Nedarim 3a — the Talmud in English

Rather, it is not necessarily so,

there is no fixed rule in this matter—

Sometimes

at times

the tanna explains

the

particular

matter

with which he began

it

first.

Sometimes,

and at times,

the particular

matter

with which he concluded

from it, and with which he ended, he precedes and

explains it first.

And if you wish, say:

you have another answer to the question of why the tanna explains the law of the yadot before he explains the law of the kinuyim—

The yadot—

since they come from a derasha,

since their law is not explicit in the Torah, but is derived from a derasha, as will be explained below, it is dear to the tanna to teach it, and he prefers to make it heard first, and therefore

he explains them,

the yadot,

first.

And the Gemara challenges this answer: if so—

then let him begin

with the matter of

the law,

this, of the yadot,

first

of the Mishna! Since it is preferable for the tanna to precede something learned from a derasha—!?

And the Gemara answers:

the tanna began

the tanna

with the kinuyim,

which are

from the Torah, first,

for it is the way of the tanna to begin his words with simple and known matters, and the tanna continued by also stating the law of the yadot of vows, which are like vows.

And afterward,

and afterward, the tanna precedes and

explains

the law of the

yadot,

before he explains the law of the kinuyim, since

the yadot come to him

the yadot

from a derasha.

And the Gemara discusses the stated answer:

This works according to the one who says “

‘kinuyim’,”

are the language of foreigners,

that they are the foreigners’ linguistic corruption of the holy tongue, it is well that we say that the kinuyim are like vows—the law is of Torah status. And since it is a simple law from the Torah, the tanna taught it at the beginning of the Mishna. But when he comes to explain, he preceded by explaining the law of the yadot, which is learned from a derasha and is not explicit in the Torah.

But according to the one who says

the kinuyim are

a language

newly devised,

which they invented,

which they innovated and instituted

for them, the Sages,

for those who make vows,

so that

a person

makes a vow with it

]in the language of a substitute name, and not in the actual language, and for the reason that will be explained below], then according to them the kinuy is not a simple matter of Torah status; rather, it is even more novel than the yadot, for the yadot are learned from a derasha, whereas the kinuyim are a rabbinic enactment [which, after their enactment, is effective by Torah law]—

what is there to say?

That is to say, the question returns: why does the tanna not first explain the matter of the kinuyim, with which he opened the Mishna, before he explains the matter of the yadot of vows?

And the Gemara answers: the version of our Mishna is not complete.

For

does it indeed teach “yadot”

in the version of the Mishna before us?

And is it not so

and have we not

made it deficient?

For we emended the wording of the Mishna in its latter clause and added words to it.

If so, let us make another change in the wording of the Mishna, also in its first clause—

I shall also precede it, and teach “yadot”

at the beginning of the Mishna, and thus we shall teach our Mishna—

a.

All yadot of vows—

are like vows.

b.

And all kinuyim of vows—

are like vows.

And 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.

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

and

the matter of “

yadot”—

where is it written?

From where is it learned from the Torah?

For it is written in the section of the nazirite, in the Book of Numbers [chapter 6]: “

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

And it was taught:

the way of Scripture is to precede the “source” to the “name of the action,” as in “to prohibit a prohibition.”

But here Scripture changed from its usual wording, and preceded the name of the action to the source, and said “

a nazirite, to consecrate”

instead of saying “to consecrate a nazirite” [and as it indeed stated at first, “to vow a vow”].

And we learn from the change of wording that Scripture came to teach—

to make the yadot of naziriteship—

like naziriteship.

I have only [this] with regard to naziriteship—

from where [do we know it] with regard to vows,

that with them too, the yadot of vows are like vows?

The verse says: “

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

It compares

this verse

naziriteship to vows, and vows to naziriteship.

And we learn three things from this comparison: a.

Just as,

just as in

naziriteship he made in it

the verse

the yadot of naziriteship like naziriteship—

so too, vows, he made in them

the verse

the yadot of vows like vows.

b.

And just as,

just as in

vows one transgresses “

he shall not profane

his word,” if he prohibited a thing to himself and ate it,

and “

he shall not delay

fulfilling it,” if he vowed to bring an offering and did not bring it within three festivals—

so too, in naziriteship one transgresses “he shall not profane”

his vow

and “he shall not delay”

fulfilling it, as will be explained below.

c.

And just as,

just as in

vows, the father annuls the vows of his daughter and the husband annuls the vows of his wife—

so too, in naziriteship, the father annuls the naziriteship of his daughter and the husband annuls the naziriteship of his wife.

And we inquire about it:

what is different with regard to naziriteship,

why specifically with regard to naziriteship must we derive from the verse that the yadot of naziriteship are like naziriteship, since

it is written

in naziriteship a change of wording: “

a nazirite, to consecrate”?

For regarding

vows as well,

it is possible to derive that the yadot of vows are like vows from the change of wording stated in the section of vows—for

it is written “

to vow a vow.”

And

if so,

the comparison—

why do I need it?

And we answer:

if it had written “

a vow, to vow”

as it wrote “

a nazirite, to consecrate,”

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

as you say, and indeed

therefore

it would not

have been

necessary to have the comparison

of vows to naziriteship in order to know that the yadot of vows are like vows.

But

now,

now

that it is written “

to vow a vow,”

we have no possibility of deriving from this repetition of wording, since

the Torah speaks in the language of human beings,

and this is the manner in which human beings speak. Therefore, the repetition of wording in the words of the verse does not constitute a source from which to derive a derasha.

But we still inquire about it:

this works according to the one who holds “

the Torah speaks in the language of human beings,”

and no derasha is to be derived from such language; it is well that we needed to learn the law of yadot in vows from the comparison of vows to the nazirite.

But according to the one who does not hold “

the Torah speaks in the language of human beings,”

but from every repetition of wording in the verse one may derive a derasha from it,

this “

to vow a vow”—

what does he do with it?

For what purpose was this repetition of wording stated, since it is possible to learn the law that the yadot of vows are like vows from the comparison of vows to naziriteship—!?

And we answer: indeed, this one who says so

derives it

from the repetition of the wording “to vow a vow”

to make the yadot of vows like vows.

And he compares naziriteship to vows

in order to learn that with naziriteship too we say, “the yadot of naziriteship are like naziriteship.”

Whereas the repetition of wording stated with regard to naziriteship, “

a nazirite, to consecrate”—

he derives it

as follows: