משנה: נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי אָמַר אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי בַדֶּרֶךְ הַזּוֹ כְּעוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם. אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְּקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבַּד. נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת כֵּיצַד אָמַר אִם אָכַלְתִּי וְאִם שָׁתִיתִי וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁאָכַל וְשֶׁשָּׁתָה שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכֵל וְשֶׁאֵינִי שׁוֹתֶה וְשָׁכַח וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. אָמַר קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי שֶׁגָּֽנְבָה אֶת כִּיסִי וְשֶׁהִיכָּת אֶת בְּנִי וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא הִכַּתּוּ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא גָֽנְבָה. רָאָה אוֹתָן אוֹכְלִין תְּאֵינִים וְאָמַר לָהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן עֲלֵיכֶם כְּקָרְבָּן וְנִמְצְאוּ אָבִיו וְאֶחָיו וְהָיוּ עִמָּהֶן אֲחֵרִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֵן מוּתָּרִין וּמַה שֶׁעִמָּהֶן אֲסוּרִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מוּתָּרִין. MISHNAH: Exaggeration vows: If he said31In all these cases, it is understood that he says such and such should be qônām for me if …, if I did not see on this road [crowds] like those who left Egypt32About 600‘000 men; Exodus.12.37">Ex. 12:37.; if I did not see a snake [as thick] as the beam of the olive press. Vows in error how? If he said, if I ate or drank, and he remembers33He remembers later but at the moment of his vow he was oblivious of the fact. that he had eaten or drunk, that I shall not eat or shall not drink, and he forgot and ate or drank. If he said, a qônām that my wife cannot enjoy anything from me because she stole my wallet or hit my son34From another wife., and it turns out that she did not hit him or became known that she did not steal. If he saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, these are for you as qorbān35It is to be assumed that people were not afraid to steal but would never break a vow., but the persons turned out to be his father or brothers with others. The House of Shammai say, these are permitted, those with them forbidden. But the House of Hillel say, these and those are permitted36Since a vow which is partially voided is completely voided; Nedarim 9:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.9.6.1">Mishnah 9:6..
הלכה: נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי וכו׳. אֵיפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר בָּהּ כְּעוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בִּרְאִייָה אַחַת. וְהָא לוּלְייָנוּס מַלְכָּא כַּד נְחַת לְתַמָּן נְחוֹת עִימֵּיהּ מֵאָה עֶשְׂרִים רִיבְּװָן. אֶלָּא אָכֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בִּרְאִייָה אַחַת. HALAKHAH: “Vows of exaggeration,” etc. 37From here on, most of the Halakhah is also in Šebuot 3:9–11. Is it impossible that crowds like those who left Egypt went by? But we are dealing with one look. Was it not the case that when Emperor Julianus went there38The Babylonian campaign against Sapor II in the year 383 C. E., 1‘200‘000 [men] went with him? But we must be dealing with one look.
וְהָא חִיוְיָה דְשָׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא בְּלַע גְּמָלִין בְּלַע קָרוֹנִין. כַּד בָּעוּ מִקְטְלוֹנֵיהּ מְלוֹן פְּחָלִין שֶׁלַּגְּמָלִין תֶּבֶן וִיהָבוֹן בּוֹן גּוֹמְרִין וּבַלְעוֹן וָמֵית. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. אֲנָא חָמִית מְשַׁךְ דְּחִיוִי עֲבַד אוֹרֵי עַל עוֹמָנֵי מֶסָסְטוֹלֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אֲנָא חָמִית מְשַׁךְ דְּחִיוִי סְלִיק בְּדִיוְיִין [דְּ]מַלְכוּתָא. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בִּמְרוּבַּע. אִין תֵּימַר בִּשְׁאֵינוֹ מְרוּבַּע. לָמָּה לִי גָדוֹל. אֲפִילוּ קָטוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. לֵית אוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּהָדֵין תַּנָּייָה מַתְפִּיס אֶלָּא מִילָּה רוֹבָא. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנִּינָן גָּמָל פּוֹרֵחַ בָּאֲוֵיר. נִיתְנֵי עַכְבָּר פּוֹרֵחַ בָּאֲוֵיר. Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts43A toned down version of King Sapor’s snake is in the Nedarim.25a">Babli, 25a and Shevuot.29a">Šebuot 29a. There, the story of the snake is discussed by Samuel, which shows that the reference is to Sapor I.? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags44In Kelim 24:9" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.24.9">Mishnah Kelim 24:9 פָּחֲלָץ. with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw a snake skin which filled45Reading עומני from Arabic عمن “to stay”. Cf. also Note 40. the space between two columns. Rebbi Samuel bar Jacob said, I saw a snake skin which covered the genii46Possibly statues of emperors who after death became divi. But cf. Note 41. of government. Samuel said, square47The snake was perhaps not particularly large but it had the form of a beam with square cross-section.. Could you say it was not square42In Šebuot וְאִם בִּמְרוּבַּע “if square, why must it be large?”, why must it be large? Even if it was small! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is the way of this Tanna to speak only about large things. You should know that it is so, for we have stated48Mishnah Šebuot 3:8, example of something impossible.: “A flying camel”. Could he not have stated “a flying rat”?
תַּנִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵין מְרוּבַּע מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית. הָתִיב רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. גּוּפָהּ שֶׁלַּבַּהֶרֶת כִּגְרִיס הָאִיטַלְקִי מְרוּבַּע. אָמַר רִבִּי בִּיסְנָה. כָּל־גַּרְמָא דָא דְלֵית הוּא מְרוּבַּע. וְלָמָּה תַנִּינָן מְרוּבַּע. יְרִבְעֶנָּה הוּא. וְהוּא כְנָעָה. מָלֵי קִיטְרִין. וְהָא אַרְכּוּבָה דַעֲיָלָא. עָגִיל הוּא מִלְּמַטָּה. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. לֹא אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶלָּא בַּבִּרְיוֹת. וְתַנִּי כֵן. מְרוּבַּע בְּאוֹכְלִין. אֵין מְרוּבַּע בַּבִּרְיוֹת. 49This text is from Ma‘serot 5:7, fol. 52a, with variants and commentary in Nedarim 3:6:1-2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.3.6.1-2">Notes 122–129. The text is also in Šebuot 3:9 (fol. 34d). It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Italian grit.” Rebbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are lice! They are full of knots. But there is the knee of a mountain goat! It is round below. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.
שָׁוְא וְשֶׁקֶר שְׁנֵיהֶם נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. מַה שֶׁאֵי אֶיפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. זָכוֹר וְשָׁמוֹר שְׁנֵיהֶם בְדִבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ. מַה שֶׂאֵי אֶפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת וּשְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה תְמִימִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. מַה שֶׁאֵי אֶיפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ שְׁנֵיהֶן נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. וְלֹא תִסּוֹב נַחֲלָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר וְכָל־בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה שְׁנֵיהֶן בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. גְּדִילִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לְךָ לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז שְׁנֵיהֶן בְדִבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר אַחַת דִּיבֵּר אֱלֹהִים שְׁתַּיִם זוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ. וּכְתִיב הֲלֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאוּם יי֨ וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפוֹצֵץ סָלַע. “Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear50The two versions of the Ninth Commandment, Exodus.20.16">Ex. 20:16 and Deuteronomy.5.17">Deut. 5:17, both are Sinaitic versions which had been said in parallel and were written serially.. “Remember” and “keep”51The two versions of the Fourth Commandment, Exodus.20.8">Ex. 20:8 and Deuteronomy.5.12">Deut. 5:12. The first two examples are also in the Shevuot.20b">Babli, Šebuot 20b, this example only in Babli Roš Haššanah 27a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 20:5 (p. 148). A parallel text from here to the end of the Halakhah is Sifry Deut. 233; Midrash Tannaïm p. 138 (Deuteronomy.22.11">Midrash Haggadol Deut. 22:11), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Yitro Chap. 7. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep52From here to the end of the paragraph one speaks of laws that contradict one another, not different parallel texts. Another approach to the problem of contradiction in pentateuchal legislation is in Sifry Num. 3; a radically different one in Chullin.109b">Babli Ḥulin109b, where Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, holds that all of Sinaitic legislation has exceptions (in contrast to the commandments given to Noah which represent Natural Law and are without exceptions).” both were said together53The first verse is Exodus.31.14">Ex. 31:14 on the observation of the Sabbath, the second is Numbers.28.9">Num. 28:9 on the Sabbath sacrifice which requires many actions which if performed outside the Temple on a Sabbath would be capital crimes., which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover54Leviticus.18.16">Lev. 18:16.”, “her brother-in-law shall come to her55Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot.”, both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together56On the face of it, both verses, Numbers.36.8-9">Num. 36:8–9, say the same, viz., that an heiress may marry only a man of her own tribe. The explanation is given in Babli Baba batra 111b, where it is shown that the entire chapter 36 only refers to the daughters of Ṣelofḥad; for all others only the rules of Numbers.27.7-11">Num. 27:7–11 are applicable without restrictions. In this case, Numbers.36.8-9">Num. 36:8–9 is the exception from Numbers.27.8">Num. 27:8.. “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear sha‘ṭnez”, both were said together57In Deuteronomy.22.11">Deut. 22:11, wearing wool and linen together is forbidden. In v. 12, any garment, including linen ones, is required to have fringes, which according to Numbers.15.38">Num. 15:38 must contain a dark blue woolen thread.. And so it says58Psalms.62.12">Ps. 62:12., “God spoke once, two I heard from this.” And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”
שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָאָדָם. שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע וּמַחֲלִיף. אֵי זֶהוּ שָׁוְא וְאֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁקֶר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יָדוּעַ לִשְׁנַיִם זֶהוּ שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. לִשְׁלֹשָׁה זֶהוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אֲפִילוּ יָדוּעַ לִשְׁנַיִם וְאֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם מַכִּירוֹ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא הִיא. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. שִׁינָּה בוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ לַיָּם וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר לוֹקֶה. הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לוֹקֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. אֲפִילוּ בֵּיעָה וּמַרְגָלִיתָא. וְהֵן אֲפִילוּ. אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן בֵּיעָה וּמַרְגָלִיתָא. A vain oath, if one swears to change what is known to men; a false oath if he swears and changes60He changes what is true. This and the following paragraphs refer to Mishnah Šebuot 3:8.. What is vain and what is false? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is known to two persons, that is a false oath, to three, it is vain. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If it is known to two persons and another one at the end of the earth knows about it, that is a vain oath61Since according to R. Eleazar the three people who know the truth do not have to be at the same place, it follows that for R. Joḥanan they have to be at the same place. In the Shevuot.29a">Babli, Šebuot 29a, Ulla (= R. Hila) simply states that 3 people have to know to make an oath vain, without discussion whether they have to be together or not.. What is the difference between them? If he was untrue before two [persons], threw it62The object about which he swore, e. g., (Mishnah Šebuot 3:8) of a stone that it was gold. into the sea, and they had warned him because of a vain oath63To establish criminal intent, essential for criminal conviction; cf. Kilayim 8:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.8.1.4">Kilaim 8:1, Note 9., in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not whipped, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is whipped64Since certainly some other person at another place knew the truth.. If they had warned him because of a false oath, in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is whipped, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is not whipped. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even an egg and a pearl65If he swears about an egg that it is a pearl (R. David Fraenckel) or that he had seen a pearl the size of an egg (R. Moshe Margalit). In connection with Mishnah Šebuot 3:8, the first explanation is more likely to be the correct one.. What means even? But, for example an egg and a pearl.
תַּנֵּי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּדְרֵי הֲבַאי מוּתָּרִין כָּךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת הֲבַאי מוּתָּרוֹת. וְהָתַנֵּי. שְׁבוּעוֹת הֲבַאי אֲסוּרוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פְּדָת. כָּאן בְּמַעֲמִידִין וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָן מַעֲמִידִין. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא. כָּאן וְכָאן בְּמַעֲמִידִין כָּאן וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵין מַעֲמִידִין. כֵּאן בְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעָה עַל נְכָסָיו. שְׁבוּעַת נִכְסַיי עָלַי. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָא לִלְקוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין מוּתָּרִין כָּךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת זֵירוּזִין מוּתָּרוֹת. עוֹד הוּא כְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעָה עַל נְכָסָיו. שְׁבוּעַת נִכְסַיי עָלַיי. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָא לִלְקוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. It was stated66Tosephta 2:1.: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden67Nedarim.24b">Babli 24b.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist68They show that their oaths should not be considered as exaggerations. Then they are bound by them., there about those who do not insist. Rebbi Abba said, you may even say in either case if they insist or if they do not insist; here about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped69Both Tosephta and baraita deal with the same case; “permitted” means that the maker of such a vow, even if he uttered it after due warning, cannot be prosecuted; but what he forbade on himself remains forbidden. As noted by Rashba (Novellae to 24b), this contradicts the position of the Babli in the reading of most mss.. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property then his property is forbidden [to him]. But concerning the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped.
