ נֶדֶר, ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הַיּוֹם״ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הַיּוֹם״ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rav Huna, instead of teaching** that **there is no oath within an oath,** drawing a distinction between a vow and an oath, **let** the mishna **teach** a narrower distinction between different vows, stating that **there is** a case of **a vow within a vow, and there is** a case in which there is **not a vow within a vow.** How so? If one says: **I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow,** in this case **there is a vow within a vow.** However, if one says: **I am hereby a nazirite today,** and then again says: **I am hereby a nazirite today,**