דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּקַמַּיְיתָא, וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

mean that even in the earlier cases, and can one conclude from here that the Rabbis disagree with him? The Gemara concludes: Conclude from here that this is so.

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלָהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

With regard to the practical conclusion of this dispute, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? halakha follow the opinion of the Rabbis or that of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. And so said Rav Adda bar Ahava: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

מתני׳ נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי; אָמַר ״קוֹנָם אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה כְּעוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם״ ״אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְּקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבַּד״.

Vows of exaggeration that the Sages dissolved without a request to a halakhic authority, as described in the first mishna in the chapter, include the following examples. If one said concerning a certain item: It is konam for me if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, or if he said: It is konam for me if I did not see a snake as large as the beam of an olive press, in these cases the speaker did not intend to vow but used hyperbole to demonstrate a point, and it is understood by others that the expression is not to be taken literally.

גמ׳ תָּנָא: נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי – מוּתָּרִין, שְׁבוּעוֹת הֲבַאי – אֲסוּרִין.

A Sage taught: Items rendered forbidden through vows of exaggeration [ havai ] are permitted; items rendered forbidden through oaths of exaggeration are forbidden. Since oaths are very severe, one does not take an oath unless he intends it seriously. Therefore, it is not viewed as an oath of exaggeration.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת הֲבַאי? אִילֵימָא דַּאֲמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה״ – מִידַּעַם קָאָמַר?

The Gemara clarifies the details: What are the circumstances of the case of oaths of exaggeration? If we say that it is when one said: I take an oath if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, is he saying anything? This statement is not formulated in the form of an oath and therefore has no validity at all, even if he was serious.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: דַּאֲמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁרָאִיתִי״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִם כֵּן לָמָּה לִי לְמֵימַר? וְעוֹד, דּוּמְיָא דְּנֶדֶר קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אֲמַר רָבָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״יֵאָסְרוּ פֵּירוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלַי בִּשְׁבוּעָה אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה כְּעוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם״.

The Gemara answers: Abaye said that in a case where one says: I take an oath that I saw on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, the oath is valid. If he did not see that many people, he has taken a false oath. Rava said to him: If so, why do I need to say this; And furthermore, it teaches that the case of an oath is similar to that of a vow: Just as in the case of a vow he speaks of not seeing, so too with regard to an oath he must be speaking of not seeing. Rather, Rava said: An oath of exaggeration is where he says: All the produce of the world shall be forbidden to me by an oath if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַשִׁי: וְדִלְמָא הַאי גַּבְרָא קִינָּא דְּשׁוּמְשְׁמָנֵי חֲזָא, וְאַסֵּיק לְהוֹן שְׁמָא ״עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם״, וְשַׁפִּיר מִשְׁתַּבַּע!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And perhaps this man saw an anthill and called them: Those who ascended from Egypt, because the quantity of ants was so numerous, and he took an oath properly. Why, then, do we say that this is an oath taken in vain?