Nedarim 18b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Unqualified vows -

are to be interpreted stringently, and their explanations -

leniently,

as the Mishna explains -

How?

A. If

the one making the vow said:

the vower,

“This is upon me

this thing

like salted meat, like sacrificial wine” -

If

he explained his words as referring

to

salted sacrificial meat [the meat of an offering, which is salted before its burning], and to sacrificial wine

of Heaven,

which is poured upon the altar,

he has vowed -

it is forbidden.

For he compared his vow to something that is the object of a vow.

And

if

he explained his words as referring

to

sacrificial meat or to sacrificial wine

of idolatry,

to which he compared it, and

he vowed -

it is permitted.

For he compared it to a forbidden thing.

And if

he used the language of a vow

without specification,

so that the vow should take effect according to the meaning of his words as they stand -

it is forbidden.

That is, the doubt concerning vows is treated stringently.

B. And if he said:

“This is upon me like a dedication” -

If it is like a dedication to Heaven -

it is forbidden,

because it is sacred for the Most High, and it is something that is the object of a vow.

And if it is like a dedication to the priests -

it is permitted,

because one who dedicates something as a “dedication to the priests” makes it sacred with the sanctity of consecrated property only until the time when it is given to the priests; but once it reaches the hands of the priests, it becomes completely non-sacred property.

And if he made it unqualified,

the vow, so that the vow should take effect according to the meaning of his words -

it is forbidden.

C.

“This is upon me like a tithe” -

If he vowed it as an animal tithe -

it is forbidden.

And if

it is like the first tithe

of the threshing floor -

it is permitted.

Because the tithe is permitted for eating, and it contains only the law of giving it to a Levite.

And if he made it unqualified -

it is forbidden.

D.

“This is upon me like teruma” -

If it is like “

the chamber teruma,”

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

he has vowed -

it is forbidden.

And if

it is like teruma

of the threshing floor -

it is permitted.

And if he made it unqualified -

it is forbidden,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: Unqualified “

teruma” -

in Judea it is forbidden,

because he is comparing it to the chamber teruma, which is something that is the object of a vow, since it is taken from the half-shekel, which is something that is the object of a vow.

But

in the Galilee -

it is permitted,

because

the people of the Galilee do not recognize the chamber teruma by the name “teruma,” and it is clear that their intention is to compare it to the teruma of grain.

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

Whereas

unqualified dedications -

in Judea are permitted,

because the intention of the vow is the dedications to the priests.

And

in the Galilee -

they are forbidden,

because

the people of the Galilee do not recognize the dedications to the priests.

Gemara:

And we raised it: Why are unqualified vows interpreted stringently?

But we learned

in Tractate Tohorot [4:12]:

a doubt concerning naziriteship,

which is also a vow -

is interpreted leniently!

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult:

This

Mishna in Tractate Tohorot is in accordance with the method of

Rabbi Eliezer

.

This

our Mishna, which holds that unqualified vows are interpreted stringently, is in accordance with the method of

the Rabbis

.

For it was taught: One who consecrates his wild animals and his domestic animals -

has consecrated the koy

among them, even though the koy is a doubt whether it is a wild animal or a domestic animal.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He has not consecrated the koy.

The one who says [the Rabbis]

the Rabbis]

that he includes his property in the doubt,

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

himself also,

when he forbids it through a vow,

includes

himself as well in the doubt included in the statement of the vow.

And the one who says [Rabbi Eliezer]

Rabbi Eliezer]

that he does not include his property in the doubt,

and he does not consecrate the koy -

himself