משנה: כָּל־כִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וַחֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים וּשְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְׁבוּעוֹת וּנְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּדָּר אֲנִי מִמָּךְ מוּפְרָשׁ אֲנִי מִמָּךְ מְרוּחָק אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ אָסוּר. מְנוּדֶּה אֲנִי לָךְ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הָיָה חוֹכֵךְ בָּזֶה לְהַחֲמִיר. כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. כְּנִדְרֵי כְשֵׁירִים לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. כְּנִדְבוֹתָם נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן. MISHNAH: All substitute names1Since vows and oaths are sacral acts, the invocation of vow or oath is automatically the invocation of God’s Name. Just as God’s Name should not be invoked in vain, the people shied away from using the expressions “vow, making a vow” or “oath, swearing”. As explained in the next Note, one of the oblique references to a vow was the word qorbān and its substitute, as given in Nedarim 1:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.2.1">Mishnah 2. of vows2Making a vow is taking on an obligation. There are three kinds of vows found in talmudic literature.
A person may vow to bring a sacrifice or to give a certain sum to the Temple. This is a relatively simple matter since (Mishnah Qiddšin 1:6) “speaking to Higher Powers is like delivering to a human”; i. e., a promise to God is as final as delivering the merchandise in a commercial transaction. Therefore, these vows are only a minor topic in the present tractate.
A person may make a vow to become a nazir for a certain time; then he is required to abstain from grapes and grape products as well as from becoming impure by the impurity of the dead, and he must let his hair grow. This kind of vow is discussed in Tractate Nazir.
The main topic of Tractate Nedarim is “any vow or oath of prohibition to deprive oneself” (Numbers.30.14">Num. 30:14), i. e., a vow in which a person for any reason prohibits to himself things which otherwise are permitted. One may also make a vow to forbid certain actions to oneself but the actions must be forbidden as things are forbidden. (Self-flagellation is forbidden in Judaism since inflicting any wound on oneself is forbidden except for medical purposes, Mishnah Baba qama 8:5.) Since an animal which was dedicated as a sacrifice is forbidden for any profane use, it became general practice to say about anything of which one wanted to prohibit all use for himself “this is qorbān for me”, or simply qorbān “sacrifice”. Therefore, if in Math. 15:5 it is noted that a son can say to his parents that all he possesses should be qorbān for them; on the surface it is the height of mistreatment of the parents if the son prohibits them any use whatsoever of his property and even prohibits himself to help his parents in any way. The rabbinic answer would be that if the son goes off to fight as a guerilla against the Romans, or the Herodian government, cutting off all ties might save his parents’ property from confiscation. (Cf. Peah 1:1, Note 113, about the unpredictability of the duty to honor father and mother: “Somebody might serve his father fattened meat and go to hell; another might bind his father to the grindstone and go to paradise.”) The vow could also be in error, cf. Nedarim 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.3.2.1">Mishnah 3:2. Chapter 4 shows that a person forbidding his property to another can nevertheless take care of that other person. Cf. also Nedarim 9:1:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.9.1.8">Chapter 9, Note 38.
{In Math. 15:5, Jesus complains that Pharisees declare a person free from prosecution (פָּטוּר) if he violates the commandment to honor and fear father and mother by maliciously forbidding his property to them. The pharisaic rule in question is that “a prohibition violated without an action is not prosecutable” (Sanhedrin.63">Babli Sanhedrin 63a/b). Speech is not counted as an action in this respect. The rule is opposed by R. Jehudah who in many cases represents older traditions (from his father’s teacher R. Eliezer.) The testimony of Math. shows that in this case, the majority opinion is the historic position. R. Jehudah’s position is that of the Qumran community in the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document.} are like vows, of bans3“Ban” is the irrevocable gift of property to the Temple, Leviticus.27.28">Lev. 27:28. like bans, of oaths4An oath is subject-related, in contrast to a vow which is object-related. If a person prohibits himself to eat any bread, that is an oath of deprivation. If he prohibits the use of a specified loaf, or even any loaf, on himself, that is a vow of deprivation. like oaths, of nazir vows5While this is also a vow of deprivation it follows its own rules, Numbers.6.1-21">Num. 6:1–21. like nazir vows. If one says to another, I am vowed away from you6Here starts the detailed explanation of what substitute names are. All expressions in this sentence are examples of נדר הנאה “a vow [to forbid] usufruct”, in which A tells B that all of B’s property is forbidden to A as if it were a sacrifice or sacred property and A’s property to B.., I am separated from you, I am distanced from you, that I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours, he is forbidden7All of B’s property, not only his food.. I am excommunicated from you, Rabbi Aqiba was stringent in that because of a doubt8R. Aqiba decided that, while the exact meaning of “excommunicated” in this context is unknown since the use of a judicial term by a private person is inappropriate, the most extensive interpretation must be adopted.. As vows of the wicked, he vowed as nazir, a sacrifice, and an oath9This sentence is very elliptic. Since the nazir prohibits vines and all their products for himself and he needs atonement for his status (Numbers.6.11">Num. 6:11) one concludes (Nedarim 1:1:2-3:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.1.2-3.7">Nedarim 1:1, 36d 1. 50; Nedarim.10a">Babli 10a) that it is essentially sinful to deprive oneself from permitted enjoyments. It follows that just people do not make vows of deprivation or nezirut. They also do not make vows of sacrifices since such a vow implies that the person will be financially responsible until a correct sacrifice has been presented in the Temple. Responsible people offer free-will gifts in which they designate an animal as sacrifice; if anything should happen to that animal before it is sacrificed he is not obligated to offer a replacement.
