Nedarim 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

It was taught:

a. One who says:

“non-sacred, the non-sacred, like non-sacred”—

whether

he added and said:

“that I will eat from yours,”

in which case it is obvious that he prohibited nothing with his words,

or whether

he added to “non-sacred” and said:

“that I will not eat from yours”—

it is permitted.

This is so even though we could have interpreted his words to mean that only what he will not eat from yours will be non-sacred, whereas what he will eat from yours will be forbidden like an offering.

b. One who says:

“for non-sacred”

[not non-sacred] shall be what

“I will eat from yours”—

it is forbidden.

And if he says:

“for non-sacred”

[not non-sacred] what

“I will not eat from yours”—

it is permitted!

The Gemara analyzes the words of the beraita:

The first clause

of the beraita—

whose opinion is it?

It must be that it follows the view of

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

Therefore, when one says, “Non-sacred shall be what I will not eat from yours,” one does not infer from his words as though he had said, “What I will eat from yours shall be like an offering.”

But if so, if this beraita is stated according to the view of Rabbi Meir, there is a difficulty.

Say the latter clause: “

For non-sacred

what

I will not eat from yours”—

it is permitted.

But according to Rabbi Meir, one who speaks in this manner is considered as though he had said, “It shall be an offering—therefore I will not eat from yours,” and it is consequently forbidden for him to eat it. Yet the beraita permits him to eat it!

And the proof that this is Rabbi Meir’s view is as follows:

And we learned

below [13a]: “

As an offering, I will not eat from yours” —

Rabbi Meir prohibits.

Since he said, “What I will not eat from yours shall not be an offering,” his words imply: But what I will eat from yours shall be an offering.

And we have a difficulty: Does he not hold

that Rabbi Meir does not accept the principle that

from a negative statement you infer a positive one?

And Rabbi Abba said

to explain Rabbi Meir’s view in the Mishna, that one who says, “As an offering, I will not eat from yours”—

is considered as though he explicitly said,

“

It shall be an offering—

therefore I will not eat from yours.”

And this is unrelated to the principle that “from a negative statement you infer a positive one.”

And if so,

here too,

in this beraita, according to the principle we explained concerning the Mishna below, in Rabbi Meir’s view, when one says, “It is not non-sacred; I will not eat from yours,”

this is what he is saying

to his fellow:

It shall not be non-sacred

but an offering—

therefore I will not eat from yours!

It follows that his vow takes effect. Why, then, does the beraita permit him to eat it, given that you have established the beraita according to Rabbi Meir’s view?

And we answer:

This tanna

of this beraita—

agrees with Rabbi Meir in one matter, but disagrees with him in another:

He agrees with him

Rabbi Meir

in one matter—

in that

he does not hold

that the tanna of the beraita accepts the principle that

from a negative statement you infer a positive one.

Therefore, he stated in the first clause that one who says, “Non-sacred shall be what I will not eat from yours,” is not prohibited from eating it, because we do not say that from a negative statement one infers a positive one, and we do not understand him as one who says, “What I will eat from yours shall be an offering.”

But he disagrees with him in one matter—

with regard to an offering.

He does not hold that the meaning of one who says, “As an offering, I will not eat from yours,” is, “It shall be an offering; therefore I will not eat from yours!”

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

Rav Ashi said:

The entire beraita actually follows the view of Rabbi Meir.

And one cannot raise a difficulty from the fact that Rabbi Meir permits it in the latter clause, when one says, “For non-sacred, I will not eat from yours,” although according to Rabbi Meir’s view in the Mishna below, he is considered as one who says, “It shall be an offering—therefore I will not eat from yours.”

For

here,

in the beraita, it is speaking of a case

where he said “

for non-sacred,”

with a sheva beneath the lamed, meaning that he explicitly says that what he will not eat shall be like non-sacred. Rabbi Meir holds that we do not infer a positive statement from a negative one, and therefore his words contain no vow.

But

if

here,

what you argued—that according to Rabbi Meir he is considered as one who says, “It shall be an offering; therefore I will not eat from yours”—could apply only in a case

where he said “

not non-sacred”

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

for

then

the meaning is: It shall not be non-sacred, but rather like an offering.

We learned in the Mishna: One who says

“pure and impure, notar and piggul”—

it is forbidden.

Rami bar Hama raised a question:

One who says, “

I take upon myself

this item

as the flesh of my peace-offering, after the sprinkling of the blood”—

what is the halakha?

The Gemara expresses astonishment at the uncertainty:

If he said

explicitly

in this wording—

then surely

he is associating it with a permitted item!

For after the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh of a peace-offering is permitted to be eaten, and he is associating his vow with a permitted item; therefore he is not prohibited from eating it.

Rather,

the uncertainty concerns a case

where he places

and brings

the flesh of his peace-offering

after the sprinkling of the blood,

and he places

and brings unconsecrated meat or a loaf

of a permitted item beside it,

placing it next to it,

and says

about the unconsecrated meat or the permitted loaf: “

This is like that”—

and the uncertainty is:

What is the halakha?

Is

in its original status,

in the prohibition that had previously applied to the flesh of the peace-offering, before the sprinkling of the blood,

he is associating his vow,

so that his vow takes effect?

Or

perhaps

with the permitted status

of the peace-offering’s flesh now, after the blood has been sprinkled,

he is associating his vow,

since he did not state in his words what his intention was.

Rava said: Ta shma

from our Mishna, where we learned: One who says

“notar and piggul”—

it is forbidden.