Nedarim 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, not necessarily:

there is no fixed rule in this matter—

Sometimes

the

tanna

first explains

that

matter

with which he began

it

initially.

Sometimes,

however, he first explains

that

matter

with which he concluded,

the matter that he finished with; that is the one he brings forward and

explains initially.

And if you wish, say:

there is another answer to the question of why the tanna explains the law of yadot before explaining the law of kinuyim—

Yadot—

since they are derived from a homiletic interpretation,

as their law is not explicit in the Torah but is derived through a homiletic interpretation, as will be explained below, the tanna regards it as preferable to teach them, and he therefore chooses to state them first. Thus,

he explains them,

the yadot,

initially.

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so—

Let him begin

with the matter of

the law

in question, that of yadot,

initially

at the beginning of the Mishna! Since a matter derived through a homiletic interpretation is preferable for the tanna to state first, why did he not do so?

The Gemara answers:

The tanna did begin

with

with the kinuyim,

which are

of Torah origin, initially,

as it is the tanna’s way to begin his statements with simple and familiar matters, and the tanna continued by stating also the law of the yadot of vows, which have the status of vows.

And afterward,

and then, the tanna proceeds to

explain

the law of the

yadot,

before explaining the law of the kinuyim, since

the yadot came to him

the yadot

through a homiletic interpretation.

The Gemara examines this answer:

This works according to the one who says

“kinuyim”

are the language of gentiles,

that is, linguistic corruptions introduced by the nations into the Holy Tongue. It is therefore properly stated that kinuyim have the status of vows: their law is of Torah origin. Since it is a straightforward law from the Torah, the tanna stated it at the beginning of the Mishna. Yet when he came to explain the laws, he first explained the law of the yadot, which is derived through a homiletic interpretation and is not explicit in the Torah.

But according to the one who says that kinuyim are

the

language

that was innovated,

which they devised,

which the Sages created and established

for them,

for those who make vows,

so that

a person could

make a vow with it

—[using the language of a substitute expression rather than the actual language, for the reason that will be explained below]—then according to them, kinuyim are not a straightforward matter of Torah law; rather, they are even more innovative than yadot. For yadot are derived through a homiletic interpretation, whereas kinuyim are a rabbinic enactment [which, after their enactment, is effective by Torah law]—

what can be said?

That is, the question returns: Why did the tanna not first explain the matter of kinuyim, with which he began the Mishna, before explaining the matter of the yadot of vows?

The Gemara answers: The text of our Mishna is incomplete.

For

does it actually teach yadot

in the version of the Mishna before us?

Is it not so

that

you have to supply text missing from it?

We have emended the wording of the Mishna in its latter clause and added words to it.

If so, let us make an additional change in the wording of the Mishna, in its first clause as well—

Let us also place it first and teach yadot

at the beginning of the Mishna, and let us recite our Mishna as follows—

a.

All yadot of vows—

have the status of vows.

b.

And all kinuyim of vows—

have the status of vows.

The tanna explains the first law:

And these are the yadot: One who says to his fellow …

And afterward he explains the second law:

And these are the kinuyim: Konam, konah, konas.

The Gemara now comes to explain the source of the law of yadot:

And

the matter of

yadot—

where is it written?

From where is it derived from the Torah?

For it is written in the passage concerning the nazirite, in the book of Numbers [chapter 6]:

“When a man explicitly utters a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.”

And it was taught:

The way of Scripture is to place the infinitive before the noun denoting the action, as in “to prohibit a prohibition.”

But here Scripture deviated from its usual wording and placed the noun denoting the action before the infinitive, saying

“a nazirite, to consecrate himself”

instead of saying “to consecrate himself as a nazirite” [just as it initially stated, “to utter a vow”].

We learn from this change in wording that Scripture came to teach—

to make yadot of naziriteship—

have the status of naziriteship.

I have derived this only with regard to naziriteship—

From where

is it derived that with regard to vows as well, the yadot of vows have the status of vows?

The verse states:

“When a man explicitly utters a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.”

The verse juxtaposes

this verse

—naziriteship to vows, and vows to naziriteship.

We learn three matters from this juxtaposition: a.

Just as

as with

naziriteship, it made

Scripture

the yadot of naziriteship have the status of naziriteship—

so too, with regard to vows, it made

Scripture

the yadot of vows have the status of vows.

b.

And just as

as with

vows, one violates

“he shall not profane his word”

if he prohibited something to himself and then ate it,

and

“he shall not delay”

fulfilling it if he vowed to bring an offering and did not bring it within three pilgrimage Festivals—

so too, with regard to naziriteship, one violates “he shall not profane”

his vow

and “he shall not delay”

fulfilling it, as will be explained below.

c.

And just as

as with

vows, a father may annul his daughter’s vows, and a husband may annul his wife’s vows—

so too, with regard to naziriteship, a father may annul his daughter’s naziriteship, and a husband may annul his wife’s naziriteship.

The Gemara raises a question:

What is different with regard to naziriteship,

that specifically with regard to naziriteship must we derive from the verse that the yadot of naziriteship have the status of naziriteship, since

it is written

in the context of naziriteship, with a change in wording,

“a nazirite, to consecrate himself”?

After all, with regard to

vows as well,

it is possible to derive that the yadot of vows have the status of vows from the change in wording stated in the passage concerning vows, for

it is written

“to utter a vow.”

And

if so,

why do I need the juxtaposition?

The Gemara answers:

Had it been written

“a vow, to utter”

as it is written

“a nazirite, to consecrate himself,”

it would indeed have been possible to derive from the change in wording that the yadot of vows have the status of vows,

as you say,

and indeed

it

would

not have required the juxtaposition

of vows to naziriteship in order to know that the yadot of vows have the status of vows.

But

now,

at present,

since it is written

“to utter a vow,”

we cannot derive anything from this repetition of wording, since

the Torah speaks in the language of people,

and this is simply the ordinary way people speak. Therefore, the repetition of wording in the verse does not constitute a source from which to derive a homiletic interpretation.

But the Gemara still asks:

This works according to the one who holds

“the Torah speaks in the language of people,”

and no homiletic interpretation may be derived from such wording; it is therefore properly necessary to learn the law of yadot with regard to vows from the juxtaposition of vows to naziriteship.

But according to the one who does not hold

“the Torah speaks in the language of people,”

but rather, every repetition of wording in Scripture may be expounded,

this

“to utter a vow”—

what does he do with it?

For what purpose was this repetition of wording stated, given that the law that the yadot of vows have the status of vows can be learned from the juxtaposition of vows to naziriteship?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, this authority

expounds it

as referring to the repetition of wording “to utter a vow,”

to make the yadot of vows have the status of vows.

And he juxtaposes naziriteship to vows

in order to learn that with regard to naziriteship as well, we say: “The yadot of naziriteship have the status of naziriteship.”

As for the repetition of wording stated with regard to naziriteship,

“a nazirite, to consecrate himself”—

he expounds it

as follows: