Nedarim 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

But this

flesh of

notar and piggul—

after the sprinkling of

the blood, is it!

For as long as the blood has not been sprinkled, the flesh is not rendered forbidden as piggul or notar.

Since he renders it forbidden by a vow through associating it with flesh that is piggul or notar, it is proven that he associates it with the fundamental status of the flesh, which had been forbidden to eat before the sprinkling of the blood by virtue of its being a korban. For if he associates it with the prohibition of piggul or notar, he is associating it with something forbidden, and not with something constituted by a vow. For the prohibition against eating consecrated flesh when it is piggul or notar does not result from a vow, but from the disqualification affecting the flesh of the korban.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to him

to Rava: Actually, he associates it with its present permitted status, and there is no proof from our Mishna that he associates it with its original status.

For it can be said that our Mishna is speaking of one who associates his vow

with the notar of

flesh of an

olah,

which is not rendered permitted for eating through the sprinkling of the blood. Rather, it must be burned on the altar, and the prohibition against eating it is due both to its being a korban and to its being “notar.”

Rava said to him

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan:

If so,

if our Mishna is speaking of one who associates his vow with the flesh of an olah,

let it teach “like the flesh of an olah

”! For with regard to an olah, there is no distinction in the prohibition against eating between flesh of an olah that is fit for sacrifice and flesh of an olah that is piggul or notar, since the flesh of an olah is always forbidden to eat as the flesh of a korban. Why, then, did the tanna mention “notar and piggul”?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rava: The tanna

“

not only”

is speaking.

to teach that one who associates his vow with

Not only is one who associates his vow with the flesh of an olah forbidden, for he is associating it with a korban

but one who associates his vow with the

notar or piggul of an olah—

it was necessary

to teach that he is forbidden.

For

it might have entered your mind

that when one associates his vow with the flesh of an olah that is notar or piggul, and says, “This is like that,” -

his intention is to say,

“like the prohibition of notar,”

or

“like the prohibition of piggul,”

and

then

he would be one who associates his vow with something forbidden

and not with something constituted by a vow,

and he would not be rendered forbidden.

It teaches us

that he is forbidden, because he is associating his vow with the korban and not with the prohibition, since the prohibition of piggul or notar is also due to its being a korban; and he would therefore be one who associates his vow with something constituted by a vow.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, who maintains that one associates his vow with its present permitted status and not with the korban’s original status, from what was taught in a beraita:

Which

“issar”

is mentioned in the Torah

in the passage concerning vows, “[to impose an issar]”?

For example, one who

says:

“I hereby undertake not to eat meat and not to drink wine”—

“like the day on which his father died”

[his father];

or

“like the day on which his teacher died”

[his teacher];

or

“like the day on which Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed”

[the Fast of Gedaliah];

or

“like the day on which I saw Jerusalem in its destruction.”

And Shmuel said

concerning this beraita:

And this is so when

he had already been

vowed from that day onward

of the year on which his father died.

The Gemara assumes that he vowed only once, on the day his father died, not to eat meat and not to drink wine, but in the following years he would eat and drink on the anniversary of his father’s death.

The Gemara further assumes that if the one making the vow had said, “I hereby undertake not to eat meat and not to drink wine on the anniversary of my father’s death, just as I vowed not to eat meat and not to drink wine on the day my father died,” it would be obvious that he is forbidden, and there would be no need to state this.

If so, one must examine Shmuel’s explanation of the beraita:

What are the circumstances

in which our Mishna speaks?—

Is it not

the case that it is speaking of one

who is standing

several years after his father’s death,

on the first day of the week on which his father died,

the day that is the anniversary of his father’s death [“the first day of the week” is merely an example of a date], and he says, “I hereby undertake not to eat meat and not to drink wine like on the anniversary of my father’s death,”

and

his vow takes effect,

even though there are

between his father’s death and the present

many

anniversaries of his father’s death

on the first day of the week

that were anniversaries

of permitted status,

on which he had not vowed to fast,

and

nevertheless

it teaches “‘

forbidden.”

Conclude from this that it is with the original

forbidden status, which existed in the past, that

he associates his vow,

and not with its present permitted status!

This is therefore proof for Rava and a difficulty for Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan.

The Gemara rejects this proof: There is no proof from here that he is rendered forbidden because he associates his vow with the original status. Rather, what

that

said

Shmuel—

this is what was stated:

Shmuel said: And this is so when

he was

vowed continuously from that day onward,

on every “anniversary” of his father’s death. It is therefore clear that he is associating his vow on the anniversary with a day forbidden by a vow, for there is no possibility here of associating it with a permitted status.

Ravina said, “Come and hear”

from what we learned in the Mishna at the beginning of the second chapter [13b]:

The kohanim have the right to receive teruma from grain and ḥalla from dough.

Likewise, the kohanim have the right to receive the “terumat loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,” four loaves out of the forty loaves brought to the Temple by one who offers a thanksgiving-offering.

The forty loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are made from four types of bread, ten loaves of each type:

Ten leavened loaves; ten loaves that were not leavened; ten wafers [similar to our matzot]; and ten scalded loaves, whose dough is first scalded in boiling water and then baked into “scalded” loaves.

The kohen receives the “terumat loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,” consisting of four loaves, one loaf from each of the four types.

Teruma and ḥalla are considered something forbidden and not something constituted by a vow, because the separation of teruma and ḥalla is not considered a vow; therefore, one cannot associate a vow with them.

But the terumat loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, which are part of the korban, are considered something constituted by a vow, and one can associate a vow with them.

One who says, “This is forbidden to me”

like the ḥalla of Aaron

which is given to the kohanim,

and like his teruma—

is permitted.

Since he is not associating his vow with something constituted by a vow, but with something forbidden [for an Israelite to eat].

And Ravina infers:

This

is the case if he says,

“like the terumat loaves of the thanksgiving-offering”—

he is forbidden.