Since the wicked do make vows and swear, any expression of vow or oath declared to be in the form used by the wicked has to be interpreted to imply a maximum obligation. Still, somebody who simply says that he makes a vow of the wicked is not obligated for anything unless some object on which the vow could fall was before him at that moment. For example, if a loaf of bread was before him and he said, this loaf is for me as a vow of the wicked, he is forbidden to eat that loaf. If a long-haired nazir was passing before him and he said, that is for me as a vow of the wicked, he is a nazir for the standard period of 30 days.. As vows of the good ones, he did not say anything10Since good people do not make vows nor do they swear.. As their freewill gifts11If somebody said, this loaf of bread is to me as a free-will gift of a just person, he means that for him it is qorbān and therefore forbidden for all usufruct. Similarly, if a long-haired nazir was passing before him and he said, that is for me as a free-will gift of the just, he is a nazir for the standard period of 30 days., he made a vow of nazir and sacrifice.
הלכה: כָּל־כִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים כול׳. כְּתִיב אִישׁ כִּי יִדּוֹר. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר נֶדֶר. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים. אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁבוּעָה. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. אַךְ כָּל־חֶרֶם. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יַחֲרִים. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי חֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים. נֶדֶר נָזִיר. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְהַזִּיר. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְאָמַר. לְשׁוֹנוֹת רִיבּוּיִין הֵן. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר. לְשׁוֹנוֹת כְּפוּלִין הֵן וְהַתּוֹרָה דִיבְּרָה כְדַרְכָּהּ. הָלוֹךְ הָלַכְתָּ. נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּ. גָּונֹב גּוּנַּבְתִי. מְנָלָן. אִישׁ כִּי יִדּוֹר נֶדֶר לַיי֨ אוֹ הִשָׁבַע שְׁבוּעָה לֶאֱסוֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא יָחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כְּכָל־הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כִּשְׁבוּעָה. וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁכִּינּוּי חֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כִּינּוּי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כַּשְּׁבוּעָה. אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן כִּינּוּי חֲרָמִין כַּחֲרָמִין. וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כִּינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כַּשְּׁבוּעָה אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן כִּינּוּי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written12Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,13Leviticus.27.28">Lev. 27:28.” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir14Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2.”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. 15Cf. Yevamot 8:1:12" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.8.1.12">Yebamot 8:1, Note 72, Babli Avodah zarah 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in Gen. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “12Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3. Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths16The second half of the verse is clearly written for emphasis. It implies (a) that a vow is valid only if pronounced, not if only thought of and (b) that any speech which can be interpreted as a vow is a vow.
The Nedarim.3">Babli, 3a/b, quotes both the argument in the style of R. Aqiba and that of R. Ismael without mentioning any names.. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”17This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule of gezerah šawah “equal cut”. If it was established in Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in Leviticus.27.2">Lev. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”18Again this is an application of gezerah šawah, but this time the reference quote is Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2, cf. Nedarim 1:1:14" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.1.14">Note 14.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths19This reference is odd since the argument is about vows, not oaths. One has to assume that the scribe left out the relevant portion of the sentence which should be identical to the one used in the preceding case., “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.
מַה מְקַייֵם רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְּכָל־הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה. מִיכָּן לְנֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטֵל מִקְצָתוֹ בָּטַל כּוּלּוֹ. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כֵּן. כּוּלָּהּ מִן תַּמָּן. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן לְנֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטֵל מִקְצָתוֹ בָּטַל כּוּלּוֹ. מַה מְקַייֵם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר. מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם קוֹבֵעַ עָלָיו נְזִירוּת בְּתוֹךְ נְזִירוּתוֹ. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כֵּן. אִית לֵיהּ כּוּלָּהּ מִתַּמָּן. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם קוֹבֵעַ עָלָיו נְזִירוּת בְּתוֹךְ נְזִירוּתוֹ. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”20If a vow cannot be fulfilled completely, it is not a vow.? From here that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. Does Rebbi Ismael not agree with this? Everything derives from there. It follows from there that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths21That conclusion could have been drawn even if the word כל “all, anything” were not written. Therefore, the clause admits two conclusions independent of one another. are like oaths and it follows from there that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. How does Rebbi Ismael explain “any person who vows a vow of nazir14Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2.”? From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir22The pentateuchal state of nazir is always limited in time (when a Temple is in existence. Since a nazir is only permitted to drink wine after he has absolved the required Temple ritual, a person vowing to be a nazir today must remain in that state until the Temple is rebuilt and officiating Cohanim are found who have complete documentary proof of their priestly status going back to the priests officiating in the second Temple.) The prophetic state of nazir, as exemplified by Simson and Samuel, is unlimited but does not include a prohibition of the impurity of the dead. It is noted here that while a person is in the state of a nazir for a fixed period, he can undertake to be a nazir for an additional period, to begin after the Temple procedure for the current nezirut was performed. This statement is needed since the vow of nazir of an unincumbered person makes that person a nazir immediately upon pronouncing his vow.. Does Rebbi Aqiba not agree with this? He agrees and everything derives from there23The same verse.. He agrees that from there a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.
