Nedarim 13b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here,

where Rabbi Meir concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that it is permitted, it is speaking of a case where

he says

this in two words, “

this is a sacrifice,”

and for the reason that the Gemara will explain shortly.

But here,

where the matter is considered to be an attaching of [the object] to a sacrifice, it is a case where

he says

this in one word, “

the-sacrifice,”

whose meaning is “like a sacrifice.”

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that one who says, “This is a sacrifice,” has not made a vow? —

Since when he says, “This is a sacrifice”—“

by the life of a sacrifice,”

he is saying,

and this is not an attaching to a vowed object.

And now the Gemara comes to explain what

is taught

in the latter clause of our Mishna: “

For a sacrifice, I will not eat with you”—

Rabbi Meir prohibits.”

And the Gemara assumed that the meaning of his words is: “Let that which I will not eat with you be a sacrifice,” and from these words of his it follows: “That which I will eat with you will be a sacrifice.”

And we raised an objection:

But Rabbi Meir does not hold

the rule that “

from a negative statement you hear a positive one”!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abba said: This utterance is made

this,

as though he were saying, “

Let it be for a sacrifice”—

therefore I will not eat with you.”

Mishna:

In this Mishna, a new principle in vows is explained: a person can prohibit his limbs to himself, from making use of them, just as he can prohibit the use of his objects to himself.

For example, to prohibit his mouth to himself from making use of it for speech.

And likewise, he can prohibit himself from making use of his limbs toward his fellow, for example, he can prohibit his mouth to himself from speaking with his fellow through it.

One who says to his fellow: “

Konam, my mouth from speaking with you,”

or one who says, “Konam,

my hands from working with you,”

or one who says, “Konam,

my feet from walking with you”—

it is prohibited

for him to speak with him, or to work with him, or to walk with him.

And in the Gemara, in the conclusion, it will be explained that even though a person cannot prohibit through a vow an action or activity to himself, but can prohibit only an object to himself, nevertheless his vow takes effect, so that he will not speak with him, nor work with him, nor walk with him.

For our Mishna is speaking of a case where he prohibited his mouth to himself, from using it to speak with his fellow; or where he prohibited his hands to himself from using them for his fellow; or where he prohibited his feet to himself from using them to walk with him.

Gemara:

At first, the Gemara assumed that the intention of our Mishna is to say that a person can prohibit himself through a vow from speaking with his fellow, or working with him, or walking with him.

And he raises a contradiction

to this from what we learned in the Tosefta [Nedarim, chapter 1, and likewise in Tractate Shevuot 25a]:

There is

a stringency in oaths over vows, and

there is a stringency

in vows over oaths.

And the beraita explains there:

The stringency in vows

over oaths—

that vows take effect

even

upon a mitzva,

to nullify its fulfillment,

just

as they take effect

with regard to

a matter that is

optional.

For example, a person who prohibits sitting in a sukka to himself with a konam—it is prohibited for him to sit in the sukka, even though by doing so he nullifies the mitzva of dwelling in a sukka.

Whereas it is not so with oaths,

which do not take effect to nullify a mitzva. For one who swears not to sit in a sukka—his oath does not take effect.

And the stringency in oaths

over vows is—

that oaths take effect

both

with regard to a matter that has substance, and

both with regard to a matter

that has no substance.

Whereas it is not so with vows!

For a vow can take effect only upon a matter that has substance. Therefore, one who says, “Konam, that I should not speak with you,” the vow does not take effect, because there is no tangible object upon which it can take effect. But if he says to him, “Konam, my mouth from speaking with you,” the vow takes effect upon his mouth, which is a matter that has substance.

And since vows do not take effect upon a matter that has no substance, this is apparently a contradiction to our Mishna, which says that a person can prohibit himself from speaking, working, or walking!

Rabbi Yehuda said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of one who says, “

Let my mouth be prohibited—

for my speech”; “

Let my

hands be prohibited—

for their work”; “

Let my

feet be prohibited—

for their walking,”

for through this he imposes an object-prohibition upon the limbs of his body, so that it will be prohibited for him to use them.

And the limbs of his body are a matter that has substance, and they become, with regard to him, an object of prohibition concerning the matters that he prohibited them to him.

It is also precise, as it is taught

in our Mishna, “Konam,

my mouth from speaking with you,”

where he prohibits his mouth, which has substance,

and it does not teach, “Konam,

that I am

speaking with you,”

which is a matter that has no substance.

We shall return to you, All Vows

MISHNA:

In this Mishna the principle is clarified—that a vow can be assimilated only to a “thing made forbidden by a vow,” and not to a “thing forbidden.”

The source of the law was explained in the previous chapter [on the previous page], from the repetition of the wording “when a man vows a vow.”

And several definitions of a “thing made forbidden by a vow” were stated by the early authorities.

There are those who define it as a thing whose sanctity comes through the person’s speech and did not come on its own.

And there are those who define it as a thing that can come through a vow or a voluntary offering, without his being obligated to do it. Or even if he is obligated to do it, but it comes because of his vow or his voluntary offering.

But one who assimilates his vow to a thing that is forbidden on its own, which the Torah prohibited and which did not come as a result of a person’s speech—the vow does not take effect.

Our Mishna is divided into two parts.

In its first part it explains the law of one who assimilates his vow to a thing that is forbidden, that it does not take effect at all, and he does not need annulment even by rabbinic law.

Whereas in its second part, the Mishna explains a rabbinic enactment that applies only in certain cases, such as one who vows not to derive benefit from his wife, in which they obligated one who assimilates his vow to a thing that is forbidden to seek annulment of his vow, by rabbinic law. And until he seeks annulment of it, she is forbidden to him by rabbinic law, as though the vow had taken effect.

The first part:

And these

are the “vows” that

are permitted,

for the speech in the wording of a vow does not forbid the “one who vows” at all, since the vow was assimilated to a thing that is forbidden and not to a thing made forbidden by a vow—

One who says to his fellow:

“Non-sacred is what I eat from you.”

And this law will be explained in the Gemara: for what purpose did the Mishna state it?

Or one who says to his fellow:

“Like the flesh of a pig,”

that I eat from you.

Or

“Like idolatry”

that I eat from you.

Or

“Like the hides”

of animals that were offerings to idolatry, which are

pierced.

That is, the hides were pierced opposite the heart of the animal, because those who worshipped idolatry would customarily pierce the hide of the animal during its lifetime opposite its heart, and remove the heart of the animal from there while it was still alive, in order to offer it to idolatry.

And these hides are forbidden in benefit, because they are the hides of animals that were offered as an offering to idolatry.

Or

“Like carcasses and animals with fatal defects,”

or

“like abominations and creeping things.”

Or

“Like Aaron’s dough-offering and like his teruma.” —

In all these cases—

it is permitted,

since he assimilates his vow to a thing that is forbidden and not to a thing made forbidden by a vow.

The second part:

One who says to his wife, “

Behold you are

forbidden]

to me as

my

mother

is forbidden to me”—his vow does not take effect by Torah law, because he assimilated it to a thing that is forbidden.

Nevertheless, the Sages enacted that he should conduct himself as though the vow had taken effect, and should seek annulment of it.

And the reason for the matter that the Sages were stringent to enact this with regard to this vow more than with regard to other vows that he assimilated to a thing that is forbidden is that a person is accustomed to vow against his wife when he is angry with her, and if we permit him when he assimilates his vow to a thing that is forbidden, he will also come to permit himself when he assimilates his vow to a thing made forbidden by a vow.

And although the vow does not take effect by Torah law, but only by rabbinic law, nevertheless they were stringent with it, so that when he comes to seek annulment of his vow, they will not open an opening for him through the honor of his mother, asking him, “Had you known that the assimilation to your mother was not for her honor, would you not have vowed?”—just as they are stringent not to resort to an opening involving the honor of one’s father and mother in a vow by Torah law.

Rather, they will

open an opening for him from another place,

that is, they will find another reason upon which to base it, such that had he known it he would not have vowed—in order to annul his vow.

And as long as he has not sought annulment of his vow, she is forbidden to him, so that

he will not treat this lightly.

GEMARA:

The Gemara deduces from the wording of our Mishna, which began and said, “And these are permitted—non-sacred is what I eat from you,” which is a matter that contains no novelty at all, and necessarily the intention of our Mishna is to come and teach:

The reason

that they are permitted is because

he said “

Non-sacred is what I eat from you.”

This

if

he said “

For non-sacred is what I eat from you,”

with a patah beneath the lamed—

it implies “

Let it not be non-sacred—

but a sacrifice,”

and behold, these are forbidden.

And we raise it as a difficulty:

Who is the author of our Mishna?