Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 11a

GEMARA. The scholars presumed. What does la-hullin mean: Let it not be as hullin, [implying] but as a sacrifice. Who is the authority of our Mishnah? If R. Meir: but he does not hold that the positive may be inferred from the negative?¹  For we learnt, R. Meir said: Every stipulation which is not like the stipulation of the children of Gad and Reuben is invalid.²  Hence it must be R. Judah.³  Then consider the conclusion: R. JUDAH SAID: HE WHO SAYS JERUSALEM HAS SAID NOTHING. Now, since the conclusion is R. Judah, the former clause is not R. Judah?⁴  — The whole Mishnah gives R. Judah's ruling, but this is what is stated: for R. JUDAH SAID: HE WHO SAYS JERUSALEM HAS SAID NOTHING.⁵

But if one says, 'as Jerusalem,' is he forbidden according to R. Judah? But it was taught: R. Judah said: He who says, 'as Jerusalem,' has said nothing, unless he vows by what is sacrificed in Jerusalem! — It is all R. Judah, and two Tannaim, conflict as to his views.⁶

1. To render it legally binding. Thus, if one says, 'Iet it not be as hullin', we may not infer that he meant, 'but let it be as a korban', and so declare it forbidden.
2. Num. XXXII, 20-23; 29-30, q.v. We see there that Moses stipulated what was to happen in each case, and did not rely on one clause only, from which the reverse might be deduced, v. Kid. 61a.
3. That the positive is inferred from the negative, and is then legally binding.
4. Since it is specifically pointed out that the second clause is R. Judah.
5. For that reason 'as' is specified in all the previous expressions.
6. The Tanna of the Mishnah holding R. Judah's view to be that 'as Jerusalem' is a binding form, and the Tanna of the Baraitha that it is not.

It was taught: [If one says,] 'That which I might eat of yours,' or 'that which I might not eat of yours, be hullin,' or, 'be the hullin,' or, 'be as hullin,' he is permitted.¹  [If he says,] 'That which I might eat of yours be not hullin,' he is forbidden;²  'that which I might not eat of yours be not hullin,' he is permitted. Now with whom does the first clause agree? With R. Meir, viz., who does not hold that the positive may be inferred from the negative.³  Then consider the latter clause: 'That which I might not eat of yours be not hullin,' he is permitted. But we learnt: [If one says,] 'That which I might not eat of yours be not for korban': R. Meir forbids [him]. Now we raised the difficulty: but he does not rule that the positive may be inferred from the negative?⁴  And R. Abba replied: It is as though he said, 'Let it [i.e., your food] be for the korban, therefore I will not eat of yours.'⁵  Then here too' perhaps, he meant, 'Let it not be hullin; therefore I may not eat of yours'? — This Tanna agrees with R. Meir on one point, but disagrees with him on another. He agrees with him on one point. that the positive may not be inferred from the negative; but disagrees with him on another, [viz.,] on [the interpretation of] la-korban. R. Ashi said: In the one case he said le-hullin;⁶  in the other⁷  he said, 'la-hullin', which might mean, 'let it not be hullin,⁸  but as a korban'.

BE CLEAN OR UNCLEAN,' 'AS NOTHAR,' 'AS PIGGUL, HE IS FORBIDDEN. Rami b. Hama asked: What if one said: 'This be unto me as the flesh of a peace-offering after the sprinkling of the blood'? But if he vowed thus, he related [his vow] to what is permissible!⁹  — But (the question arises thus]: E.g., if there lay flesh of a peace-offering before him and permitted food lay beside it' and he said, 'This be like this'. What then: did he relate it to its original state,¹⁰  or to its present [permitted] condition? — Raba answered: Come and hear: [We learnt:] IF ONE SAYS … AS NOTHAR, [OR] AS PIGGUL, [HE IS FORBIDDEN].

1. To eat or benefit from his neighbour.
2. Rashi. Ran is inclined to delete the clause, since, as the Talmud shews, this Baraitha is taught according to R. Meir, who holds that the positive may not be inferred from the negative.
3. Hence, when he Says, 'That which I might not eat of yours be hullin', we may not infer that that which he might eat should not be hullin, and so prohibited.
4. The hypothesis being that he is forbidden on account of this inference.
5. The Hebrew form is la-korban: in popular speech la 'to the' may be a hurried utterance of la' 'not'; therefore on the first assumption what he said was: 'shall not be a korban'; in the answer the preposition is given its normal meaning, viz., shall be for the korban.
6. Meaning as (or, for) hullin. [This can by no means he taken to denote 'not', and since R. Meir does not infer the positive from the negative, he does not consider it a vow.]
7. The case interpreted by R. Abba.
8. [So Ran. curr. edd. la-hullin, 'not hullin'].
9. His words imply no prohibition.
10. Before the sprinkling of the blood, when it was forbidden.