Neder within a neder – The Mishna had stated: If one said, “I am a nazir if I eat, I am a nazir if I eat,” and he ate it, he must observe a term of nezirus for each one (he concludes his first term and afterwards begins a second term).
This is referred to as a neder within a neder because the second nezirus took effect within the time period of the first, but it was impossible for him to count it until he had finished counting the first. For had it not taken effect at the moment of his neder, how would it take effect afterwards? At no later time does he pronounce a neder! So if it does not take effect now, it won’t take effect later either. Rather, it is certainly now that it is taking effect, and for that reason the Mishna says that there is a neder within a neder.
Two terms of nezirus – Rav Huna said: This halacha is only true if he said, “I am a nazir today” and then he said, “I am a nazir tomorrow.” Since he is required to add a day of nezirus on account of the second vow, the second vow of nezirus (for another term of thirty days) takes effect upon the first vow. However, if he said, “I am a nazir today” and then he said, “I am a nazir today,” only the first vow of nezirus takes effect.
When he says, “I am a nazir tomorrow,” it means that the next day he will start counting thirty days. It emerges that he is obligated one day beyond the first nezirus because of the second neder. Since it is established in Meseches Nazir that if a person says, “I am hereby a nazir just for today,” he becomes a nazir for thirty days, this one too, since he is obligated because of his second neder to count one day in addition to the first nezirus, of necessity he must count thirty.
Figs and Grapes - The Gemora asks on Rav Huna from our Mishna which stated: There is a vow within a vow, but there is not an oath within an oath. What cases is the Mishna referring to? If the case of a vow is where he said, “I am a nazir today,” and “I am a nazir tomorrow,” and then the parallel case of an oath would be where he said, “An oath that I will not eat figs,” and “An oath that I will not eat grapes.” If that is the case, why isn’t the second oath valid (the second oath is completely different than the first)? Rather, the case must be where he said, “An oath that I will not eat figs,” and “An oath that I will not eat figs.” The parallel case by a vow would be where he said, “I am a nazir today” and then he said, “I am a nazir today.” And yet, the Mishna says that the second nezirus is valid. This would be a refutation of Rav Huna.
The Gemora answers: Rav Huna could say as follows: The Mishna is referring to a case where he said, “I am a nazir today,” and “I am a nazir tomorrow.” In that case, the Mishna rules that the second neder has validity. The parallel case by an oath would be where he said, “An oath that I will not eat figs,” and “An oath that I will not eat figs and grapes.” The Mishna rules in this case that the second oath does not take effect.
The Ran explains why the Gemora initially compares our case with one neder and in conclusion, compares it to another case.
The Gemora initially thought that the analogy should be based on not what actually happens; but rather, it should be based upon that which he said. When he said, “I am a nazir tomorrow,” he meant that he should become a nazir tomorrow for thirty days. It is as if he said, “I am a nazir today and tomorrow,” because here too, there are twenty-nine days of the second neder mixed into the period of the first neder. And even though those twenty-nine days don’t take effect at all as a result of his second neder, nonetheless, by this expression his neder is effective in that the thirty-first day is the end of the thirty days of the second nezirus, for that was his neder. It emerges that the twenty-nine days of the first nezirus, the second nezirus took effect in that the thirty-first day would be in his nezirus. But since nezirus cannot be less than thirty days, he needs to count more to complete thirty for the sake of the second neder.
Similarly, with respect to oaths, if he said, “An oath that I will not eat figs,” and then he said, “An oath that I will not eat figs and grapes,” the second oath is not effective for the figs at all, because Rav Huna does not hold that an oath can be effective within another oath even if it includes more.
The Ran is not comfortable with this explanation because just as the second oath is not effective for the figs because he already swore on them, so too the second nezirus is not effective for the first twenty-nine days because he already accepted nezirus for them. Therefore he says that when we say that he then said, “An oath that that I will not eat figs and grapes,” it means that he was swearing not to eat them together. This also explains Rabbah’s opinion in Meseches Shavuos that since the oath was effective for grapes, it’s effective for figs too. This makes a difference in a case in which he ate figs and grapes having forgotten the first oath, and they warned him about the second, that he would incur lashes.
Rav Huna, however, does not agree with Rabbah. In such a case, Rav Huna holds that the second oath is not effective at all. Since it is not effective on figs, there is no place for it to be effective at all, because it was on both of them together that he swore, not on grapes alone. And with nedarim too, had the law been the same for them as for oaths, we would have said that since on twenty-nine days the second nezirus is not effective, on the thirtieth day it is not effective either. For when he said, “I am hereby a nazir tomorrow,” he had in mind the entire thirty days as together, not the thirtieth day by itself, so the twenty-nine days would have been like the figs and the thirtieth like the grapes.
[We use the
sefer “The Commentary of Rabbenu Nissim on Nedarim” from Rabbi Nathan Bushwick
extensively to assist us in preparing the “Elucidation of the Ra”n.” The sefer,
written in English is available for sale by writing to: Rabbi Nathan Bushwick
901