Nedarim 11a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

They thought

the Sages thought to say [and this also remains in the conclusion]:

what is meant by

“not non-sacred”?

[According to the version of the Bach, and according to the Ran the version is “for non-sacred,” with a patah under the lamed, whose meaning is “not non-sacred”] —

Let it not be non-sacred, but rather

let it be forbidden like

a sacrifice!

And we raised an objection to it:

Who is the author of the Mishna?

If it is Rabbi Meir,

then

he does not hold

the principle that

from a negative statement you infer a positive statement.

Rather, a person must say explicit words. And one who says “not non-sacred,” since he does not explicitly say “it shall be a sacrifice”—his words have no effect.

For we learned in a Mishna: Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that is not like the condition of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben—

is not a condition!

And therefore, if he makes the fulfillment of the act dependent on the fulfillment of the condition, but does not double the condition, and does not repeat and say that if the condition is not fulfilled the act will be nullified—the act is not nullified through the non-fulfillment of the condition. And we do not say, “from a positive statement you infer a negative statement” [and likewise, we do not say that from a negative statement you infer a positive statement].

Rather,

necessarily, our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that from a negative statement you infer a positive statement.

But there is a difficulty from the continuation of the Mishna, in which the words of Rabbi Yehuda are brought:

Say its latter part: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says

“Jerusalem”—

has said nothing!

And

from the latter part,

of the Mishna,

is Rabbi Yehuda,

we are compelled to say that the

first part

of the Mishna

is not

according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda!

For if the first part too were according to Rabbi Yehuda, there would be no need to say in the latter part of the Mishna, “Rabbi Yehuda says.” For the entire Mishna, from its beginning, would be according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And we answer: Indeed,

the entire

Mishna is stated according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda,

it is said.

And thus it teaches:

One who says: “like a lamb,” “like sheepfolds,” “like the altar,” “like the Sanctuary,” “like Jerusalem”—since he said this with the letter kaf of comparison, this is a vow concerning a sacrifice.

And the Mishna continues to say that he is prohibited specifically when he says these words with the letter kaf of comparison. For

Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says

“Jerusalem”

alone, or “a lamb” alone, or “an altar” alone, without the letter kaf of comparison—

has said nothing.

And we are astonished:

But when he says

“like Jerusalem,”

according to Rabbi Yehuda, is he prohibited?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says

“like Jerusalem”—

has said nothing, until he vows

explicitly

concerning something that is sacrificed in Jerusalem!

And we answer:

The entire,

all of our Mishna, is according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda.

And there are two tannaim,

two tannaim who disagreed

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

as to what his view is.

The tanna of our Mishna holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda it is sufficient for him to say “like Jerusalem,” since such wording demonstrates the vow-taker’s intention to prohibit [the item] like something sacrificed in Jerusalem.

Whereas the tanna of the beraita holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda he must explain his words and say, “like something sacrificed in Jerusalem”; and if he says only “like Jerusalem,” his intention is [to refer] to the wood and stones of Jerusalem.