Nedarim 14a — the Talmud in English

If it is Rabbi Meir,

it is—

he does not have for Rabbi Meir the rule that “

in general”

from a general statement ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

you hear the contrary particular statement!

Rather,

perhaps you will say, our Mishna is according to the method of

Rabbi Judah

—

It is impossible to say this, because if so,

this is the first section!

These words were already taught in the Mishna in the previous chapter [10b]: “For non-sacred property that I will eat of yours—this is a vow involving an offering.” Why, then, did the tanna, a sage of the Mishnaic era, need to repeat Rabbi Yehuda’s statement here?

And we answer:

since,

incidentally

it teaches

in our Mishna

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

that it is permitted, because he does not assimilate it to a thing made forbidden by 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 property” here—

The tanna intended to introduce the novel point that here there is no need to seek annulment of the vow, as one must do in the latter clause, and

this is what it teaches:

And these are permitted

entirely,

like non-sacred,

and they do not need to seek annulment of their vows—one who assimilates his vow

to the flesh of a pig, to idolatry.

But one who says to his wife, “Behold you are to me as my mother,” must seek annulment, by rabbinic law, of his vow, and they open an opening for him from another place, so that he will not treat vows lightly.

And we raise it as a difficulty:

And if it had not taught “non-sacred,”

would

I have thought

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

requires annulment?

And is it possible to conceive such a thing!?

Can it possibly enter one’s mind to conceive this?

This,

and behold,

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

they open an opening for him from another place; in general,

you learn from this,

the first section—

does not require annulment!

Rather, it is clear, that

“

non-sacred”

was mentioned incidentally.

And now the Gemara explains the source of the law that only when one assimilates his vow to a thing made forbidden by a vow does the vow take effect—

From where are these words?

The verse says: [Numbers 30] “

When a man vows a vow to Hashem.”

When a person takes a vow to the Lord.”

From the repetition of the wording “vow a vow,” you learn that it is impossible to assimilate a vow—

until he vows,

that he assimilates it,

to a thing made forbidden by a vow.

And we raise it as a difficulty:

If so,

if you learn this from “vow a vow,”

even

one who assimilates his vow

to a thing that is forbidden also

should have his vow take effect!

For

also with regard to a prohibition

it is written

a doubled expression, teaching about assimilation—as it is stated: “

To bind a binding upon himself”!?

And we answer: One cannot learn assimilation to a thing that is forbidden from this scriptural phrase, because “

to bind a binding,”

is needed—

for that which was taught:

For it was taught:

What is the binding mentioned in the Torah?

One who says, “I will not eat meat on this day like the day on which his father died,” which is assimilation to a thing made forbidden by a vow.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

must seek annulment of it, and they open an opening for him from another place.”

And we juxtapose

a contradiction to this from another beraita:

For it was taught: One who says, “

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

that is, this thing is forbidden to me like the flesh of my mother,

like the flesh of my sister, like forbidden growth, and like the diverse kinds of the vineyard”—

has said nothing!

He said

and answered

Abaye:

Indeed,

he has said nothing by Torah law, and

however,

he needs

to seek

annulment by rabbinic law.

Rava said: This

that he has said nothing is

with Torah scholars,

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

This,

our Mishna is speaking

of an ignoramus.

And proof for his words:

And was it not taught: One who vows by the Torah—

has said nothing.

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yohanan said: And he needs to seek annulment from a sage.

And Rav Nahman said: And a Torah scholar—

does not need to seek annulment!