וַהֲלֹא הָעֲרָכִין וְהַחֲרָמִין וְהַתְּמוּרוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת בַּפָּרָשָׁה הָיוּ. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן. כִּינּוּי עֲרָכִין וְכִינּוּי תְמוּרוֹת וְהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. וְאִילּוּ תַנִּינָן מַה הֲוִינָן מִיתְנֵי. עֲרָפִין עֲרָצִין עֲרָקִין. תְּמוּפָה תְּמֻרְנָה תְּמוּקָה. הֶגְדֵּר הֶגְזֵר הֶגְרֵם. נִיחָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר סְתָם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. בְּרַם כְּמַאן דָּמַר. סְתָם חֲרָמִים לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן כִּינּוּי תְרוּמָה. וְאִילּן תַנִּינָן מַה הֲוִינָן מִיתְנֵי. תְּרוּפָה תְּרוּצָה תְּרוּקָה. Now estimates26A person who offers to pay to the Temple the monetary value of his person, Leviticus.27.1-8">Lev. 27:1–8, which in general is a fixed sum but becomes an estimate for poor persons., bans, exchanges27Exchanging a dedicated animal for another, Leviticus.27.9-10">Lev. 27:9–10., and dedications28Giving non-sacrificial animals or any other valuables to the Temple to cover its expenses, Leviticus.27.11-25">Lev. 27:11–25. were in the same paragraph29Leviticus.27">Lev. 27, where bans are treated in Leviticus.27.28">v. 28. Why should bans be treated differently from all other categories of gifts?, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state30Recognized substitutes for vows, bans, nazir vows, and oaths are listed in Nedarim 1:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.2.1">Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? ‘Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin31“Disappearances”.? Temupha, temuna32“Picture”., temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres33The substitution of גּ for ק in this series shows that the pronunciation of q was close to that of Arabic ق.. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple34If bans are gifts to the Temple they are gifts to God and, as stated in Nedarim 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.1.1">Note 2, they become absolute the moment the intention to give is declared. Therefore, substitute names which are in common use are as effective as the explicit mention of the word “ban”. But if an unspecified ban is intended for Cohanim (the majority opinion in Mishnah ‘Arakhin 8:6), the collection of the gift is a money transaction between Cohanim and the giver, subject to the rule that “the proof is on the claimant” (Sanhedrin 3:8:2-8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.3.8.2-8">Sanhedrin 3:9, 21b 1. 70; Babli Baba qama 46b). The Cohanim would have to prove that the putative giver in his use of the substitute words really did intend to refer to bans. This proof seems almost impossible. Therefore, substitute bans could not be like bans and the Mishnah here must be interpreted as supporting the opinion that unspecified bans are for the Temple.. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state30Recognized substitutes for vows, bans, nazir vows, and oaths are listed in Nedarim 1:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.2.1">Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? Terupha35“Medicine”., teruṣa, teruqa?
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לוֹקִין עַל הָאִיסָּרוֹת. וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. אֵין לוֹקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶת רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר. אֵין לוֹקִין עַל הָאִיסָּרוֹת. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הַמּוּדָר הַנָּייָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִכְנַס לְבַקְּרוֹ. לֹא יִכָּנֵס. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. שַׁנְייָה הִיא תַמָּן מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אִם מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם אֲפִילוּ בִשְׁבוּעוֹת יְהֵא מוּתָּר. וְתַנִּינָן. נְדָרִים אָסִיר וּשְׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar disagree, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, one whips for prohibitions36Somebody forbade something for himself without using the language either of vows or of oaths or any of the recognized substitute expressions. If he then breaks his own prohibition this falls under the biblical prohibition of “he shall not profane his word” (Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In Nazir 1:1:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.1.2-9">Nazir 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in Nazir would remain unexplained.) and Rebbi Eleazar said, one does not whip36Somebody forbade something for himself without using the language either of vows or of oaths or any of the recognized substitute expressions. If he then breaks his own prohibition this falls under the biblical prohibition of “he shall not profane his word” (Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In Nazir 1:1:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.1.2-9">Nazir 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in Nazir would remain unexplained.). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: According to you, who says one does not whip on prohibitions, did we not state37Nedarim 4:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.4.4.1">Mishnah 4:4: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him (when he is sick), he may stand but not sit down and heal him (but not his animals).” He cannot sit down because he would derive usufruct from the other’s possessions. The question makes sense only if R. Eleazar holds that transgressing the prohibition is prosecutable.: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him,” let him not enter38If transgressing a private prohibition is not prosecutable, one can explain the Mishnah as referring to a prohibition of usufruct, not a formal vow or oath. But if it is prosecutable as a formal vow, why permit to enter since the person entering will find shelter there from the sun in summer and the rain in winter?! Rebbi Jeremiah said, there is a difference there because of the ways of peace39“Ways of peace” are the obligations of interpersonal relationships necessary in a civilized society; in this case, visiting the sick.. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is because of the ways of peace, should he not also be permitted in case of an oath? But we have stated40Nedarim 2:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.2.2.1">Mishnah 2:2: “A vow that I shall not build a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab, that I will not wear phylacteries: vows are forbidden, oaths permitted, for one cannot swear to break religious obligations.” If somebody makes a vow that religious objects should be forbidden to him (as if they were dedicated sacrifices), he commits a twofold sin in making a frivolous vow and breaking biblical commandments, but what he did is done. But if he swears that he will not fulfill his religious obligations, the oath is invalid since, in the language of the Babli, “he already is under oath from Mount Sinai”, and a valid oath cannot be superseded by another oath. Since visiting the sick is a religious obligation, if the prohibition of usufruct is interpreted as an oath it should be nonexistent in the case of a visit to a sick person. No answer is given since practice follows R. Joḥanan.: “Vows are forbidden, oaths permitted.”
אֵי זֶהוּ אִיסָּר. כִּכָּר זֶה עָלַי כַיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ אַבָּא. כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ פְּלוֹנִי. כַּיּוֹם שֶׁרָאִיתִי יְרוּשָׁלֵם חֲרֵיבָה. זֶהוּ אִיסָּר שֶׁאָֽמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַב. תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא נָדוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אִם בִּשֶׁיְּהֵא נָדוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם לָמָּה לִי אִיסָּר. וְיֹמַר. בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. 41A similar text in Tosephta 1:4, quoted in Nedarim.12a">Babli 12a, Nedarim.14a">14a; Shevuot.20a">Šebuot 20a.“What is a prohibition? This loaf is for me as the day of my father’s death42If he keeps the anniversary of his father’s death as a private fast day. In the Babli sources (including the Tosephta) the reference is not to a loaf but to meat and wine, assuming the person had vowed not to eat meat and drink wine at the anniversary of his father’s death., as the day X was killed43In the Babli: As the day Gedaliah ben Aḥiqam was killed (2K. 25:25, Jeremiah.41.2">Jer. 41:2), which is a fast day by tradition, not by law, and which therefore needs a declaration to be a binding obligation. (In practice, fasting three consecutive years on a particular date creates the equivalent of a vow to fast.), as the day I saw Jerusalem in ruins; that is the prohibition the Torah spoke of44“A person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition to deprive oneself” (Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3). “If in her husband’s house she vowed, or forbade a prohibition on herself by an oath.” (Numbers.30.11">Num. 30:11). Since the prohibition can refer both to a vow (tied to a material object that can be vowed to sacrificial use) and an oath (not tied to any object), it creates a category by itself..” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav: Both say, only if he had made a vow about that day45If the person did not earlier make a vow that food on the anniversary of his father’s death should be forbidden to him like a dedicated sacrifice or had sworn to the same effect, the reference to that day has no effect. In the Babli, the person quoted is Samuel.. Rebbi Yose asked: If only he had made a vow about that day, why a separate prohibition? He should say on that day46Since the status of a prohibition is in doubt as to whether it is a vow or an oath (Nedarim 1:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.1.6">Note 44), the reference given will determine its status. If the person fasts in consequence of a vow, the additional prohibition is a vow; if it refers to an oath, it is an oath. In no case is a separate category created. The only case in which one could speak of a separate category is if the additional prohibition is made together with the original one while the status is still undefined.!
אִיסָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. מִבְטָא זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. אִיסָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אִיסָּר וְאִיסָּר וְעַל כָּל־שְׁבוּעָה וּשְׁבוּעָה. אִם אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אִסָּר מִין שְׁבוּעָה. חַייָב עַל זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אִסָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. וְתֹמַר. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. תְּרֵין תַּנָּיִין אִינּוּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. חַד תַּנַּיי הוּא. אֲמָרוֹ בִלְשׁוֹן נֵדֶר אַתְּ תּוֹפְסוֹ בִלְשׁוֹן נֵדֶר. אֲמָרוֹ בִלְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה אַתְּ תּוֹפְסוֹ בִלְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה. אָסַר הֲרֵי הוּא עַל יָדִי. אם תּוֹפְסוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן נֶדֶר. אִסָּר וְאֵינִי טוֹעֲמוֹ. אם תּוֹפְסוֹ בִּמְקוֹם שְׁבוּעָה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. אִסָּר מִין שְׁבוּעָה. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אִיסָּר וְאִיסָּר וְעַל כָּל־שְׁבוּעָה וּשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לָא אַתְייָא אֶלָּא בַחֲמִשָּׁה כִּכָּרִין. אֲבָל בְּכִכָּר אֶחָד מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִזְכִּיר עָלָיו שְׁבוּעָה עֲשָׂאוֹ כִנְבֵילָה. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ בִּמְייַחֵל שְׁבוּעוֹת עַל הָאִיסָּרִין וְאֵין שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל הָאִסָּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. אֲפִילוּ בְכִכָּר אֶחָד אַתְייָא הִיא. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. זֶה חוֹמֶר לְשֶׁעָבַר מִלָּבֹא. שֶׁאִם אָמַר. לֹא אָכַלְתִּי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי. חָב עַל כָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. לֹא אוֹכֵל לֹא אוֹכֵל. אֵינוֹ חָב אֶלֵּא אַחַת. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. אֵין אִסָּר מִין שְׁבוּעָה. חָב עַל זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. וְהוּא שֶׁהִזְכִּיר נֶדֶר וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה. אֲבָל אִם הִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִזְכִּיר נֶדֶר נְדָרִין חָלִין עַל הָאִיסָּרִין וְאֵין שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל הָאִיסָּרִין. 48A baraita similar to this one is quoted and explained in the Shevuot.20a">Babli Šebuot 20a.“ ‘Prohibition’, is an oath. ‘Expression’49Numbers.30.4">Num. 30:4: “If she be married to a man and her vows are on her or the expression of her lips which she forbade on herself.” Since “expression” is opposed to “vows”, it must refer to oaths. Similarly, “to express with one’s lips” is used for “to swear an oath” in Leviticus.5.4">Lev. 5:4; cf. Shevuot.20a">Šebuot 20a., is an oath. If you say prohibition is an oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. If you say prohibition is50It seems that “not” has fallen out here. The two cases will be explained below. a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.” “Prohibition is an oath”, and you say “if you say so”?51First one states that ‘prohibition’ is an expression of an oath. Then one argues ‘if it is an oath’, ‘if it is not an oath’. This contradicts the first statement. Rebbi Eleazar said, these are two Tannaїm52The first two sentences have one author, the last two a different one.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is from one Tanna53The baraita, as one would reasonably expect, is from one author. But the implicit verb in the first two sentences should not be read as “is” but as “may be”.. If he said it in the language of a vow54That he forbids the object for himself. you catch him in the language of a vow. If he said it in the language of an oath55That he forbids himself the use of the object. Since “prohibition” is applied to both vows and oaths, the meaning of the word is determined by the syntax of the sentence in which it is used; cf. Nedarim 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.1.1">Note 4. you catch him in the language of an oath. If you say, prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath56Violating a vow is a prohibition which, if proved in court by two witnesses, might subject the perpetrator to punishment by whipping. Even if the violation was inadvertent, there never is a possibility of a sacrifice. But inadvertently violating an oath imposes on the perpetrator the duty to offer a reparation or a purification offering in the Temple, Leviticus.5.1-13">Lev. 5:1–13.. Rebbi Yose said, this comes only for five loaves57Multiple guilt (multiple sacrifices) are possible only for multiple objects of prohibitions, not for repeated prohibitions of the same object.. But for a single loaf, from the moment he mentioned “oath” for it, he made it a cadaver58If somebody made an oath to the effect that he would not eat a certain food, that food is forbidden to him as if it were cadaver meat, forbidden to any Jew.. Furthermore, he may want to have oaths apply to prohibited items, but oaths cannot apply to prohibitited items40Nedarim 2:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.2.2.1">Mishnah 2:2: “A vow that I shall not build a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab, that I will not wear phylacteries: vows are forbidden, oaths permitted, for one cannot swear to break religious obligations.” If somebody makes a vow that religious objects should be forbidden to him (as if they were dedicated sacrifices), he commits a twofold sin in making a frivolous vow and breaking biblical commandments, but what he did is done. But if he swears that he will not fulfill his religious obligations, the oath is invalid since, in the language of the Babli, “he already is under oath from Mount Sinai”, and a valid oath cannot be superseded by another oath. Since visiting the sick is a religious obligation, if the prohibition of usufruct is interpreted as an oath it should be nonexistent in the case of a visit to a sick person. No answer is given since practice follows R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it applies even to a single loaf. As we have stated59Shevuot 2:2" href="/Tosefta_Shevuot.2.2">Tosephta Šebuot 2:4, referred to in Shevuot.28b">Babli Šebuot 28b., “in that the past is more stringent than the future, if he said I did not eat, I did not eat, he is guilty for every statement60If he swore falsely that he had not eaten, he committed the sin of a false oath. Since that oath does not forbid anything, each statement stands on its own and subjects him to the punishment for swearing falsely.; I shall not eat, I shall not eat, he is guilty only once61The first oath established the prohibition; the following oaths are futile, forbidden in the Third Commandment, but not triggering any obligation of sacrifice..” Rebbi Yudan said62He explains the prior statement “If you say prohibition is not a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.”, only if he first mentioned “vow” and then mentioned “oath”. But if he mentioned oath and then vow, vows can apply to prohibitions but oaths cannot apply to prohibitions63Since vows are subject related, if he forbade himself the use of a loaf, he may later declare the loaf to have the status of qorbān, to add the prohibition of sacrilege to the prohibition of eating. But if he first declared the loaf to be qorbān, it is automatically forbidden to him and no oath can increase the degree of prohibition. Therefore, the oath following the vow is a futile oath..
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פָתַר לֶאְסוֹר אִסָּר. הֲרֵי הוּא עָלַי. אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלָיו אִסָּר. אָסוּר. שְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי הוּא עָלַי. אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלָיו בִּשְׁבוּעָה. אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. בִּנְדָרִים אָסוּר וּבִשְׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר. אִסָּר הֲרֵי עָלַי. אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלָיו אִסָּר. אָסוּר. שְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי עָלַי. אָסוּר. הֲרֵי שְׁבוּעָה עָלַי. מוּתָּר. Rebbi Yose explained “to forbid”64Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3, “to forbid a prohibition to himself”, which can be either a vow or an oath.: That should be forbidden to me65Even though no oath formula was mentioned, this is an oath since it is person-related.; there should be a prohibition on it, it is forbidden66Even though no vow was mentioned, this is a vow since it is object-related.. An oath is on me, it is forbidden, there should be an oath on it, it is forbidden67The only problem is in the last statement, since an oath cannot be binding on a thing. R. Yose holds that an oath formula, used when a vow formula would have been appropriate, induces a vow since it cannot induce a valid oath. In the language of the Talmudim, the oath formula is a handle to introduce the vow.. Rebbi Yudan said, in vows it is forbidden, in oaths it is permitted68He holds that an oath formula applied to a thing is ineffective; it is as if it had not been said. This paragraph is discussed at length in the Commentary of R. Nissim Gerondi on the Nedarim.2b">Babli, 2b.. There is a prohibition on me, it is forbidden. There is a prohibition on it, it is forbidden. An oath is there on me, it is forbidden. There is an oath on (me) [it]69It seems that it must be read עליו instead of עליin order to make sense. is permitted70An oath directed to a thing is void and has no consequences..
מוּדָּר אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין זֶה בַזֶּה. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. וַאֲנָא מִינָּךְ. אָמַר. הַכִּכָּר הַזֶּה נָדוּר מִמֶּנִּי וַאֲנָא מִינָּהּ. הֲרֵינִי נָדוּר מִכִּכָּר זֶה וְהוּא מִמֶּנִּי. הִיא הִימָּךְ הִיא מִמָּךְ. אָמַר. הִיא הֲרֵי אֲנִי לָךְ הִיא הֲרֵי אֲנִי עָלַיִךְ. הִיא הֲרֵי אַתְּ לִי הִיא הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי.
תַּנֵּי. כָּלוּי אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. פָּרוּשׁ אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן נָטוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְתַנִּיתָהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ וּנְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הְיְּהוּדִים. “I am vowed away from you”. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, both of them are mutually forbidden6Here starts the detailed explanation of what substitute names are. All expressions in this sentence are examples of נדר הנאה “a vow [to forbid] usufruct”, in which A tells B that all of B’s property is forbidden to A as if it were a sacrifice or sacred property and A’s property to B..; as if [the other person] had said: and I from you71In the absence of a specific restriction. For example, if A would say to B: I am separated from you, I shall not eat at your place, then the vow falls only on the specific activity indicated. But in absence of such a qualification, a vow of separation is understood to go both ways as indicated in Nedarim 1:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.1.9">Note 6. The statement of R. Yose ben Ḥanina is quoted in the Nedarim.5a">Babli, 5a.. If he said, this loaf is vowed away from me and I from it, or I am vowed away from this loaf and it from me72While an inanimate object cannot be told anything, as long as the vow is object directed it is a valid vow, irrespective of the language.. It does not make any difference whether he said “from me” in Aramaic (מינך) or in Hebrew (מימך), or he said “I am to you [forbidden]” or “I am on you [forbidden]”, “you are to me [forbidden]” or “you are on me [forbidden].”73The Babli disagrees in principle, 5a.
74This is from Halakhah 11:13. The Mishnah, quoted by R. Yose, speaks of a woman who wants to force a divorce by making a vow that sexual relations with any Jew shall be forbidden to her by saying "I am taken away from the Jews." The other expressions mentioned are equivalents of that statement.It was stated: “I am jailed away from you, I am separated away from you”. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, why did one not state “taken away from”? Rebbi Yose said, that was stated at the end, “I am taken away from the Jews.”
שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. תּוֹפְשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֵּׁם יַד לְקָרְבָּן. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָּעֵי. אִם אָמַר. לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ. תּוֹפְשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֵּׁם יַד לִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּבַר נַשָּׁא מֵימַר. קָֽנְתָה דְכוּלְכָּה. דִּילְמָא כּוּלְכָּה דְּקָֽנְתָה. “That I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. One catches him because of a handle for qorbān75Even if he did not spell out: qorbān that I shall not eat from yours. Since he used the language of vows, referring to the other person’s food instead of his person, he made it clear that he intended a vow.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath76The answer is negative.? Rebbi Yose said, people usually say “handle of an axe”, do they ever say “axe of a handle”77In the parallel, Nazir 1:2:2-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.2.2-10">Nazir 1:2 (51b 1. 28), R. Yose notes that common usage requires the word “oath” to be at the beginning of the sentence, not at the end, to which R. Mattaniah adds the example of the handle of the axe to show that (in rabbinic Hebrew) word order counts. The translation of כולכה (in the parallel כולבא) as “axe” follows J. Levy’s Dictionary.?
מְנוּדֶּה אֲנִי לָךְ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הָיָה חוֹכֵךְ בָּזֶה לְהַחֲמִיר. לוֹסַר אֶת כָּל־נְכָסָיו. כְּמַה דְאַתֲּ מַר יָחֳרַם כָּל־רְכוּשׁוֹ וְהוּא יִבָּדֵל מִקְּהַל הַגּוֹלָה. מַה עָֽבְדִין לָהּ רַבָּנִן. חוֹמֶר הוּא בְנִידּוּי בֵית דִּין. “I am excommunicated from you, Rabbi Aqiba was stringent in that because of a doubt.” To forbid all his possessions8R. Aqiba decided that, while the exact meaning of “excommunicated” in this context is unknown since the use of a judicial term by a private person is inappropriate, the most extensive interpretation must be adopted.. As you say78Ezra.10.8">Ezra 10:8., “all his property should be banned and he should be separated from the community of the diaspora.” What do the rabbis do with this? An excommunication by the court is weightier.
כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אוֹ בְנָזִיר אוֹ בְקָרְבָּן אוֹ בִשְׁבוּעָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָה אָמַר. נָזִיר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מָאן דְּבָעֵי מִיפְתּוֹר הָדָא דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא כֵינִי. הָיָה לְפָנָיו אֶשְׁכּוֹל אֶחָד וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁבוּעָה. הֲרֵי עָלָיו שְׁבוּעָה. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי קָרְבָּן. הֲרֵי עָלָיו קָרְבָּן. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁבוּעָה. הֲרֵי עָלָיו שְׁבוּעָה. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עָלַי. לֹא נִמְצָא זֶה נוֹדֵר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. “As vows of the wicked, he vowed as nazir, a sacrifice, and an oath.” 79This text is obviously corrupt. A consistent text is quoted by Rashba [R. Shelomo ibn Adrat, Barcelona (d. 1310)] in his Novellae to the Babli, 9a, s. v. Mishnah. However, one should be reluctant to consider this the original text; it might well be Rashba’s reconstruction (it replaces Yerushalmi או by Babli אי and is elliptic elsewhere). But since the text certainly captures the intent of the Yerushalmi, it is presented here with commentary (from edition Brno 1798, reprint New York 1961):
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיא. אִי בְנָזִיר אִי בְקָרְבָּן אִי בִשְׁבוּעָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָה אָמַר. נָדַר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מָאן דְּבָעֵי מִיפְתָּר הָדָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּמִי שֶׁהָיָה לְפָנָיו אֶשְׁכּוֹל אֶחָד וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִמֶּנּוּ. הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. בָּא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְקָרְבָּן. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים. בָּא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עָלַי. נִמְצָא זֶה נָדוּר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה.
