Nedarim 12a — the Talmud in English

But this

flesh

of notar and pigul—

after the sprinkling of

the blood it is! For as long as the blood has not been sprinkled, the flesh is not prohibited as pigul and notar.

For as long as the blood has not been sprinkled, the meat does not become prohibited as piggul or as leftover meat.

And since it becomes prohibited through a vow by his associating it with flesh of pigul and notar, it is proven that he associates it with the fundamental status of the flesh, which had been prohibited before the sprinkling of the blood from being eaten by virtue of its being a sacrifice. For if he associates it with the prohibition of pigul and notar, this is not associating with something made the object of a vow, but with something prohibited. For the prohibition against eating the flesh of sacrificial sancta when it is pigul or notar is not a prohibition resulting from a vow, but from the disqualification in the sacrificial flesh.

Rav Huna son of Rav Natan said to

Rava: In fact, 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 is possible to say that our Mishna is speaking of one who associates it

with the notar of

flesh

of an elevation-offering, which is not permitted through the sprinkling of the blood for eating, but must be burned upon the altar; and its prohibition against eating it is both because it is a sacrifice and because it is "notar."

Such meat does not become permitted for eating through the sprinkling of the blood. Rather, it must be burned on the altar, and eating it is prohibited both because it is a sacrificial offering and because it is “leftover.”

Rava said to

Rav Huna son of Rav Natan:

If so,

that our Mishna is speaking of one who associates with the flesh of an elevation-offering,

let it teach, “like the flesh of an elevation-offering

”! For in the case of an elevation-offering there is no distinction in the prohibition against eating between flesh of an elevation-offering that is fit for sacrifice and flesh of an elevation-offering that is pigul and notar, since the flesh of an elevation-offering is always prohibited from being eaten as the flesh of a sacrifice; so why did the tannai state “notar and pigul”?

Rav Huna son of Rav Natan said to Rava: The tannai

“not only”

is saying.

Not only

does one who associates with

the flesh of an elevation-offering become prohibited, for he is associating with a sacrifice.

But one who associates with

the notar and pigul of an elevation-offering—

it was necessary

to teach that he becomes prohibited.

For

it might have entered your mind to say that one who associates with flesh of an elevation-offering that is notar or pigul, and says, “This is like that” \-

that when one associates his vow with the meat of a burnt-offering that is leftover or piggul, and says, “This is like that,” -

his intention is to say,

“like the prohibition of notar,”

or

“like the prohibition of pigul,”

and

then

it would be like one who associates with something prohibited,

and not with something made the object of a vow,

and he would not become prohibited.

It teaches us

that he becomes prohibited, because he associates with a sacrifice and not with the prohibition, since the prohibition of pigul or notar too is because it is a sacrifice, and it would be one who associates with something made the object of a vow.

He raised an objection

to Rav Huna son of Rav Natan, who holds that he associates with its present permitted status and not with the sacrifice’s original status, from that which was taught in a beraita:

Which is

the “prohibition”

mentioned in the Torah

in the passage of vows [“to prohibit a prohibition”]?

For example, one who

said:

“Behold, I shall not eat meat, and I shall not drink wine”—

“like the day on which his father died

—[my father].

Or

“like the day on which his teacher died

—[my 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 Samuel said

about this beraita:

And this is when

he had already been

under a vow on that day

of the year on which his father died.

And the Gemara assumed that only once, on the day his father died, did he vow not to eat meat and not to drink wine, but during the following years he would eat and drink on the anniversary of his father’s death.

And the Gemara further assumed that if the one who made the vow said, “Behold, I shall not eat meat and I shall not 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 on which my father died,” it is obvious that he is prohibited, and there is no need to state this.

If so, one must examine Samuel’s words explaining the beraita:

What are the circumstances,

in what manner does our Mishna speak?—

Is it not

the case that it is speaking of,

for example, that he is standing

with the one who made the vow, several years after his father’s death,

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

on Sunday, which is the “anniversary” of his father’s death [“Sunday” is merely an example of a date], and he says, “Behold, I shall not eat meat and I shall not drink wine like on the anniversary of my father’s death,”

and

his vow takes effect,

even though there are

from his father’s death until now

very many

of his father’s annual anniversaries on

the first day of the week,

which were anniversaries

of permitted status,

on which he had not vowed to fast,

and

nevertheless it

teaches “

prohibited.”

Infer from this that it is with the original

prohibited status, which had existed in the past,

that he associates,

and not with its present permitted status that he associates!

And this is proof for Rava and a difficulty for Rav Huna son of Rav Natan.

And the Gemara rejects this, saying that there is no proof from here that he becomes prohibited because he associates with the original status; rather, that which

Samuel

said—

this is what was stated:

Samuel said: And this is when

he had been

had been

under a vow continuously from that day onward, on every “anniversary” of his father’s death; and it is clear that he associates on the anniversary with the day prohibited by a vow, for here there is no possibility at all of associating with a permitted status.

on every anniversary of his father’s death. It is therefore clear that on the anniversary he is associating his vow with a day prohibited through a vow, since there is no possibility here of associating it with a permitted day.

Ravina said, come and hear

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

The priests have the right to receive teruma from the grain and challa from the dough.

Likewise, the priests have the right to receive the “teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,” which consists of four loaves out of the forty loaves brought with him 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 loaves of leavened bread; ten loaves that did not become leavened; ten wafers [similar to our matzot]; and ten boiled loaves, whose dough is first scalded in boiling water, and afterward loaves called “boiled loaves” are baked from it.

The priest receives the “teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,” which consists of four loaves, one loaf from each of the four types.

The teruma and the challa are considered something prohibited and not something made the object of a vow, because the separation of the teruma and the challa is not considered a vow; therefore, it is impossible to associate a vow with them.

Whereas the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, which is part of the sacrifice, is considered something made the object of a vow, and it is possible to associate a vow with it.

One who says: “This thing is incumbent upon me”

“like the challa of Aaron,”

which is given to the priests,

“and like his teruma”—

permitted.

Since he is not associating with something made the object of a vow, but with something prohibited [for an Israelite alone to eat].

And Ravina infers:

This

is so if he says

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

prohibited.