Nedarim 13a — the Talmud in English

who places

who brings

firstborn flesh, and places flesh of that sort,

and brings this permitted flesh on its other side, and places it

above it,

beside it.

And he said

about the permitted flesh: “

this —

like this”!

And

the dispute

is a dispute of tannaim,

whether he associates it with the initial state, with the firstborn flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, when it was forbidden to every person to eat because of the sanctity of the offering, and it is forbidden; or whether he associates it with the present state, with the firstborn flesh after the sprinkling of the blood, when it is permitted for the kohanim to eat, and it is permitted!

And we reject this:

not

over this did Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Yosei disagree.

Rather,

according to everyone

he associates it, even if he left his words unspecified, with firstborn flesh

before the sprinkling of blood.

And what is the reason of the one who permits?

But a firstborn is an offering!?

Since

the verse says

in the section of vows [Numbers 30]: “A man

when he vows

a vow to the Lord” — the verse teaches by its doubled wording, “when he vows a vow,” that the vow does not take effect through association

until he vows

and associates it

with something vowed.

To exclude

to exclude

a firstborn —

for it is a forbidden thing!

For a firstborn is holy from the womb, of itself, and is not something vowed by a person!

And

if

the one who forbids

held:

Since

the verse says “

when he vows a vow

to the Lord” —

the verse taught by “to the Lord

” to include

associating with

a forbidden thing.

And the Gemara explains:

And the one who permits [since he associated with a forbidden thing and not with something vowed]

this that the verse said “

to the Lord,”

what does he do with it?

He needs it

he needs the superfluous expression “to the Lord

” — to associate with

flesh of

a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.

And we raise an objection to this:

What have you seen that you include

one who associates with flesh of

a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, and exclude the

one who associates with

a firstborn?

And we answer:

I include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering —

for one associates with a vow.

And I exclude a firstborn —

for it is holy from its mother’s womb.

And the one who forbids

held,

a firstborn also —

one associates it with a vow,

for in addition to its sanctity from the womb, which is sanctity that comes of itself, it also has sanctity that comes through a person’s consecration!

For it was taught: They said in the name of Rabbi: From where is it derived concerning one who

one who

was born

to him

a firstborn within his household, that it is a mitzva

upon its owner

to consecrate it

himself and to say, “This is holy with firstborn sanctity,” even though it is already holy of itself by Torah law?

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 15]: “

"The

The male —

you shall consecrate.”

And if so, a firstborn too is something vowed, for its owner consecrated it.

And the one who permits

holds: behold, even

when its owner does not consecrate it

the firstborn —

is it not consecrated

the firstborn of itself, at the time of its birth?

And therefore the mitzva to consecrate it does not make it “something vowed,” since there is no addition of sanctity through a person’s consecrating it; rather, there is merely a mitzva for its owner to say with his mouth that the firstborn should be holy with firstborn sanctity.

We learned in the Mishna: One who says

“like a lamb, like pens”

that is forbidden.

A tanna taught

in a beraita:

“A lamb, to a lamb, like a lamb.”

“Pens, to pens, like pens.”

“Wood, to wood, like wood.”

“Fires, to fires, like fires.”

“Altar, to the altar, like the altar.”

“Sanctuary, to the Sanctuary, like the Sanctuary.”

“Jerusalem, to Jerusalem, like Jerusalem.”

In

all of them,

if he added and said:

“that I shall eat of yours” —

it is forbidden.

But if he added and said:

“I shall not eat of yours” —

it is permitted.

And we raise an objection to this:

Whom do we hear who does not distinguish

between one who says

“a lamb”

and one who says

“to a lamb”

or

“like a lamb,”

that in all of them the vow takes effect, even if he does not add the letter kaf of comparison? —

It is Rabbi Meir!

For according to Rabbi Yehuda, if he did not add the letter kaf of comparison, he has said nothing.

If so,

say the latter clause: “And all of them,

if he added and said:

‘I shall not eat of yours’ —

it is permitted.

And this is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir, for —

and we learned in the Mishna: “

‘As an offering, I shall not eat of yours’” —

Rabbi Meir forbids.

And

concerning this

Rabbi Abba said: It is treated as though he said “

‘It shall be an offering’ —

therefore I shall not eat of yours’”!

Whereas our Mishna permits it for eating.

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This

our Mishna speaks of a case

where he said: “

‘Not

a lamb

. I shall not eat of yours.” Then it is permitted according to Rabbi Meir, since he does not hold that “from a negative you infer a positive.””

Whereas

that which

Rabbi Meir says is forbidden is a case where he said: “

‘To a lamb [with a sheva beneath the letter lamed]

I shall not eat of yours.”

Mishna:

.

One who says: “An offering, a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, a sin-offering, a thanksgiving-offering, peace-offerings” —

“that I eat of yours!”

It is forbidden,

even though he did not add the letter kaf of comparison.

Rabbi Yehuda permits,

until he adds the letter kaf of comparison.

And there is a novelty in Rabbi Yehuda’s words: we do not say concerning them, “their name indicates their prohibition,” and they are not similar to one who says “pigul” or “notar” without the letter kaf of comparison, concerning which even Rabbi Yehuda forbids, since their name proves concerning them that his intention is to prohibition.

b. One who says:

“The offering, like an offering, an offering” —

“that I eat of yours.”

It is forbidden

even without the letter kaf of comparison.

c. One who says

“As an offering, I shall not eat of yours” —

Rabbi Meir forbids.

Gemara:

It teaches

in the middle clause of the Mishna:

“An offering, the offering, like an offering, that I eat of yours” —

it is forbidden.

The anonymous tanna taught “

an offering” —

in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who does not distinguish between “

a lamb”

and

between “like

a lamb.”

And we challenge this:

If it is Rabbi Meir,

it is difficult

that which it teaches

in the additional example:

“the offering that I eat of yours” —

it is forbidden.

But it was taught: The Sages agree [Rabbi Meir]

it is permitted,

with Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of one who says, “Here is an offering, and here is a burnt-offering, and here is a meal-offering, and here is a sin-offering, that I eat of yours” —

that it is permitted,

because

“this vow was made only by the life of the offering!”