Nedarim 10a — the Talmud in English

Even say

that you may say that our Mishna is according to the method of

Rabbi Yehuda

:—

For

where did

Rabbi Yehuda say

that one who vows and fulfills [his vow] is “better than both of them”? Only

with

one who makes a donation

and fulfills [his obligation]. For example, one who consecrates an animal and says, “This is an olah,” and the like, for he does not obligate himself with responsibility for fulfilling his vow.

But

with a vow

that obligates him, and he says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah”

—

Rabbi Yehuda did not say

that one who vows and fulfills [his vow] is better than both of them.

And we raise an objection:

But it teaches

explicitly in the statement of Rabbi Yehuda:

“Better than both of them”—

one who vows and fulfills!?

And we answer:

Teach

that you should emend the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as follows: “Better than both of them”—one who

makes a donation and fulfills [his obligation].

And Rabbi Yehuda expounds the verse like Rabbi Meir, that the one who is better than both of them is one who does not vow at all. However, Rabbi Meir attributes the words of the verse both to one who vows and to one who makes a donation, whereas Rabbi Yehuda attributes it only to one who vows and not to one who makes a donation. For according to Rabbi Yehuda, one who makes a donation and fulfills [his obligation] is better than both of them.

And we examine it:

What is different about one who vows, that it is not

good for him to vow? For

perhaps he will come to a transgression

if he does not fulfill his vow.

If so, a sacrificial

donation also

is not good to make—because

perhaps he will come to a transgression,

by not bringing to the Temple within the three pilgrimage festivals the animal that he consecrated for an offering, and he will transgress the prohibition of “Do not delay”!?

And we answer: There is no need to be concerned about this! For

Rabbi Yehuda

follows here

his own reasoning, as he said: A person

who wishes to make a donation of an offering should not consecrate the offering in his house; rather, he

brings his ewe

while it is unconsecrated, until close

to the Temple courtyard, and

only there does he

consecrate it,

and then he brings it into the courtyard,

and performs the placing of hands upon it

there,

and slaughters it.

And therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda, there is no concern regarding a donation that perhaps he will delay bringing his offering.

And we raise an objection:

This works out well for a donation of offerings,

for there is no concern that perhaps he will delay it, since he consecrates it close to the courtyard.

But a

donation

of naziriteship,

where at the time of accepting naziriteship he also accepts upon himself, as part of the vow of naziriteship, to bring the offerings of the nazirite after his thirty days of naziriteship have been completed

—what is there to say?

For here the bringing of the offering is after thirty days from the acceptance of naziriteship, and there is concern that perhaps he will delay bringing the offering!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda

follows here

his own reasoning,

that there are worthy people who yearn to bring obligatory offerings, in addition to voluntary offerings, and because of this they vow to become nazirites, and then they become obligated to bring the obligatory offerings of a nazirite. And they are called “those who make donations” and not “those who vow,” since the intention of their vow proceeds from the generosity of their hearts.

And regarding these righteous nazirites there is no concern that they will come to the transgression of “Do not delay,” and concerning them Rabbi Yehuda said: “Better than both of them—the one who makes a donation and fulfills [his obligation].”

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The early pious ones would yearn to bring a sin-offering, because the Holy One, blessed is He, does not bring about a transgression

of committing a sin inadvertently

through their agency,

and the fulfillment of the mitzva of bringing a sin-offering did not arise for them.

What would they do?—

They would

stand and voluntarily accept naziriteship for the sake of Heaven, so that they would become obligated to bring

a

sin-offering for the sake of Heaven,

for a nazirite brings at the end of his naziriteship a sin-offering, in addition to a burnt-offering and peace-offerings.

Rabbi Shimon says: The early pious ones did not vow

to become nazirites

at all!

Rather, one who wishes to bring a burnt-offering—

he makes a donation and brings it.

Peace-offerings—

he makes a donation and brings them.

A thanksgiving-offering and four kinds of loaves—

he makes a donation and brings them.

But with naziriteship—

they did not make donations

at all,

so that they would not be called “

sinners.”

According to

what is said [Numbers 6], concerning a nazirite who became impure, at the time when he brings the offerings of an impure nazirite: “

And he shall make atonement for him for that wherein he sinned against the person.”

Abaye said: Shimon HaTzadik, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar—

all hold one method, that a nazirite—“

is a sinner”

indeed!

And the Gemara explains:

Shimon HaTzadik and Rabbi Shimon—

this is what we said.

