Talmud - Mas. Nedarim 2aTalmud - Mas. Nedarim 2a
C H A P T E R I MISHNAH. ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS HAVE THEVALIDITY OF VOWS.1 THOSE FOR HARAMIM ARE LIKE HARAMIM,2 THOSE FOROATHS ARE LIKE OATHS, AND THOSE FOR NEZIROTH ARE LIKE NEZIROTH.3 IF ONESAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW, [OR] I AMSEPARATED FROM YOU, [OR] I AM REMOVED FROM YOU, IN RESPECT OF AUGHT4THAT I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS OR THAT I MIGHT TASTE OF YOURS, HE ISPROHIBITED. IF HE SAYS: I AM BANNED TO YOU, THEN R. AKIBA WAS INCLINED TOGIVE A STRINGENT RULING.5____________________(1) The principal form of a vow to abstain from anything is: This shall be to me as a korban (Heb. sacrifice); korbanwas sometimes substituted by konam or konas.(2) Herem (plural haramim): a vow dedicating something to the Temple or the priests.(3) Neziroth: the vow of a nazirite. A nazirite had to abstain from grapes and intoxicating liquors and refrain fromcutting his hair and defiling himself through the dead.(4) [Reading hbta, Var. lec. hbhta for I will eat naught of yours.](5) I.e., declared the vow binding. [According to Maimonides, provided he adds: for I will eat naught of yours. Tosaf.,however, (infra 7a) holds that the phrase by itself implies a vow to abstain from aught belonging to the other person.]
Talmud - Mas. Nedarim 2bTalmud - Mas. Nedarim 2bTalmud - Mas. Nedarim 2b
GEMARA. ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS HAVE THEVALIDITY OF VOWS: Why other clauses1 not stated in [the Mishnah of] Nazir,2 whilst [ourMishnah of] Nedarim includes them all? Because oaths and Vows are written side by side [in theBible]3 they are both stated, and since the two are mentioned, the others are stated also. Then letOATHS be taught immediately after VOWS? Because he states vows In which the article isforbidden to the person, he follows it up with HARAMIM, where likewise the article is forbidden tothe person. OATHS, however, are excluded [from the category of vows], since oaths bind the personto abstain from a thing;4 [hence they cannot immediately follow vows]. The Mishnah commences with substitutes: ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULASOF] VOWS etc., yet proceeds to explain the laws of abbreviations of VOWS: IF ONE SAYS TOHIS NEIGHBOUR: I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW . . . WITH HIS VOW;5moreover, [the Tanna] has altogether omitted to state that abbreviations [are binding]? [TheTanna does] speak of them, but our text is defective,6 and this is what was really meant: ALLSUBSTITUTES and abbreviations OF VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS. Then letsubstitutes be first explained? The clause to which [the Tanna] has last referred is generally firstexplained, as we have learned: Wherewith may [the Sabbath lights] be kindled, and wherewith maythey not be kindled? They may not be kindled etc.7 Wherein may food be put away [to be kept hotfor the Sabbath], and wherein may it not be put away? It may not be put away [etc.].8 Wherewithmay a woman go out (from her house on the Sabbath], and wherewith may she not go out? She maynot go out from etc.9 [Is it then a universal rule] that the first clause is never explained first? But wehave learnt: Some relations inherit from and transmit [their estate] to others; some inherit but do nottransmit. Now, these relations inherit from and transmit to each other etc.10 Some women arepermitted to their husbands but forbidden to their husbands brothers;11 others are the reverse. Now,these are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their husbands brothers etc.12 Some mealofferings require oil and frankincense, others require oil but no frankincense. Now, these requireboth oil and frankincense etc.13 Some mealofferings must be taken [by the priest to the south-westcorner of the altar], but do not need waving;14 others are the reverse. Now, these must be taken to the
altar etc.15 Some are treated as first-borns in respect of inheritance16 but not in respect of the priest;17others are treated as first-borns in respect of the priest but not in respect of inheritance. Now who isregarded as a first-born in respect of inheritance but not in respect of the priest etc.?18 In theseexamples [the first clause is explained first] because it contains numerous instances [to which its lawapplies]. But, Wherewith may a beast go out on the Sabbath, and wherewith may it not go out?where [the first clause does] not contain numerous instances, yet it is explained [first], viz., a camelmay go out etc.?____________________(1) Viz., HARAMIM, OATHS, AND VOWS.(2) The tractate Nazir commences likewise: All substitutes for the nazirite vow are binding.(3) Num. XXX, 3: If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath.(4) A vow is thus taken: This shall be forbidden tonic, the prohibition falling upon the thing. An oath, however, is thustaken: I swear to abstain from a certain thing, the prohibition falling upon the person.(5) Since the principal way of making a vow is to declare a thing to be as korban, the omission of such a declarationrenders the vow merely an abbreviation or suggestion (lit., a handle) of a vow, V. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 2.(6) This may mean either that there is actually a lacuna in the text, words having fallen out, or that though it is correct initself something has to be supplied to complete the sense; v. Weiss, Dor. III, p. 6. n. 14. The former is the most probablehere.(7) Shab. 20b.(8) Ibid. 47b.(9) Ibid. 57a. In all these examples the second clause is first discussed.(10) B.B. 108a.(11) In Levirate marriage, v. Deut. XXV, 5 seq.(12) Yeb. 84a.(13) Men. 59a.(14) A ceremony in which the priest put his hands under those of the person bringing the offering and waved them to andfro in front of the altar.(15) Ibid. 60a(16) I.e., they receive a double share of their patrimony; v. Deut. XXI, 17.(17) They do not need redemption: v. Ex. XIII, 23.(18) Bek. 46a. In all these examples the first clause is discussed first.
Talmud - Mas. Nedarim 3aTalmud - Mas. Nedarim 3aTalmud - Mas. Nedarim 3a
Hence there is no fixed rule: sometimes the first clause is explained first, at others the last clause isfirst explained. Alternatively: abbreviations are explained first, because they [sc. their validity] arededuced by exegesis.1 Then let these be stated first? He [the Tanna] commences indeed withsubstitutes, since these are Scriptural,2 and proceeds to explain abbreviations, which are inferred byinterpretation only.3 This harmonises with the view that substitutes are merely the foreignequivalents [of the word korban].4 But what can be said on the view that they are forms expresslyinvented by the Sages for the purpose of making vows?5 Now, are abbreviations mentioned at all;were you not compelled to assume a defective text? Then indeed place abbreviations first. Thus: Allabbreviations of VOWS have the validity of VOWS, and ALL SUBSTITUTES FOR VOWS HAVETHE VALIDITY OF VOWS. These are the abbreviations: IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR . .. And these are the substitutes: Konam, konas, konah.6 Now, where are abbreviations written? When either a man or a woman shall separatethemselves to vow a vow [lindor neder] of a nazirite [nazir le-hazzir];7 and it has been taught: Nazirle-hazzir is to render substitutes and abbreviations of neziroth as neziroth.8 From this I may inferonly the law of neziroth; whence do we know that it applies to other vows too? This is taught by theverse: When either a man or a woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a nazirite to theLord:9 here ordinary vows are compared to neziroth and vice versa.10 Just as in neziroth
abbreviations are equally binding, so in the case of other vows; and just as in other vows, he whodoes not fulfil them violates the injunctions: He shall not break his word,11 and Thou shalt not delayto pay it,12 so in neziroth. And just as in other vows, the father can annul those of his daughter andthe husband those of his wife, so with neziroth. Wherein does neziroth differ? Because it is written nazir lehazzir! But [in the case of] vows too itis written, lindor neder;13 then what need is there of analogy? If the text were neder lindor just asnazir le-hazzir, it would be as you say, and the analogy would be unnecessary, since however,lindor neder is written, the Torah spoke in the language of men.14 This agrees with the view thatthe Torah spoke in the language of men; but he who maintains that the Torah did not speak in thelanguage of men,15 to what purpose does he put this lindor neder? He interprets it to deduce thatabbreviations of vows are as VOWS, and then neziroth is compared to vows; and as to nazirle-hazzir he interprets it as teaching____________________(1) But not explicitly stated in the Bible.(2) I.e., their validity is explicitly stated in the Bible.(3) When stating the law in general terms there is a preference for that which is best known; hence, substitutes, beingexplicitly taught, are first mentioned. But when going into details, the Tanna prefers to deal first with the lesser known.(4) Hence their validity may be regarded as explicitly stated in the Bible, since it obviously does not matter in whichlanguage a vow is taken.(5) V. infra, 10a.(6) V. infra 9a.(7) Num. VI. 2.(8) Sc. equally binding.(9) Ibid.(10) Since they are coupled together. This method of exegesis is known as hekkesh.(11) Ibid. XXX, 3.(12) Deut. XXIII, 22.(13) Lit., to vow a vow likewise a pleonastic form.(14) The point is this: The usual grammatical form is for the verb to precede its cognate object. Hence, when this order isreversed, as in nazir le-hazir, one may directly infer something from the unusual order. When it is observed, however,nothing can be inferred.(15) So that every pleonasm, even if in accordance with the general idiom, gives an additional teaching.
Talmud - Mas. Nedarim 3bTalmud - Mas. Nedarim 3bTalmud - Mas. Nedarim 3b
that one nazirite vow falls upon another.1 Then he who maintains th