Nedarim 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Unspecified vows -

are interpreted stringently, and their explanations -

leniently,

as the Mishna will explain -

How so?

A. If

the person making the vow said:

the person making the vow

“This is incumbent upon me”

this thing

“like salted meat, like wine used for idolatrous libation” -

If

he specified his words, that it was

“like

salted meat [the meat of a sacrifice, which is salted before its sacrificial portions are burned], and like wine used for idolatrous libation

belonging to Heaven,”

which is poured as a libation upon the altar,

he has made a vow -

it is forbidden.

For he associated his vow with something prohibited by a vow.

And

if

he specified his words, that it was

“like

sacrificial meat or wine used for idolatrous libation

belonging to idol worship,”

he associated his vow with it, and

he has made a vow -

it is permitted.

For he associated it with something that is inherently prohibited.

And if

he used the language of a vow

without specification,

so that the vow takes effect according to the plain meaning of his words -

it is forbidden.

That is, in the case of unspecified vows, the doubt is treated stringently.

B. And if he said:

“This is incumbent upon me like a herem” -

If it is like a herem belonging to Heaven -

it is forbidden,

since it is sacred to the Most High, and is something prohibited by a vow.

But if it is like a herem belonging to the priests -

it is permitted,

since one who declares an item herem “as a herem for the priests” sanctifies it with the sanctity of consecrated property only until the time it is given to the priests; once it reaches the priests, it becomes completely non-sacred.

And if he made an unspecified vow,

so that the vow takes effect according to the plain meaning of his words -

it is forbidden.

C.

“This is incumbent upon me like tithe” -

If he made a vow like animal tithe -

it is forbidden.

And if

like first tithe

from the threshing floor -

it is permitted.

Since the tithe may be eaten, and its only requirement is that it be given to a Levite.

And if he made an unspecified vow -

it is forbidden.

D.

“This is incumbent upon me like teruma” -

If it is like"

the Temple-chamber contribution",

which is collected from the funds of the half-shekel into three collection boxes in order to purchase public offerings with it, and is something prohibited by a vow,

he has made a vow -

it is forbidden.

And if

like teruma

from the threshing floor -

it is permitted.

And if he made an unspecified vow -

it is forbidden,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: An unspecified "

teruma" -

in Judea it is forbidden,

because he is associating it with the Temple-chamber contribution, which is something prohibited by a vow, since it is collected from the half-shekel, which is something prohibited by a vow.

But

in the Galilee -

it is permitted,

because

the people of the Galilee do not recognize the Temple-chamber contribution

by the name “teruma,” and it is clear that their intention is to associate it with the teruma of grain.

Whereas

unspecified herem -

in Judea it is permitted,

because the intention of the vow is the herem designated for the priests.

And

in the Galilee -

it is forbidden,

because

the people of the Galilee do not recognize the herem designated for the priests.

Gemara:

We raise an objection: Why are unspecified vows treated stringently?

But was it not taught

in tractate Tohorot [4:12]:

A doubt concerning naziriteship,

which is also a vow, is

treated leniently!

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult:

This

Mishna in tractate Tohorot, follows the view of

Rabbi Eliezer

.

This,

our Mishna, which holds that unspecified vows are treated stringently, follows the view of

the Rabbis

.

As it was taught in a beraita: One who consecrates his wild animals and his domesticated animals -

has consecrated the koy

among them as well, even though the koy is of uncertain status, possibly a wild animal and possibly a domesticated animal.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He did not consecrate the koy.

The one who says [the Rabbis]

the Rabbis

include his property in a case of uncertainty,

so that, out of doubt, he consecrates the koy as well,

he himself too,

when he prohibits something through a vow,

includes

himself within the uncertain case encompassed by the wording of the vow.

And the one who says [Rabbi Eliezer]

Rabbi Eliezer

does not include his property in a case of uncertainty,

and does not consecrate the koy -

himself