Nedarim 10b — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

From where [do we know] that a person should not say,

who comes to consecrate an offering, "

An elevation-offering for the Lord,"

or "

a meal-offering for the Lord,"

or "

a thanksgiving-offering for the Lord,"

or "

a peace-offering for the Lord"—

the verse states [Leviticus 1]: "

an offering for the Lord."

The verse teaches that one must first say “an offering,” or the name of the offering, before mentioning the Name of the Lord over it.

And

the matter

is a kal va-chomer:

indeed:

And in this case, where he intended only to mention the Name of Heaven over the offering, the Torah said,

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

an offering for the Lord,"

and not “for the Lord, an offering,” lest he retract after saying the Name of the Lord and not consecrate the offering, and it be found that he uttered the Name of Heaven in vain, although he did not intend this—

One who utters the Name of Heaven

in vain

intentionally—

how much more so

his act is severe.

Let us say,

is it to be said that the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish

is a dispute between tannaim?

For it was taught:

Beit Shammai say: secondary substitutes of secondary substitutes—

are forbidden.

And Beit Hillel say: secondary substitutes of secondary substitutes—

are permitted.

Is it not that the one who says [that

Beit Shammai,

secondary substitutes of secondary substitutes are forbidden—

holds

that

substitutes are the language of the nations,

and therefore their secondary substitutes too are forbidden, since they too are the language of the nations.

And

if

according to the one who says [that

Beit Hillel, secondary substitutes of secondary substitutes,

are permitted—

he holds

that the substitutes are

a language that the Sages invented for them,

and the Sages innovated only substitutes, but not secondary substitutes of substitutes.

And we reject this:

No,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about this.

Rather,

everyone

holds that

substitutes—

are the language of the nations.

And Beit Shammai hold: with these

secondary substitutes of substitutes

also speak

in them

the nations.

And

if

Beit Hillel hold: with these

secondary substitutes of substitutes,

the nations do not speak.

For secondary substitutes of substitutes are not part of the essential language of the nations; rather, there are those who corrupt the language and speak with secondary substitutes of substitutes, and this is not the language of the nations.

And if you wish, say:

they disagreed about this:

Beit Shammai hold: we decree that secondary substitutes of substitutes are forbidden because of substitutes.

And Beit Hillel hold: we do not decree that secondary substitutes of substitutes are forbidden because of substitutes.

And now the Gemara discusses:

what are the circumstances of "

secondary substitutes of substitutes"

with regard to vows?

Rav Yosef taught: “mekanemna,” “mekanhana,” “mekansana.”

What are the circumstances of secondary substitutes of substitutes of a herem?

Mafsha taught: “harakim,” “harakhim,” “harafim.”

And what are the circumstances of

secondary substitutes of substitutes of naziriteship?

Rav Yosef taught: “mahazekna,” “menazehna,” “mefiahna.”

It was asked of them: “mifhazna”—what is [the law]?

“Mitahazna”—what is [the law]?

“Mitaazna”—what is [the law]?

He said,

he asked

Ravina asked Rav Ashi: “kinma”—what is [the law]?

Is it

“konam” that he said, or perhaps [Exodus 30] "

[Exodus 30] “

cinnamon spice"

that he said?

Rav Aha son of Rav Hiyya

asked

Rav Ashi: “kina”—what is [the law]?

Is it

“the nest of chickens” that he said, or perhaps the expression of “konam”

that he said?

And we conclude:

Let it be unresolved!

All these questions remain unresolved.

The Gemara discusses further:

What are the circumstances of secondary substitutes of substitutes of an oath?—

“Shevu’el,” “Shevutiel,” “Shekuka’el.”

And we challenge this:

“Shevu’el”—

but

it means Shevu’el son of Gershom!

Rather,

this is what should be said:

“Shevuba’el,” “Shevutiel,” “Shekuka’el.”

Shmuel said: If one says, “Ashivta”—

he has said nothing.

“Ashkika”—

he has said nothing.

“Karinsha”—

he has said nothing.

We learned in the Mishna:

one who vows with “by Mohei”—

these are substitutes

for an oath!

And the Gemara brings a beraita that explains the Mishna:

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

“by Mohei”"—

has said nothing,

because “Mohei” is a substitute for Moses our teacher, and not for an oath.

Only one who says "

“by the oath by which Mohei swore”" [by the oath that he said and Moses swore]—

[by the oath that Moses uttered and swore]—

these are substitutes for an oath.

Mishna:

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

In the last two laws, the Mishna begins to deal with one who vows by comparison with something that was vowed, and also in the following mishnayot the subject will be “a vow by comparison.”

A.

The first law

deals with one who vows and mentions in his wording something permitted. He must negate the permission in his wording so that it will become forbidden, and once he negates the permission, even if he does not explicitly forbid it, we say, “from the negative you infer the positive,” and with this wording he vows and forbids the matter.

The Mishna brings four examples of this:

One who says

to his fellow—

A.

“Not non-sacred” [the emendation of the Bach. According to the Ran, one reads “lahullin,” with a patah beneath the lamed, whose meaning is: “not non-sacred”] יהא מה

[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

“shall be what I eat of yours.”

And from the negative you infer the positive: what I eat of yours shall not be considered non-sacred matter permitted for eating; rather, it shall be forbidden like an offering, which is forbidden for eating!

That is, since he mentioned non-sacred matter, which is something permitted, he must add the word “not” before the word “non-sacred,” in order to negate the permission [according to the reading of the Bach. According to the Ran, he must add the letter lamed with a patah, “lahullin,” for this addition too negates the permission].

B.

“Not fit” [for an offering] יהא מה שאוכל לךshall be what I eat of yours.

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

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

C.

“Not pure” [it shall not be pure for an offering] מה שאוכל לךwhat I eat of yours.

[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 for 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, and the only distinction between them is the linguistic difference between “dekhai” and “pure.”

B.

The second law

in our Mishna deals with one who mentioned in his vow expressions of the prohibitions of an offering. In these expressions 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 comparison with an offering, which is something that was vowed.

The Mishna brings several examples of this:

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 for eating it.

C.

And

likewise, what I eat of yours shall be

piggul!

Its meaning is: it shall be forbidden like the flesh of an offering concerning which the priest performed its blood-services with a thought of piggul.

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

forbidden.

C.

The third law

in our Mishna explains the manner in which the one who vows compares the prohibition of his vow to something possessing sanctity. In all the examples of this below, the kaf of comparison appears—

This law deals with one who compares [his vow] to something that was vowed, sanctified through the sanctity of the mouth, with sanctity connected to the matter of an offering.

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

“like an imra” [like a lamb of an offering].

[like a lamb of an offering].

Or

like[beasts of offerings found in

offering-beasts found in]

pens,

in the chamber of the lambs adjacent to the Temple courtyard.

Or

like wood,

the two logs of wood of the arrangement.

Or

like fires,

like the fire upon the altar.

Or

like the altar,

whose meaning is: like the offerings of the altar.

Or

like the Sanctuary,

whose meaning is: like the offerings whose blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary.

Or

like Jerusalem,

whose meaning is: like the offerings brought in Jerusalem.

Or if he

vowed with one of all

the vessels that are

implements of the altar,

such as a spoon, a firepan, and a basin—

In all these,

although he did not mention

in his words "

offering" \-

he is

like one who

vowed,

and compared his vow

to an offering.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says "

Jerusalem"

without the kaf of comparison—

has said nothing.

As will be explained below.