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. הָהֵן דְּמִישְׁתַּבַּע עַל תְּרֵיי דִּינוּן תְּרֵיי לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הָהֵין דְחָמָא מִיטְרָא נְחֵית וָמַר. בלי קורי בריקשון. לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. רִבִּי חוֹנְיָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בּוּלַייוֹת הָיוּ בִיהוּדָה וְכוּלָּן חָֽרְבוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלָּאֱמֶת. דִּכְתִיב לַשָּׁוְא הִכִּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם. 71A somewhat different text is in Pesiqta rabbati 22 (ed. M. Friedmann p. 113a).Ḥizqiah said, he who swears that two are two is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who saw rain falling and said: “O Lord, inundate with much water70In Šebuot, the reading is קוּרִי פָּלֻּי בּרֶיכּסוֹן which N. Brüll (Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 1, p. 130) reads as κύριε πολὺ βρέξον “o Lord, give abundant water”, as first verse of a prayer for rain. S. Lieberman, in a full discussion of this text (יונית ויונות בארץ ישראל, Jerusalem 1962, pp. 25–27), points out that the invocation of God’s name in a vain prayer is forbidden by the Third Commandment and that the characterization as “vow” is only a reference to that Commandment.”, is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: 24 city councils72Greek βουλή. were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written73Jeremiah.2.30">Jer. 2:30. Another version in Tanḥuma Maṭṭot 1, Vayiqra 7.: “For the vain did I hit your sons.”
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. דָּבָר שֶׁאִילּוּ בִנְדָרִין אָסוּר וּבִשְׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר. לֹא הָדָא אָֽמְרָת אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא. אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּעַצְמָן וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלָּאֲחֵרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁנָּתַן פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי מָנֶה. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לָבֹא אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְשֶׁעָבַר. 74The first part of this paragraph has a parallel in Ṡebuot 3:11 but it is not a copy. There, we have stated75This Mishnah, Šebuot 3:7, reads: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it, he is guilty only once” if he ate the loaf. This parallels Nedarim 2:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.2.3.1">Mishnah Nedarim 2:3 which explains that repeated vows are separate vows but repeated oaths are one and the same oath.: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf.” Something which would be forbidden for vows and is permitted for oaths76Repeated oaths are not permitted but they do not add prohibitions to a simple oath.. Not on that it was said but on the following77Mishnah, Šebuot 3:5. An oath can refer to others; e. g., he swears to give a certain sum to another person.: “Whether it was for himself or for others.” Rebbi Abba said in Samuel’s name: An oath that X gave a mina to Y. If it turns out that he had not given [a mina], since it is not in his hand for the future, it is not in his hand for the past78Since X cannot swear that Y will give a mina to Z, having no power over Y’s actions, if he swears that Y gave to Z it is an invalid oath, neither vain not false..
אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי עַל תַּרְתֵּיהוֹן. זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִין. שֶׁשִּׁגְּגַת שְׁבוּעוֹת אֲסוּרָה וְשִׁגְּגַת נְדָרִין מוּתֶּרֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. עַד שֶׁבָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וְלִימֵּד שֶׁנֶּדֶר שֶׁהוּתָּר מִכְּלָלוֹ הוּתָּר כּוּלּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה אִם תַּמָּן נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם אַתְּ אָמַר. נֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטַל מִקְצָתוֹ בָטַל כּוּלּוֹ. כָּאן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. מִשֵּׁם נֶדֶר טָעוּת. שֶׁאִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאַבָּא וַאֲחַי שָׁם לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר. 79Here the text in Šebuot is no longer a parallel. It was found stated about both cases80About vows and oaths.: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted81The Nedarim.25b">Babli, 25b and Shevuot.28b">Šebuot 28b, states the opposite: Both erroneous vows and oaths are permitted.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ]82It is clear that something must be missing since R. Simeon ben Laqish could have asked Rebbi only as a very little boy but this is improbable since he was a wild youth not interested in studies. The commentaries all assume that the original text was בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי [בָּא מַה] בָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה and the copyist mistook the name בָּא for the verb בָּא: “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Abba, what does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel?” However this is not more than a weak conjecture since R. Abba I belongs to the generation of the students of R. Joḥanan. Probably the question was asked before R. Yannai, as most of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s other questions., does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there83Nedarim 9:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.9.6.1">Mishnah 9:6., “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.84R. Aqiba adds much in that Mishnah, that a vow which is voided because the maker of the vow did not consider that it would deprive him of the enjoyment of sabbaths or holidays. Before him, the vow was lifted only for sabbaths or holidays. But in the Mishnah here, the House of Hillel lifts the vow for all people who were eating the figs when his vow was lifted as an erroneous vow only for his father and brothers. So why is the teaching of Mishnah 9:6 not credited to the House of Hillel, who are not mentioned in the Mishnah?” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more85From 9:6 one can infer the last statement of 3:2 but not vice-versa; the House of Hillel held that the principle does not apply to vows which have to be investigated by a Sage.! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow86R. Hila holds that in Nedarim 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.3.2.1">Mishnah 3:2 the vow is not partially but totally in error; the farmer would not have made the vow at all had he known that his father was there, and did not object to the presence of others. One has no information about the views of the House of Hillel in the matter of partially voided vows..