Nedarim

GEMARA. Whose view is taught in our Mishnah? — R. Meir's; for if R. Judah's, he recognises no distinction between a korban and Oh, korban.  Then consider the latter clause [IF HE SAYS,]. 'WHAT I MIGHT NOT EAT OF YOURS BE NOT A KORBAN UNTO ME,' HE IS PERMITTED. But we learnt: [If one says,] 'That which I might not eat of yours be not for a korban unto me': R. Meir forbids [him]. And R. Abba observed thereon: It is as though he said, 'let it [i.e., your food] be for a korban, therefore I may not eat of yours.  — There is no difficulty: in the latter case he said, 'le-korban' [for a korban]; but here [in our Mishnah] he said, 'la'-korban,'  which means: let it not be a korban. MISHNAH. [IF HE SAYS, 'I TAKE] AN OATH [THAT] I WILL NOT EAT OF YOURS,' [OR] 'OH OATH THAT  I EAT OF YOURS,' [OR 'I TAKE] NO OATH [THAT] I WILL NOT EAT OF YOURS,'  HE IS FORBIDDEN. GEMARA. This proves that 'Oh oath that I eat of yours implies that I will not eat. Now this contradicts the following: Oaths are of two categories, which are extended to four, viz., '[I swear] that I will eat,' 'that I will not eat,' 'that I have eaten, 'that I have not eaten'.  Now, since he enumerates, 'that I will eat,' 'that I will not eat,' 'that I have eaten.' 'that I have not eaten, it follows that [the phrase,] 'that I eat of yours' implies, 'I will eat'? — Abaye answered: 'That I eat' has two meanings. If one was being urged to eat, and he replied: 'I will eat, I will eat, moreover. [I take] an oath that I eat,' it implies, 'I will eat.' But if he said, 'I will not eat, I will not eat,' and then added: '[I take] an oath that I eat,' it implies, 'I will not eat'.  R. Ashi answered: 'That I eat,' in connection with an oath,  really means that he [actually] said, 'I will not eat'.  If so, it is obvious: why state it? — I might think it is a mispronunciation  which caused him to stumble;  we are therefore taught [otherwise]. Abaye does not give R. Ashi's reason, because it is not stated, 'That I will not eat.' R. Ashi rejects Abaye's interpretation: he holds, 'that I will not eat' may also bear two meanings. [Thus: —] if one was being urged to eat, and he said, 'I will not eat, I will not eat, and then added, 'I [swear by] an oath', whether [he concluded] 'that I eat,' or, 'that I do not eat,' it implies, 'I will eat'. While the language, 'An oath that I will not eat,' may also be explained as meaning, 'I swear [indeed] that I will not eat.'  But the Tanna  states a general rule: she-'okel [always] means that I will eat, and she-lo 'okel, that I will not eat.  MISHNAH. IN THESE INSTANCES OATHS ARE MORE RIGOROUS THAN VOWS.  YET THERE IS [ALSO] GREATER STRINGENCY IN VOWS THAN IN OATHS. E.G., IF ONE SAYS, 'KONAM BE THE SUKKAH THAT I MAKE,' OR, 'THE LULAB THAT I TAKE, OR, THE TEFILLIN  THAT I PUT ON:' [WHEN EXPRESSED] AS VOWS THEY ARE BINDING, BUT AS OATHS THEY ARE NOT, BECAUSE ONE CANNOT SWEAR TO TRANSGRESS THE PRECEPTS.