Nedarim 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

From where is it derived that a person who comes to consecrate an offering

may not say, “

For the sake of God, a burnt offering,”

or “

For the sake of God, a meal offering,”

or “

For the sake of God, a thanks offering,”

or “

For the sake of God, peace offerings”—

The verse states [Leviticus 1]: “

An offering for the sake of God.”

The verse teaches that one must first say “offering,” or the name of the offering, before mentioning the name of God in connection with it.

And

the matter is

a kal va-homer

indeed:

And if in this case, where his sole intention was to mention the name of Heaven in connection with the offering, the Torah said

that the Torah was stringent and said that he must take care to say

“an offering for the sake of God,”

and not “for the sake of God, an offering,” lest he retract after saying the name of God and fail to consecrate the offering, thereby uttering the name of Heaven in vain, although he did not intend to do so—

One who utters the name of Heaven

in vain

intentionally—

all the more so

his act is severe.

Shall we say

that the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish

is a dispute between tannaim? As it was taught in a beraita—

Beit Shammai say: The designations of designations—

are forbidden.

And Beit Hillel say: The designations of designations—

are permitted.

Is it not the case that the one who says

[Beit Shammai] that

the designations of designations are forbidden—

holds

that

the designations are the language of the nations,

and therefore the designations of their designations are also forbidden, since they too are the language of the nations?

And

if

the one who says

[Beit Hillel] that the designations of designations are

permitted—

holds

that the designations are

a language that the Sages devised for them,

and the Sages instituted only designations, but not designations of designations.

And we reject this:

No,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter.

Rather,

everyone

holds that

the designations—

are the language of the nations.

And Beit Shammai hold: With these

designations of designations,

they too speak,

the

nations speak them.

And

if

Beit Hillel hold: With these

designations of designations,

the nations do not speak them.

For the designations of designations are not part of the essential language of the nations; rather, some people corrupt the language and speak using designations of designations, and this is not the language of the nations.

And if you wish, say

that this is the dispute:

Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree concerning designations of designations because of designations.

And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree concerning designations of designations because of designations.

The Gemara now discusses:

What are “

designations of designations”

of vows?

Rav Yosef taught: Mekanemna, Mekanhana, Mekansana.

What are designations of designations of dedications?

Mifsha’a taught: Ḥarakim, Ḥarakhim, Ḥarafim.

And what are

designations of designations of nazirite vows?

Rav Yosef taught: Maḥazakana, Manazḥana, Mafiḥana.

They raised a dilemma: Mifḥazna—what is

Mitḥazna—what is

Mitḥazna—what is?

Rabbi

asked

Ravina asked Rav Ashi: Kinema—what is it?

Is he saying

“Konam,” or perhaps

[Exodus 30] “

cinnamon in spice”

is he saying?

Rabbi

asked

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ḥiyya, asked Rav Ashi: Kina—what is it?

Is he saying

“the crowing of roosters,” or perhaps the language of “Konam”

is he saying?

And we conclude:

Let them stand!

All these questions remain unresolved.

The Gemara discusses further:

What are the designations of designations of an oath?—

Shavuel, Shavutiel, Shakukel.

And we challenge this:

Shavuel—

after all,

it indicates Shavuel, son of Gershom!

Rather,

this is what one should say:

Shavubal, Shavutiel, Shakukel.

Shmuel said: If one said Ashivata—

he has said nothing.

Ashkika—

he has said nothing.

Karinsha—

he has said nothing.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one vows with the expression “by Moḥi”—

these are designations

of an oath!

The Gemara brings a beraita that explains the Mishna:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who says “

by Moḥi”—

has said nothing,

because “Moḥi” is a designation for Moses our teacher, and not for an oath.

Only one who says “

by the oath by which Moḥi swore”

[by the oath that Moses uttered and swore]—

these are designations of an oath.

Mishna:

The Mishna before us teaches three laws concerning the formulations of vows.

In the final two laws, the Mishna begins discussing one who makes a vow through association with an object that itself is subject to a vow; the following mishnayot will likewise discuss “a vow through association.”

A.

The first law

concerns one who makes a vow while mentioning in his formulation an item that is permitted. He must negate the permitted status in his formulation so that it will become forbidden; and once he negates the permitted status, we say, “From a negative statement you infer a positive one,” and through this formulation he makes a vow and forbids the item.

The Mishna gives four examples:

One who says

to his fellow—

a.

“Not non-sacred”

[according to the emendation of the Baḥ. According to the Ran, the version is “for non-sacred,” with the letter lamed vocalized with patah, meaning: “not non-sacred”] shall be what

I eat of yours.

And from a negative statement you infer a positive one: What I eat of yours shall not be considered non-sacred food permitted for consumption; rather, it shall be forbidden like an offering, which is forbidden to eat!

That is, since he mentioned non-sacred food, which is a permitted item, he must add the word “not” before the word “non-sacred” in order to negate its permitted status [according to the version of the Baḥ. According to the Ran, he must add the letter lamed with a patah, “for non-sacred,” since this addition also negates the permitted status].

b.

“Not fit”

[for an offering] shall be what I eat of yours.

What I eat of yours shall be like an invalid offering.

c.

“Not pure”

[not fit to be pure for an offering] shall be what I eat of yours.

What I eat of yours shall be forbidden, like an impure offering, which is unfit as an offering because it is not pure.

d. “Not

pure”

for an offering shall be what I eat of yours.

This example is equivalent to the preceding one; the only difference between them is the linguistic distinction between “deki” and “pure.”

B.

The second law

in our Mishna concerns one who mentions in his vow formulations denoting the prohibitions of offerings. With these formulations he does not add words of negation before them, nor does he add the letter kaf of comparison; rather, he says them as they are.

The vow takes effect through association with an offering, which is an object subject to a vow.

The Mishna gives several examples:

One who says to his fellow—

a. What I eat of yours shall be

impure!

Its meaning is: It shall be forbidden like the flesh of an impure offering.

b. What I eat of yours shall be

leftover!

Its meaning is: It shall be forbidden like the flesh of an offering that remained after the time allotted for its consumption.

c.

And

likewise, what I eat of yours shall be

pigul!

Its meaning is: It shall be forbidden like the flesh of an offering concerning which the koen performed the blood rites with a disqualifying intention.

In all these cases, his vow takes effect, and it is

forbidden.

C.

The third law

in our Mishna explains the manner in which one who makes a vow compares the prohibition of his vow to an item possessing sanctity. In all the examples below, the letter kaf of comparison appears—

This law concerns one who associates his vow with an object subject to a vow, sanctified through a verbal declaration, with sanctity connected to an offering.

One who says: This item is [forbidden] to me—

like an imra

[like a lamb of an offering].

Or

like

[the sacrificial animals found in]

the pens,

in the Chamber of the Lambs adjoining the Temple courtyard.

Or

like the wood,

the two logs of wood placed on the arrangement of wood.

Or

like the fires,

like the fire upon the altar.

Or

like the altar,

meaning like the offerings of the altar.

Or

like the Sanctuary,

meaning like offerings whose blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary.

Or

like Jerusalem,

meaning like offerings brought in Jerusalem.

Or if one

vows with regard to any of

the vessels that are

used in the service of the altar,

such as a spoon, a firepan, or a bowl—

In all these cases,

even though he did not mention

in his words “

an offering” \-

he is

like one who

made a vow

and associated his vow

with an offering.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says “

Jerusalem”

without the letter kaf of comparison—

has said nothing.

As will be explained below.