תַּנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר בַּתּוֹרָה – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, בָּהּ וּבְמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

§ It is taught in a baraita : One who takes a vow by associating an item with a Torah scroll has not said anything, and the vow does not take effect. However, he associates the item with what is written in the Torah scroll, his statement is upheld. Since the name of God is written in the Torah, he has invoked God’s name in his vow. If he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld.

קָתָנֵי: ״בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין: ״בָּהּ וּבְמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ״ צָרִיךְ לְמֵימַר?

The Gemara asks: It is taught that if he associates the item with what is written in the Torah scroll, his statement is upheld. Need it be said that the halakha is the same if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it? That is obvious.

אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא – דְּמַחְתָּא אוֹרַיְיתָא אַאַרְעָא, הָא – דְּנָקֵיט לָהּ בִּידֵיהּ; מַחְתָּא עַל אַרְעָא – דַּעְתֵּיהּ אַגְּוִילֵי, נָקַט לָהּ בִּידֵיהּ – דַּעְתֵּיהּ עַל הָאַזְכָּרוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ.

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. This case, in which the item is associated with it and with what is written in it, is referring to where the Torah scroll is placed on the ground, while that case, in which the item is associated with what is written in it, is referring to where he is holding it in his hands. If it is placed on the ground, whether one mentions the Torah scroll or what is written in it, his thoughts are concerning the parchment, i.e., the physical scroll, as he naturally assumes that since the scroll is placed on the ground, the parchment must be blank. Therefore, the vow takes effect only if he mentions both it and what is written in it, indicating that he is aware that it is a Torah scroll. However, where he is holding it in his hands and associates the item with what is written in it, his thoughts are concerning the mentions [ azkarot ] of the name of God that are in it, and the vow takes effect.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּמַחְתָּא עַל אַרְעָא, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּמַחְתָּא עַל אַרְעָא, כֵּיוָן דַּאֲמַר ״בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ״ – מְהַנֵּי, וְזוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר זוֹ קָתָנֵי.

And if you wish, say instead that the entire baraita is referring to a case where it is placed on the ground, and this middle clause of: With what is written in the Torah scroll, teaches us that even though it is placed on the ground, since he said: With what is written in it, it is an effective vow, as he was clearly referring to the names of God. And the tanna of the baraita teaches employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that. The baraita teaches the halakha where he said: What is written in it, which has a novel element, and then states a more obvious ruling, i.e., it goes without saying that if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, the vow takes effect.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: כּוּלָּהּ מְצִיעָתָא נַמִי דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: כֵּיוָן דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אֲמַר אֶלָּא ״בָּהּ״, כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר ״בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ״ דָּמֵי.

And if you wish, say instead that the entire middle clause, i.e., the latter clause, where he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, is referring to a case where he is holding the Torah scroll in his hands. And the baraita teaches us this: Since he is holding it in his hands, even though he said only: With the Torah scroll, and did not explicitly state: With what is written in it, he is considered to be like one who said: With what is written in it. Therefore, the item is prohibited.

מתני׳ ״קוֹנָם שֶׁאֲנִי יָשֵׁן״ ״שֶׁאֲנִי מְדַבֵּר״ ״שֶׁאֲנִי מְהַלֵּךְ״, הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״קוֹנָם שֶׁאֲנִי מְשַׁמְּשֵׁךְ״ – הֲרֵי זֶה בְּלֹא יָחֵל דְּבָרוֹ.

With regard to one who says: Sleeping is forbidden for me as if it were an offering [ konam ], thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: Speaking is konam for me; or: Walking is konam for me; or one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is konam for me, if he violates the vow he is in violation of the prohibition “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3).

גמי אִיתְּמַר: ״קוֹנָם עֵינַי בְּשֵׁינָה הַיּוֹם אִם אִישַׁן לְמָחָר״ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַל יִשַּׁן הַיּוֹם, שֶׁמָּא יִשַּׁן לְמָחָר. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: יִשַּׁן הַיּוֹם, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא יִשַּׁן לְמָחָר. וּמוֹדֶה רַב יְהוּדָה בְּאוֹמֵר ״קוֹנָם עֵינַי בְּשֵׁינָה לְמָחָר אִם אִישַׁן הַיּוֹם״ – שֶׁיִּשַׁן הַיּוֹם.

gemara It was stated that with regard to one who says: Sleeping is konam for my eyes today if I will sleep tomorrow, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: He may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow and thereby cause the vow to have been violated today, retroactively. And Rav Naḥman said: He may sleep today, as there is currently no prohibition, and we are not concerned that he will perhaps sleep tomorrow, as he will be careful not to sleep. And Rav Yehuda concedes that in a case where he says: Sleeping is konam for my eyes tomorrow if I sleep today, he may sleep today.