מתני׳ נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת; ״אִם אָכַלְתִּי וְאִם שָׁתִיתִי״ וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל וְשֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹתֶה״ וְשָׁכַח וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. אָמַר ״קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי שֶׁגָּנְבָה אֶת כִּיסִי וְשֶׁהִכְּתָה אֶת בְּנִי״ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא הִכַּתּוּ, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא גָּנְבָה.

What are examples of vows that are unintentional that are dissolved, as taught at the beginning of the chapter? One who vows: This loaf is forbidden to me as if it were an offering [ konam ] if I ate or if I drank, and then he remembers that he ate or drank. Or, one who vows: This loaf is konam for me if I will eat or if I will drink, and he then forgets and eats or drinks. Also, one who said: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife because she stole my purse or she hit my son, and then it became known that she had not hit him or it became known that she had not stolen.

רָאָה אוֹתָן אוֹכְלִין תְּאֵנִים וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עֲלֵיכֶם קָרְבָּן״ וְנִמְצְאוּ אָבִיו וְאָחִיו, וְהָיוּ עִמָּהֶן אֲחֵרִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הֵן – מוּתָּרִים, וּמַה שֶּׁעִמָּהֶם – אֲסוּרִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין.

The mishna lists another example of an unintentional vow: One who saw people entering his courtyard and eating figs, and because he did not want them to do so he said: The figs are forbidden to you like an offering. And then it was found that his father and brother were in the group, and there were others with them as well, and certainly he did not intend to take a vow prohibiting his father and brother from eating the figs. In such a case, Beit Shammai says: They, his father and brother, are permitted to eat the figs, and those others that were with them are prohibited from doing so. And Beit Hillel says: Both these and those are permitted to eat the figs,

גמ׳ תָּנָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת מוּתָּרִין – כָּךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁגָגוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת. הֵיכִי דָמֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁגָגוֹת? כְּגוֹן רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִי, הָדֵין אֲמַר: שְׁבוּעֲתָא דְּהָכִי אֲמַר רַב, וְהָדֵין אֲמַר: שְׁבוּעֲתָא דְּהָכִי אֲמַר רַב. דְּכָל חַד וְחַד אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ שַׁפִּיר קָמִישְׁתַּבַּע.

The Sages taught: Just as vows that are unintentional are dissolved, so too, oaths that are unintentional are dissolved. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of unintentional oaths? For example, as in the incident of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who disagreed about a halakha . During the dispute this one said: I take an oath that Rav said like this opinion that I hold. And that one said: I take an oath that Rav said like this opinion that I hold. This is an unintentional oath, as each one took an oath properly in his own mind and was sure that he was saying the truth.

״רָאָה אוֹתָן אוֹכְלִין״. תְּנַן הָתָם: פּוֹתְחִין בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וּבְיָמִים טוֹבִים. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים מוּתָּרִים, וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַיָּמִים אֲסוּרִים, עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְלִימֵּד: נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּתַּר מִקְצָתוֹ – הוּתַּר כֻּלּוֹ.

With regard to the mishna’s statement: One who saw them eating, the Gemara states that we learned in a mishna there (66a): If one vows to fast or not to eat a certain food, dissolution is broached based on Shabbatot and based on Festivals, since one certainly did not intend to include these days when taking the vow. Initially, they used to say: On those days, Shabbatot and Festivals, which he did not include in his vow, he is permitted to partake of the item, and on all other days he is prohibited from doing so. This was the case until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: A vow that was partially dissolved is dissolved completely. Therefore, one is permitted to partake on other days well.

אֲמַר רַבָּה: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, כָּל הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאַבָּא בֵּינֵיכֶם הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר ״כּוּלְּכֶם אֲסוּרִין חוּץ מֵאַבָּא״ – דְּכוּלְּהוֹן אֲסוּרִין וְאָבִיו מוּתָּר. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאַבָּא בֵּינֵיכֶם הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר ״פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אֲסוּרִין וְאַבָּא מוּתָּר״.

Rabba said: Everyone in the mishna, i.e., Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, holds that wherever one says: Had I known that my father was among you I would have said: All of you are prohibited from eating figs except for father, then in that case all are prohibited from doing so and his father is permitted to do so. They disagreed only in an instance where one said: Had I known that my father was among you then I would have said: So-and-so and so-and-so, i.e., all the others, are prohibited from eating figs and father is permitted to do so.