Nedarim 2b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

All appellations of vows are like vows,

and herems are like herems, and oaths are like oaths, and nazirite designations are like nazirite designations.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What is different,

why is it different that

with regard to the nazirite,

at the beginning of tractate Nazir, where we likewise learned, “All appellations of nazirite designations are like nazirite designations,”

that he did not teach all of them?

The tanna did not teach there, in addition to the appellations of nazirite designations, also the appellations of vows as vows, herems as herems, and oaths as oaths.

And what is different

here,

with regard to vows, that he taught all of them?

And we answer:

Because vows and oaths are written alongside one another,

they are written together in the section of Matot: “When a person makes a vow to the Lord or swears an oath,” therefore

he taught

here

two,

the tanna taught both of them together: both the appellations of vows as vows and the appellations of oaths as oaths.

And since he taught two,

and since he had already taught two matters in which the appellation is like the term itself,

he taught,

the tanna had already taught

all of them,

all four matters in which the appellation is like the term itself. But a nazirite designation is a vow in its own right; therefore the tanna did not teach all of them in tractate Nazir.

But the Gemara raises an objection: since you have said that the tanna taught the appellations of oaths together with the appellations of vows because they are written together in the verse, then it should be difficult:

And let him teach “

appellation

s of

oaths as oaths,”

immediately

after

“all appellations of

vows as vows,” and why did the tanna interrupt between them and teach, after the appellations of vows, the appellations of herems!?

And we answer:

And we answer:

Since,

because

he taught vows, in which the object is rendered forbidden to him,

the essence of a vow is the imposition of a vow-prohibition upon the object, and by virtue of the object-prohibition a person is forbidden to violate his vow,

he also taught herems, in which the object is rendered forbidden to him,

for one who declares an object herem imposes upon it an object-prohibition of herem, and by virtue of the object-prohibition of “herem,” which takes effect upon the object, a person is forbidden to violate the prohibition of herem.

And this is that the tanna juxtaposed these two object-prohibitions to one another—

To exclude,

to exclude from this category

an oath,

for it is not the object that is rendered forbidden through an oath; rather, the person is the one

who renders himself forbidden from the object.

That is, when a person swears that he will not eat an object, he does not render the object forbidden to himself; rather, he renders himself forbidden from eating the object, and this prohibition is considered a “person-prohibition,” in contrast to the prohibition of a vow, which is considered an “object-prohibition.”

And in order to indicate this essential difference between a vow and an oath, the tanna preceded the teaching of the law of herems adjacent to the law of vows, to show that both of them are object-prohibitions, whereas the law of oaths, which is a person-prohibition, he taught afterward. And now the Gemara explains the course of the tanna in the Mishna:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

The tanna began

the tanna

with appellations,

as he said, “

All appellations of vows

are like vows,” but the tanna did not explain what the appellations are,

and

instead he

explains

the matter of the

partial expressions: “

One who says to his fellow, ‘I am mudar hanaa from you’”!?

Furthermore,

and there is another difficulty: did the tanna forget to mention the rule that “all

partial expressions

of vows are like vows,”

inadvertently,

so that he immediately proceeds to explain what the language of the partial expressions is, without first stating the rule that partial expressions are like vows!?

The Gemara first answers the second question:

Partial expressions—

he is discussing them,

indeed the tanna is dealing with them and states the rule that the partial expressions of vows are like vows.

And the Mishna is deficient,

in our Mishna,

and this is what it teaches,

the tanna teaches in it:

1.

All appellations of vows—

are like vows.

2.

And the partial expressions of vows—

are like vows.

But the first question still remains in place:

And let him explain,

let the tanna explain what

their appellations are at the outset,

first, before he explains the law of partial expressions, for the tanna began his words with the law of appellations, and he should explain them before explaining the law of partial expressions!

And we answer:

That

matter

from which he concluded,

the tanna—[the matter of partial expressions, after they corrected the wording of the Mishna, and we learned in it, “All appellations of vows are like vows, and the partial expressions of vows are like vows”]—

that

matter

he explains

the tanna

at the outset!

For it is the way of the tanna to explain first the matter that he mentioned at the end of his words, before he explains the beginning of his words.

For

example, this

that we learned

in tractate Shabbat [20b]:

With what do they kindle

the lights of Shabbat,

and with what do they not kindle?

And the tanna proceeds to explain first the end of his words:

They do not kindle,

and

so on.

And likewise we learned there [47b]:

With what do they insulate

on Shabbat,

and with what do they not insulate?

And when the tanna comes to explain his words, he begins to explain the end of his words:

They do not insulate,

and

so on.

And likewise we learned there [57a]:

With what does a woman go out, and with what does she not go out?—

A woman may not go out.

And the Gemara is astonished:

And

is this the way of the tanna, that

whenever he begins

his words with one matter and concludes them with an additional matter,

he does not explain

the tanna

at the outset

the opening of his words, but instead precedes and explains the end of his words?

But we learned

in tractate Bava Batra [108a]:

There are those who inherit and bequeath,

and there are

those who inherit but do not bequeath.

And the tanna explains first the opening of his words:

And who are those who inherit and bequeath!?

And likewise we learned in tractate Yevamot [84a]:

There are

women who are

permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs.

And there are women who are

permitted to their levirs but forbidden to their husbands.

And the tanna precedes and explains the beginning of his words:

And who are those permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their levirs?

And similarly we learned in tractate Menahot 59a]:

There are

meal-offerings that are

required to have oil and frankincense,

and there are those that are required to have

oil but not frankincense.

And the tanna explains the beginning of his words:

And which are those required to have oil and frankincense!?

And likewise we learned there [60a]:

There are

meal-offerings that are

required to be brought to the southwest corner

of the altar,

but are not required to be waved,

and there are meal-offerings that are required to be

waved but not brought to the southwest corner.

And which are those required to be brought to the southwest corner!?

And likewise we learned in tractate Bekhorot [46a]:

There is a firstborn

with regard to inheritance but not a firstborn with regard to the koen,

for example, when he is the firstborn of his father, and concerning inheritance it is stated, “For he is the first of his strength,” but he is not the firstborn of his mother; and concerning the redemption of the firstborn son it is stated, “that opens the womb,” who opened [came out through] his mother’s womb for the first time at his birth.

And there is

firstborn with regard to the koen, but not a firstborn with regard to inheritance,

when he is the firstborn of his mother but not of his father.

And who is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but not a firstborn with regard to the koen?

And we answer:

These,

these Mishnayot in which the tanna explains first the opening section, are

because the latter section is crowded for him,

for there are more details in the latter section than in the opening section [or there are many matters in them]; therefore, in these,

he explains

the tanna first

that

matter

with which he began

in the opening section

at the outset.

And we refute this:

But

in the Mishna of “

With what does an animal go out, and with what does it not go out,”

which is not crowded,

for there are not many matters in the latter section,

and

nevertheless the tanna first explains his words in the opening section, for

it teaches: A camel goes out!

And therefore the Gemara answers in another manner: