Nedarim 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

If it is Rabbi Meir

who formulated it,

Rabbi Meir does not have

the principle that “

from an implication

you hear the affirmative!”

Rather,

perhaps you will say that our Mishna is in accordance with the method of

Rabbi Yehuda

—

This cannot be said, because if so,

this is the first clause!

These words were already taught in the Mishna in the previous chapter [10b]: “For non-sacred use shall be what I eat to you—this is a vow concerning a sacrificial offering.” Why, then, did the tanna need to repeat here these words of Rabbi Yehuda?

And we answer:

Since,

because

it teaches

in our Mishna

“like the flesh of a pig, like idolatry,”

that it is permitted, because he did not assimilate it to a matter subject to a vow,

therefore it teaches

also the law of one who says

“non-sacred.”

Ravina said

another answer as to why the tanna taught “non-sacred” here—

because the tanna intended to teach the novel point that there is no need to seek annulment of this vow, as one must seek annulment in the latter clause. And

this is what it teaches:

And these are permitted

completely,

like non-sacred food,

and they do not require seeking annulment of their vows—one who assimilates his vow

to the flesh of a pig or to idolatry.

But one who says to his wife, “Behold, you are to me like my mother,” must seek annulment of his vow by rabbinic decree, and an avenue from another matter is opened for him, so that he will not treat vows lightly.

We inquire concerning this:

And if he did not teach “non-sacred,”

would

I have thought

that even one who says “like the flesh of a pig”

would require seeking annulment?

And is it possible to entertain such a thought!?

Could this possibly have entered one’s mind?

But,

surely

from the fact that he teaches in the latter clause: “One who says to his wife, ‘Behold, you are to me like my mother’”—

“an avenue from another matter is opened for him,” from this implication

you learn

that in the first clause—

he does not require seeking annulment!

Rather, it is clear

that

“non-sacred”

was included incidentally.

The Gemara now explains the source of the law that a vow takes effect only when one assimilates it to a matter subject to a vow—

From where are these matters derived?

The verse states: [Numbers 30] “

When a man takes a vow to the Lord.”

From the repetition of the expression “takes a vow,” you learn that there is no possibility of assimilating something to a vow

From the repetition of the expression “takes a vow,” you learn that a vow cannot be applied

until he takes a vow,

that is, assimilates it,

to a matter subject to a vow.

See in the introduction an explanation of the matter: whether one must vow with regard to a thing made forbidden by a vow, or whether, if he comes to assimilate his vow, he must assimilate it to a thing made forbidden by a vow and not to a thing that is forbidden.

We inquire concerning this:

If so,

if one derives this from “takes a vow,”

even

one who assimilates something

to a prohibited matter as well

should have his vow take effect!

For

also with regard to a prohibition

it is written in a doubled expression, teaching assimilation, as it says: “

with repeated wording, teaching about applying one prohibition to another, as it says:

To prohibit a prohibition upon oneself”!?

And we answer: One cannot derive assimilation to a prohibited matter from this verse, because “

to prohibit a prohibition”

is needed

for that which is taught:

As it is taught:

What is the prohibition mentioned in the Torah?

One who says, “I will not eat meat on this day, like the day on which his father died”—this is assimilation to a matter subject to a vow.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who says to his wife, ‘Behold, you are to me like my mother,’

must seek annulment of it, and an avenue from another matter is opened for him.”

And he raises a contradiction

from another beraita:

As it is taught: One who says, “

Behold, you are to me like the flesh of my mother,

that is, this matter is prohibited to me like the flesh of my mother,

like the flesh of my sister, like orla, and like the produce of mixed seeds in a vineyard”—

he has said nothing!

Abaye said

as an answer:

Abaye

said: Indeed,

he has said nothing by Torah law, but

nevertheless,

he must

seek

annulment by rabbinic decree.

Rava said: “But”

the statement that he has said nothing applies

to Torah scholars,

for there is no concern that they will come to stumble if they do not need to come and seek annulment.

But

our Mishna is speaking

of an ignoramus.

And there is a proof for his words:

And it was taught: One who vows by the Torah—

has said nothing.

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “He must seek annulment from a Sage.”

And Rav Naḥman said: “But a Torah scholar”—

does not require seeking annulment!”