And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Rabbi—

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Rabbi says:

it is said concerning the sin-offering of a nazirite, “

And he shall make atonement for him for that wherein he sinned against the person”—

And against which “

person”

did

this

naزirite

sin?

Rather,

he requires atonement for the sin that he committed against his person by

afflicting himself through abstaining from wine.

And are these not matters [derived by] a kal va-chomer: If this one, who afflicted himself only by abstaining from wine, is called a “sinner”—

one who afflicts himself

through a vow

from

eating

any food—

all the more so

that he is called a “sinner”!

From here

the Sages said:

Whoever sits in a fast—

is called “

a sinner”!

And we raise an objection:

But

behold,

this very verse

this verse

is written concerning an impure nazirite,

who sinned through impurity,

is it not written!? And how do you learn from it concerning one who did not sin!?

And we answer: The verse is speaking about every nazirite, even if he did not sin through impurity.

And that the verse said this specifically with regard to an impure nazirite

—

is because he repeated the sin,

for he doubled his sin: he accepted naziriteship, and also did not safeguard his naziriteship.

Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter, “All substitute expressions for vows are like vows,” and now the Mishna explains what the substitute expressions are:

One who says: Konam, konach, konas—

these are substitute expressions for an offering.

One who says:

Harak, harakh, haraf—

these are substitute expressions for a ban.

One who says:

Nazik, naziah, paziah—

these are substitute expressions for naziriteship.

And one who says:

Shavuta, shekuka,

or who says: “Behold, I am

vowing [A0156]swearing

to swear

by

an oath of

Mohei” [“Mohei” is a substitute expression for Moses our teacher, who swore to Jethro that he would dwell with him in Midian]—

these are substitute expressions for an oath.

Gemara:

It was stated: Substitute expressions—

Rabbi Yohanan said: They are the language of the nations,

for in their language they call an offering “konam” or “konah.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They are a language

that is special,

which they invented

that the Sages innovated

for themselves, in order to vow with it.

And likewise it says [I Kings 12]: “

In the month that he had devised in his own heart.”

And what is the reason that the Sages instituted

the language of the “

substitute expressions”

that is special?—

So that he should not say,

so that a person will accustom himself not to say, when he is making a vow, “This thing is incumbent upon me as a

sacrifice,”

but will be accustomed to say, “This thing is incumbent upon me as a konam,” or “This thing is incumbent upon me as a konah,” and likewise the other substitute expressions.

And we examine it:

And let him say,

and let him say “

sacrifice”;

what concern is it to us that he should say so!?

And we answer: We must be concerned

perhaps he will say,

perhaps he will say, “This thing is incumbent upon me as a

sacrifice to Hashem.”

But we still examine it:

And let him say,

and let the one making the vow say, “This thing is incumbent upon me as a

sacrifice to Hashem”;

what concern is it to us that he should say so!? And we answer: The Sages were concerned

perhaps he will say,

perhaps the one making the vow will intend to say, “This thing is incumbent upon me—a sacrifice to Hashem,” and will begin to say, “This thing is incumbent upon me

to Hashem,”

but before he continues and completes the wording of his vow by saying “sacrifice,” he will retract his intention to vow,

and will not say “

sacrifice.”

And

it emerges that by saying “To Hashem” alone, without making a vow, he

has uttered

the Name of Heaven

in vain.

And therefore the Sages instituted substitute expressions for an offering, because a person is accustomed to say when he consecrates something as an offering, “This is an offering to Hashem,” in the language of the verse, and there is concern that he will use this wording also when he comes to make a vow, and perhaps he will regret it after mentioning the Divine Name and will not make a vow, and it will emerge that he uttered the Divine Name in vain.

But since the Sages instituted a special language in which to vow, the language of “konam” or “konah,” a person will no longer say, “This thing is incumbent upon me—to Hashem, konam,” since he is not accustomed to consecrate an offering in this wording.

Therefore, the Sages instituted substitute expressions for an offering, because a person is accustomed to say, when consecrating an object as an offering, “This is an offering to the Lord,” as the verse states. There was concern that he might use this wording when he comes to make a vow, perhaps regret it after mentioning the Name of Heaven, and fail to make the vow, thereby having uttered the Name of Heaven in vain.

But once the Sages instituted a special expression with which to make vows, using the words “konam” or “konah,” a person will no longer say, “This thing is incumbent upon me to the Lord as a konam,” since he is not accustomed to consecrating an offering with this wording.