Samuel said, it is taught about several cases, either about the nazir, or a sacrifice, or an oath. Rebbi Ze'ira said, he made a vow in all three of them. Rebbi Abin said, one wants to explain that of Rebbi Ze'ira about a person who has before him a bunch of grapes. A person came and said, I will be a nazir from these80He makes a vow by referring to the bunch of grapes which will be forbidden to him. But since the status of nazir cannot be split, he is a nazir in all its aspects., he is a nazir. Another person came and said, these are for me qorbän81That bunch of grapes is forbidden to him as if it were a dedicated sacrifice.; another person came and said, they are for me like vows of the wicked82As the Mishnah said, since the “wicked” are impulsive people who swear on every occasion, he is considered not only to have vowed but also to have sworn that he will not eat the grapes.. Another person came and said, what these three said is on me; it turned out that this one vowed for nazir, qorbän, and oath. Samuel said, the Mishnah speaks about several cases, either as nazir, or a sacrifice, or an oath. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he is a nazir in all three of them. Rebbi Abin said, if somebody wants to explain that of Rebbi Ze‘ira, it is such: There was before him a bunch of grapes and another person came and said, there is an oath on me, then there is an oath on him. Another person came and said, that is qorbān for me, it is qorbān for him. Another person came and said, there is an oath on me, then there is an oath on him. Another person came and said, what these three said is on me, does it not turn out that this one is obligated for qorbān and oath?
תַּנֵּי. וּכְנִדְבוֹתָם. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהָֽרְשָׁעִים מִתְנַדְּבִין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב אֵין זֶה רָשָׁע. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן. טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדּוֹר מִשְׁתִּדּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם. טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה שֶׁלֹּא תִדּוֹר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדּוֹר מִשְׁתִּדּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם. טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה נוֹדֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר נִדְרוּ וְשַׁלְּמוּ לֵאלֹהֵיכֶם. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה עַל נְדָבָה. מֵבִיא כִשְׂבָּתוֹ לָעֲזָרָה וְאוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹלָה. רִבִּי אָבִין אָמַר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה פָתַח. אִילּוּ הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַנּוֹדֵר נִקְרָא רָשָׁע נוֹדֵר הָיִיתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. מוֹקֵשׁ אָדָם יָלַע קוֹדֶשׁ וְאַחַר נְדָרִים לְבַקֵּר. הִתְחִיל לִנְדּוֹר פִּינַקְסָתוֹ נִפְתַּחַת. דָּבָר אַחֵר. מוֹקֵשׁ אָדָם יָלַע קוֹדֶשׁ וְאַחַר נְדָרִים לְבַקֵּר. אִיחוּר נְדָרִים. אִיחֵר אָדָם אֶת נִדְרוֹ פִּינַקְסוֹ נִפְתַּחַת. מִעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה. וְשָׁהָא לַהֲבִיאָהּ וְשָֽׁקְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ בַיָּם. It was stated82As the Mishnah said, since the “wicked” are impulsive people who swear on every occasion, he is considered not only to have vowed but also to have sworn that he will not eat the grapes.: “As to their free-will offerings, he did not say anything.” Does that mean that the wicked give free-will offerings83The formulation seems to imply that free-will offerings of the wicked do exist; otherwise how could one speak about them?? Since he gave a free-will offering, he is not wicked. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah84Ecclesiastes.5.4">Eccl. 5:4. In all parallel sources, the attributions are switched between R. Jehudah and R. Meїr [Eccl. rabba5(2) a Yerushalmi source; Nedarim.9a">Babli Nedarim 9a, Chullin.2a">Ḥulin 2a, Chullin 2:5" href="/Tosefta_Chullin.2.5">Tosephta Ḥulin2:17]. Eccl. rabba 5(2) is a shortened parallel to the entire paragraph. There, and in Lev. rabba 16(5), the next verse, “do not let your mouth make your flesh sin” is referred to people who pledge money for charity but do not redeem their pledges.: “It is better that you should not make a vow than that you make a vow but do not pay,” better in any case is that you should not make a vow at all. Rebbi Meїr says, “it is better that you should not make a vow than that you make a vow but do not pay,” better in any case is that you should make a vow and pay. And so it says85Psalms.76.12">Ps. 76:12., “make vows and pay to your God.” How does one handle a free-will offering? He brings his sheep to the Temple courtyard and says, that one is an elevation offering86In this way he is sure to have taken on an open-ended financial obligation.. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah87In the Nedarim.22a">Babli, 22a, this is attributed to R. Yannai, in connection with his interpretation of Proverbs.20.25">Prov. 20:25, and is rejected in practice. used to open a door88This refers to the topic of Chapter Nine. While it is written that the maker of a vow shall not profane his word, it is rabbinic tradition (contested by Samaritans, Karaites, and probably Sadducees) that while he cannot profane his word, the “heads of the tribes” addressed in Numbers.30">Num. 30, and in their stead one ordained rabbi or a court of three lay people, can free a person from the obligations of his vow. But such a ruling depends on the person making the vow repenting it. An argument which induces such repentance is called “door of regret”, פֶּתַח חֲרָטָה, or simply “door”.: If you had known that one who makes a vow is called wicked, would you have vowed? Rebbi Yannai said, “it is a trap for a human to call ‘sanctified’ and afterwards to check out the vows,89Proverbs.20.25">Prov. 20:25.” if one started to make vows, his account book90Greek πίναξ, cf. Sotah 9:13:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.9.13.5">Soṭah Chapter 9, Note 220. is opened. Another explanation: “it is a trap for a human to call ‘sanctified’ and to be late to check out the vows,” if a person is in arrears with his vows, his account book is opened. It happened to one who said, I undertake to bring an elevation offering and he tarried to bring it. His ship sank at sea91In Eccl. rabba 5(2), the man perished in his ship..
כְּנִדְרֵי כְשֵׁירִים לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהַכְּשֵׁירִים נוֹדְרִין. וּמִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּדַר אֵין זֶה כָשֵׁר. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה. חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מִתְאַוִּין לְהָבִיא קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת. לֹא הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם מַסְפִּיק בְּיָדָם חֵט וְהָיוּ נוֹדְרִים בְּנָזִיר בִּשְׁבִיל לְהָבִיא קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. חוֹטְאִים הָיוּ שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹדְרִים בְּנָזִיר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִפֵּר עָלָיו מֵאַשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ. חָטָ זֶה עַל נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁמָּנַע עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן. וָאַתְיָיא דְשִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנֵּי. אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק. מִיָּמַיי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי אָשָׁם נָזִיר אֶלָּא אֶחָד. פַּעַם אָחַת עָלָה אֵלַי אָדָם אֶחָד מִדָּרוֹם. וּרְאִיתִיו אַדְמוֹנִי עִם יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי וּקְווּצוֹתָיו מְסוּדָרוֹת תִּילִים תִּילִים. וְאָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. בְּנִי. מַה רָאִיתָה לְהַשְׁחִית אֶת הַשִּׂיעֵר הַנָּאֶה הַזֶּה. וְנָם לִי. רִבִּי. רוֹעֶה הָיִיתִי בְעִירִי וְהָלַכְתִּי לְמַלְאוֹת אֶת הַשָּׁאוּב מַיִם. וְרָאִיתִי אֶת הַבּוּבִּייָה שֶׁלִּי בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם וּפָחַז יִצְרִי עָלַי וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְאַבְּדֵינִי מִן הָעוֹלָם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. רָשָׁע. אַתָּה מְפָחֵז בַּדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלָּךְ. עָלַי לְהַקְדִּישָׁךְ לַשָּׁמַיִם. וְהִרְכַּנְתִּיו בְּרֹאשִי וְאָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. בְּנִי. כְּמוֹתָךְ יִרְבּוּ עוֹשֵׂי רְצוֹן הַמָּקוֹם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. עָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַפְלִיא לִנְדּוֹר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַיי֨. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. לָמָּה לִי כְשִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק אֲפִילוּ כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. לֹא אָכַל שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק חַטָּאת חֵלֶב מִיָּמָיו. לֹא אָכַל שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק חַטָּאת דָּם מִיָּמָיו. סָבַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק. בְּנֵי אָדָם מִתּוֹךְ הַקְפָּדָה הֵם נוֹדְרִין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין מִתּוֹךְ הַקְפָּדָה סוֹפוֹ לִתְהוֹת. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא תוֹהֵא נַעֲשׂוּ קָרְבְּנֹתָיו כְּשׁוֹחֵט חוּלִין בָּעֲזָרָה. וְזֶה מִתּוֹךְ יִישׁוּב נָדַר וּפִיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִוין. “Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows83The formulation seems to imply that free-will offerings of the wicked do exist; otherwise how could one speak about them?? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. 92Purification offerings cannot be voluntary; they are required either for an inadvertent sin or for purification from a state of impurity. A male who does not sin inadvertently and who does not suffer from an impure sickness has no way to fulfill the commandments relative to the purification offerings. A woman can always bring a purification offering after childbirth. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering93From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Nazir 1:5:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.5.2-4">Nazir 1:6, 51c 1. 36., but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering94One of the 3 prescribed animal sacrifices at the end of the nazir period; Numbers.6.14">Num. 6:14.. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person95Numbers.6.11">Num. 6:11. In Sifry Num. 30, R. Ismael points out that this verse is written about the nazir who became inadvertently impure in the impurity of the dead, who is in effect a sinner in respect to the dead person. The Nedarim.10a">Babli, 10a, accepts the argument of R. Simeon, which in the Tosephta, 1:1, is in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated96Nedarim.9b">Babli 9b, Nazir 1:5:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.5.2-4">Nazir Yerushalmi 1:6, Nedarim.4b">Babli 4b, Sifry Num. 22, Num. rabba10(20).: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves97A combination of images referring to David (1S. 17:42) and the friend in the Song of Songs 5:11" href="/Song_of_Songs.5.11">Songs (5:11).. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shephard in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to lose me from the World98He realized how much money he could make as a male prostitute in a hellenized city but that he would lose the World to Come.. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says14Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2., “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked99Nedarim.9b">Babli 9b.: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet100The standard purification offering is for the purification from an inadvertent sin which at least carries a penalty of extirpation by Divine decree, e. g., if somebody ate suet or blood inadvertently. In order to effect the purification, the Cohanim have to eat the sacrificial meat (Leviticus.6.19">Lev. 6:19). How can somebody called “the Just” refuse to purify people?? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder101They feel that they should not have made the vow. This becomes acute in particular in the case of the reparation offering, which is brought only in case of impurity of the nazir, who has to restart his entire time as nazir after his impurity has been repaired. Since the verse repeatedly requires that offerings in the Temple must be brought willingly (Leviticus.1.3">Lev. 1:3, Leviticus.22.29">22:29), an offering brought unwillingly is of questionable validity.. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison102Which alone makes the vow unquestionably valid..