https://www.sefaria.org/Nedarim.18a.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
How can Rava's statement regarding a stringency in shvua be supported with the 17b braisa which talks about neder, if shvua is stronger than neder -- as per the gemara on this very page?
Paul Davidowitz, Long Beach
It seems to me that Shevu'ah is not stronger than Neder with regard to the Din mentioned at the bottom of 18a. If he made a Shevu'ah and then another Shevu'ah and asked for a Heter on the first one, the second one automatically applies in its place.
This is the same as the person who vowed twice to be a Nazir and later asked for a Heter for the first one, in which case we say that the second Nezirus applies instead. Nezirus is like a Neder so we see that in this regard a Neder and a Shevu'ah are equal.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Why can't we say that actually there is no question to begin with, and let shvua be stronger than neder:
A stringency in a lenient case (second neder pops in in the 17b braisa) for sure applies in the strict case of shvua.
How come you did not answer like that?
The Gemara (18a) states that the stringency of Shevu'ah over Neder is that for Shevu'ah it states, "He shall not be cleared." The Ran (16b, DH Gm' Michlal) writes that Shevu'ah is more stringent but for Neder there also exists a prohibition. So in most cases what is forbiidden through a Shevu'ah is also forbidden through a Neder.
Dovid Bloom
Ran explains that the supporter holds of Rav Huna, not Shmuel. And the support only works if we say that Rav Huna in the 17b braisa claims that even today/today works. But who says Rav Huna must** hold like -- maybe he doesn't?! What was the supporter thinking?
Please provide sanity check: There are only two (stated) ways of understanding the 17a mishna: Rav Huna and Shmuel. Rava the Amora cannot argue on a Mishna, and hence must be in one these two camps. In other words, Rava's 18a statement must be compatible with 17a mishna. Hence the supporter -- via reverse engineering -- can prove his stance for Rav Huna in the braisa -- because that is the only way that Rava can work.
Paul Davidowitz, Long Beach
The Ran (18a, DH Leima) writes that according to Rav Huna, today/today does not work.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Just the opposite! See your (Ran DH Leima Mesay'a Leih) Hachi K'Amar Vadai Hai Masnisa b'Omer Hareini Nazir ha'Yom Hareini Nazir ha'Yom Mitukama
https://dafyomi.co.il/nedarim/tosfos/nd-ts-018.htm#:~:text=%D7%95%D7%94%22%D7%A7%20%D7%95%D7%93%D7%90%D7%99%20%D7%94%D7%90,a%20Nazir%20today%22
1) That is only when he asked for a Heter for the first Neder -- then the second Neder can take effect.
2) Regarding the difference between Rav Huna and Shmuel:
a) We know that a Shevu'ah can never take effect on another Shevu'ah. Everyone agrees with this, both Rav Huna and Shmuel.
b) We also know that Shmuel says (on 17a) that if one says, "I am a Nazir today, I am a Nazir today," he becomes a Nazir twice and observes 60 days of Nezirus. This is totally different from a Shevu'ah which can never take effect twice.
c) Rav Huna is less extreme than Shmuel because he holds that sometimes a Neder is similar to a Shevu'ah and a Neder cannot take effect on a Neder (namely, when he says they both apply today without mentioning any extra day). Therefore, Rava -- who is discussing the law of Shevu'ah -- can be supported only from Rav Huna who is discussuing Neder, but not from Shmuel, since according to Shmuel a Shevu'ah is entirely different from a Neder.
3) Regarding how this fits into the words of the Ran (18a, DH Leima):
Here is an explanation of how the Ran writes that the supporter must hold like Rav Huna: The Ran writes that the supporter cannot hold like Shmuel. This is because according to Shmuel, if he said "I am a Nazir today, I am a Nazir today," this makes him twice over a Nazir -- i.e. for 60 days. It follows that Rava's scenario is very different from Shmuel's scenario, since Shmuel refers to where the two oaths of Nezirus apply simultaneously, while Rava refers to a Shevu'ah, and we know that two Shevu'os cannot apply simultaneously. The Ran writes that according to Shmuel, the reason why he can ask a Heter for the first Nezirus and automatically he is Yotzei the second Nezirus with the 30 days which he observed is that at the start the two oaths of Nezirus applied at the same time. The Ran writes that this does not apply for Shevu'ah since when he made the first Shevu'ah the second Shevu'ah did not yet start. Therefore, there is no proof for Rava according to Shmuel, because with a Shevu'ah, since the second Shevu'ah did not apply at the beginning, it is possible that it also does not apply when he asks for a Heter for the first one. This is why the supporter cannot follow Shmuel, and, by process of elimination, since Rav Huna and Shmuel represent the only two ways of understanding the Mishnah, it follows that the supporter of Rava must be Rav Huna.
Dovid Bloom
Paul, thanks for the great Shakla v'Tarya!
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom