## Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim Chapter 1 ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:1) **משנה:** כָּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וַחֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים וּשְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְׁבוּעוֹת וּנְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּדָּר אֲנִי מִמָּךְ מוּפְרָשׁ אֲנִי מִמָּךְ מְרוּחָק אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ אָסוּר. מְנוּדֶּה אֲנִי לָךְ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הָיָה חוֹכֵךְ בָּזֶה לְהַחֲמִיר. כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. כְּנִדְרֵי כְשֵׁירִים לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. כְּנִדְבוֹתָם נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** All substitute names¹ and its substitute, as given in Mishnah 2. of vows² 1:6) “speaking to Higher Powers is like delivering to a human”; i. e., a promise to God is as final as delivering the merchandise in a commercial transaction. Therefore, these vows are only a minor topic in the present tractate. A person may make a vow to become a *nazir* for a certain time; then he is required to abstain from grapes and grape products as well as from becoming impure by the impurity of the dead, and he must let his hair grow. This kind of vow is discussed in Tractate *Nazir.* The main topic of Tractate *Nedarim* is “any vow or oath of prohibition to deprive oneself” (*Num.* 30:14), i. e., a vow in which a person for any reason prohibits to himself things which otherwise are permitted. One may also make a vow to forbid certain actions to oneself but the actions must be forbidden as things are forbidden. (Self-flagellation is forbidden in Judaism since inflicting any wound on oneself is forbidden except for medical purposes, Mishnah *Baba qama* 8:5.) Since an animal which was dedicated as a sacrifice is forbidden for any profane use, it became general practice to say about anything of which one wanted to prohibit all use for himself “this is *qorbān* for me”, or simply *qorbān* “sacrifice”. Therefore, if in *Math.* 15:5 it is noted that a son can say to his parents that all he possesses should be *qorbān* for them; on the surface it is the height of mistreatment of the parents if the son prohibits them any use whatsoever of his property and even prohibits himself to help his parents in any way. The rabbinic answer would be that if the son goes off to fight as a guerilla against the Romans, or the Herodian government, cutting off all ties might save his parents’ property from confiscation. (Cf. *Peah* 1:1, Note 113, about the unpredictability of the duty to honor father and mother: “Somebody might serve his father fattened meat and go to hell; another might bind his father to the grindstone and go to paradise.”) The vow could also be in error, cf. Mishnah 3:2. Chapter 4 shows that a person forbidding his property to another can nevertheless take care of that other person. Cf. also Chapter 9, Note 38. {In *Math.* 15:5, Jesus complains that Pharisees declare a person free from prosecution (פָּטוּר) if he violates the commandment to honor and fear father and mother by maliciously forbidding his property to them. The pharisaic rule in question is that “a prohibition violated without an action is not prosecutable” (Babli *Sanhedrin* 63a/b). Speech is not counted as an action in this respect. The rule is opposed by R. Jehudah who in many cases represents older traditions (from his father’s teacher R. Eliezer.) The testimony of *Math*. shows that in this case, the majority opinion is the historic position. R. Jehudah’s position is that of the Qumran community in the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document.} are like vows, of bans³. 27:28. like bans, of oaths⁴ like oaths, of *nazir vows*⁵. 6:1–21. like *nazir* vows. If one says to another, I am vowed away from you⁶, I am separated from you, I am distanced from you, that I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours, he is forbidden⁷. I am excommunicated from you, Rabbi Aqiba was stringent in that because of a doubt⁸. As vows of the wicked, he vowed as *nazir,* a sacrifice, and an oath⁹ prohibits vines and all their products for himself and he needs atonement for his status (*Num*. 6:11) one concludes (*Nedarim* 1:1, 36d 1. 50; Babli 10a) that it is essentially sinful to deprive oneself from permitted enjoyments. It follows that just people do not make vows of deprivation or *nezirut*. They also do not make vows of sacrifices since such a vow implies that the person will be financially responsible until a correct sacrifice has been presented in the Temple. Responsible people offer free-will gifts in which they designate an animal as sacrifice; if anything should happen to that animal before it is sacrificed he is not obligated to offer a replacement. Since the wicked do make vows and swear, any expression of vow or oath declared to be in the form used by the wicked has to be interpreted to imply a maximum obligation. Still, somebody who simply says that he makes a vow of the wicked is not obligated for anything unless some object on which the vow could fall was before him at that moment. For example, if a loaf of bread was before him and he said, this loaf is for me as a vow of the wicked, he is forbidden to eat that loaf. If a long-haired *nazir* was passing before him and he said, that is for me as a vow of the wicked, he is a *nazir* for the standard period of 30 days.. As vows of the good ones, he did not say anything¹⁰. As their freewill gifts¹¹ and therefore forbidden for all usufruct. Similarly, if a long-haired *nazir* was passing before him and he said, that is for me as a free-will gift of the just, he is a *nazir* for the standard period of 30 days., he made a vow of *nazir* and sacrifice. footnotes: ¹ Since vows and oaths are sacral acts, the invocation of vow or oath is automatically the invocation of God’s Name. Just as God’s Name should not be invoked in vain, the people shied away from using the expressions “vow, making a vow” or “oath, swearing”. As explained in the next Note, one of the oblique references to a vow was the word qorbān ² Making a vow is taking on an obligation. There are three kinds of vows found in talmudic literature.A person may vow to bring a sacrifice or to give a certain sum to the Temple. This is a relatively simple matter since (Mishnah Qiddšin ³ “Ban” is the irrevocable gift of property to the Temple, Lev ⁴ An oath is subject-related, in contrast to a vow which is object-related. If a person prohibits himself to eat any bread, that is an oath of deprivation. If he prohibits the use of a specified loaf, or even any loaf, on himself, that is a vow of deprivation. ⁵ While this is also a vow of deprivation it follows its own rules, Num ⁶ Here starts the detailed explanation of what substitute names are. All expressions in this sentence are examples of נדר הנאה “a vow [to forbid] usufruct”, in which A tells B that all of B’s property is forbidden to A as if it were a sacrifice or sacred property and A’s property to B.. ⁷ All of B’s property, not only his food. ⁸ R. Aqiba decided that, while the exact meaning of “excommunicated” in this context is unknown since the use of a judicial term by a private person is inappropriate, the most extensive interpretation must be adopted. ⁹ This sentence is very elliptic. Since the nazir ¹⁰ Since good people do not make vows nor do they swear. ¹¹ If somebody said, this loaf of bread is to me as a free-will gift of a just person, he means that for him it is qorbān ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:2) **הלכה:** כָּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים כול׳. כְּתִיב אִישׁ כִּי יִדּוֹר. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר נֶדֶר. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים. אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁבוּעָה. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. אַךְ כָּל חֶרֶם. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יַחֲרִים. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי חֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים. נֶדֶר נָזִיר. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְהַזִּיר. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְאָמַר. לְשׁוֹנוֹת רִיבּוּיִין הֵן. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר. לְשׁוֹנוֹת כְּפוּלִין הֵן וְהַתּוֹרָה דִיבְּרָה כְדַרְכָּהּ. הָלוֹךְ הָלַכְתָּ. נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּ. גָּונֹב גּוּנַּבְתִי. מְנָלָן. אִישׁ כִּי יִדּוֹר נֶדֶר לַיי אוֹ הִשָׁבַע שְׁבוּעָה לֶאֱסוֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא יָחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כְּכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כִּשְׁבוּעָה. וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁכִּינּוּי חֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כִּינּוּי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כַּשְּׁבוּעָה. אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן כִּינּוּי חֲרָמִין כַּחֲרָמִין. וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כִּינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כַּשְּׁבוּעָה אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן כִּינּוּי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written¹² 30:3. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,¹³ 27:28.” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of *nazir*¹⁴ 6:2.”, why does the verse say “to be a *nazir*”? From here that substitute names of *nazir* vows are like *nazir* vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. ¹⁵ 8:1, Note 72, Babli *Avodah zarah* 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in *Gen*. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “¹² 30:3. Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁶. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”¹⁷ “equal cut”. If it was established in *Num*. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in *Lev*. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a *nazir* are like being a *nazir*? “A vow, a vow”¹⁸, but this time the reference quote is *Num*. 6:2, cf. Note 14.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁹, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a *nazir* are like being a *nazir*. footnotes: ¹² Num. ¹³ Lev. ¹⁴ Num. ¹⁵ Cf. Yebamot ¹² Num. ¹⁶ The second half of the verse is clearly written for emphasis. It implies (a) that a vow is valid only if pronounced, not if only thought of and (b) that any speech which can be interpreted as a vow is a vow.The Babli, 3a/b, quotes both the argument in the style of R. Aqiba and that of R. Ismael without mentioning any names. ¹⁷ This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule of gezerah šawah ¹⁸ Again this is an application of gezerah šawah ