Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 2a

CHAPTER I

MISHNAH. ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS.¹  THOSE FOR HARAMIM ARE LIKE HARAMIM,²  THOSE FOR OATHS ARE LIKE OATHS, AND THOSE FOR NEZIROTH ARE LIKE NEZIROTH.³  IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, 'I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW, [OR] I AM SEPARATED FROM YOU,' [OR] 'I AM REMOVED FROM YOU, IN RESPECT OF AUGHT⁴  THAT I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS OR THAT I MIGHT TASTE OF YOURS,' HE IS PROHIBITED. IF HE SAYS: I AM BANNED TO YOU,' THEN R. AKIBA WAS INCLINED TO GIVE 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); korban was 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 from cutting his hair and defiling himself through the dead.
4. [Reading [H], Var. lec. [H] '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.]

GEMARA. ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS: Why other clauses¹  not stated in [the Mishnah of] Nazir,²  whilst [our Mishnah of] Nedarim includes them all? — Because oaths and Vows are written side by side [in the Bible]³  they are both stated, and since the two are mentioned, the others are stated also. Then let OATHS be taught immediately after VOWS? — Because he states vows In which the article is forbidden to the person, he follows it up with HARAMIM, where likewise the article is forbidden to the person. OATHS, however, are excluded [from the category of vows], since oaths bind the person to abstain from a thing;⁴  [hence they cannot immediately follow vows].

The Mishnah commences with substitutes: ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS etc., yet proceeds to explain the laws of abbreviations of VOWS: IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR: I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW … WITH HIS VOW;⁵  moreover, [the Tanna] has altogether omitted to state that abbreviations [are binding]? — [The Tanna does] speak of them, but our text is defective,⁶  and this is what was really meant: ALL SUBSTITUTES and abbreviations OF VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS. Then let substitutes be first explained? — The clause to which [the Tanna] has last referred is generally first explained, as we have learned: Wherewith may [the Sabbath lights] be kindled, and wherewith may they not be kindled? They may not be kindled etc.⁷  Wherein may food be put away [to be kept hot for the Sabbath], and wherein may it not be put away? It may not be put away [etc.].⁸  Wherewith may a woman go out (from her house on the Sabbath], and wherewith may she not go out? She may not go out from etc.⁹  [Is it then a universal rule] that the first clause is never explained first? But we have learnt: Some relations inherit from and transmit [their estate] to others; some inherit but do not transmit. Now, these relations inherit from and transmit to each other etc.¹⁰  Some women are permitted 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 meal offerings require oil and frankincense, others require oil but no frankincense. Now, these require both oil and frankincense etc.¹³  Some mealofferings must be taken [by the priest to the south-west corner 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;¹⁷  others are treated as first-borns in respect of the priest but not in respect of inheritance. Now who is regarded as a first-born in respect of inheritance but not in respect of the priest etc.?¹⁸  — In these examples [the first clause is explained first] because it contains numerous instances [to which its law applies]. 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 camel may 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 thus taken: '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 declaration renders 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 in itself something has to be supplied to complete the sense; v. Weiss, Dor. III, p. 6. n. 14. The former is the most probable here.
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 and fro 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.