Nedarim 11b — the Talmud in English

It was taught:

1. One who says:

non-sacred, the non-sacred, as non-sacred—

whether he added and said:

that I shall eat from you,

that I shall eat from you,

it being then obvious that he did not forbid anything by his words,

and whether he added to “non-sacred” and said:

that I shall not eat from you,

that I shall not eat from you—

it is permitted.

This is so even though we could have interpreted his words to mean that only what I shall not eat from you will be non-sacred, but what I shall eat from you will be forbidden as a korban.

2. One who says:

for non-sacred

[not non-sacred] shall be what

I shall eat from you—

it is forbidden.

And if he says:

for non-sacred

[not non-sacred] what

I shall not eat from you—

it is permitted!

And the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

The first clause

of the beraita—

whose opinion is it?

Necessarily, it is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Meir, who does not hold that from a negative statement one hears a positive statement.

Therefore, one who says, “Non-sacred is what I shall not eat from you,” you do not hear from his words as though he were saying, “What I shall eat from you shall be as a korban.”

But if so, that this beraita is stated in accordance with the view of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult:

let the latter clause say: “

For non-sacred

what

I shall not eat from you”—

it is permitted.

But according to Rabbi Meir, one who says such an expression is made as one who says, “It shall be for a korban; therefore I shall not eat from you,” and it is therefore forbidden for him to eat it. Whereas the beraita permits him to eat it!

And the proof that Rabbi Meir holds this way is that—

And we learned

below [13a]: “

For a korban, I shall not eat from you” —

Rabbi Meir forbids.

For since he said, “What I shall not eat from you will not be a korban,” it is implied by his words: but what I shall eat from you will be a korban.

And it is difficult for us: does he not hold

for Rabbi Meir,

that from a negative statement one hears a positive statement?

And Rabbi Abba said

to explain Rabbi Meir’s position in the Mishna, that one who says, “For a korban, I shall not eat from you,”

is made as one who says

explicitly, “

It shall be for a korban—

therefore I shall not eat from you.”

And this does not belong to the matter of “from a negative statement one hears a positive statement.”

And if so,

here too,

in this beraita, according to the principle that we explained in the Mishna below with regard to Rabbi Meir’s position, when he says, “Not non-sacred, I shall not eat from you,”

this is what he is saying to him

to his fellow:

It shall not be non-sacred

but a korban—

therefore I shall not eat from you!

And it follows that his vow takes effect. And why did the beraita permit him to eat it, seeing that you established the beraita in accordance with the view of Rabbi Meir?

And we answer:

This tanna

of this beraita—

agrees with Rabbi Meir in one matter, and disagrees with him in one matter:

He agrees with him

with Rabbi Meir

in one matter—

in that

he does not hold

the tanna of the beraita

that from a negative statement one hears a positive statement.

Therefore, he said in the first clause that one who says, “What I shall not eat from you shall be non-sacred,” is not forbidden, because we do not say that from a negative statement one hears a positive statement, and we do not understand him as one who says, “What I shall eat from you shall be for a korban.”

And he disagrees with him in one matter—

with regard to a korban.

For he does not hold that the meaning of the words of one who says, “For a korban, I shall not eat from you,” is, “It shall be for a korban; therefore I shall not eat from you!”

Therefore, he permits it in the latter clause, when he says, “For non-sacred, I shall not eat from you.”

Rav Ashi said,

in truth, the entire beraita is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Meir.

And one should not raise the difficulty: If so, why does Rabbi Meir permit it in the latter clause, when he says, “For non-sacred, I shall not eat from you,” seeing that according to Rabbi Meir’s position in the Mishna below he is made as one who says, “It shall be for a korban; therefore I shall not eat from you”?

For

this

in the beraita is speaking of a case

where he said “

for non-sacred,”

with a shva under the lamed, so that he explicitly says that what he will not eat shall be like non-sacred. And Rabbi Meir holds that we do not say that from a negative statement one hears a positive statement; therefore there is no meaning of a vow in his words.

And

if

this,

what you argued, that according to Rabbi Meir he is made as one who says, “It shall be for a korban; therefore I shall not eat from you,” can apply only in a case

where he said “

not non-sacred”

[or “for non-sacred” with a patah under the lamed]—

for

then

it is implied: it shall not be non-sacred, but rather like a korban.

We learned in the Mishna: one who says

pure and impure, remnant and piggul—

it is forbidden.

Rami bar Hama raised a question:

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me

this thing

like the meat of my zevah shelamim, after the sprinkling of the blood”—

what is the law?

And the Gemara is astonished at the uncertainty:

If he says

explicitly

with this wording—then certainly

it is

an attachment to a permitted thing!

For after the sprinkling of the blood, the meat of the zevah shelamim is permitted for eating, and he is attaching it to a permitted thing, and it does not become forbidden.

Rather,

the uncertainty is in a case

where he places

and brings

the meat of his zevah shelamim

after the sprinkling of the blood,

and places

and brings non-sacred meat or a loaf

which is permitted beside it,

he places it next to it,

and says

over the non-sacred meat or over the permitted loaf: “

This is like that”—

and the uncertainty is,

what is the law?

Is it that

in its essence,

in the prohibition that had previously existed upon the meat of the zevah shelamim, before the sprinkling of the blood,

he is attaching,

and his vow takes effect?

Or

perhaps,

to the permitted thing

of the meat of the shelamim now, after the blood was sprinkled,

he is attaching?

For he did not state in his wording what his intention was.

Rava said, “Come and hear”

from our Mishna, in which we learned: one who says

remnant and piggul—

it is forbidden.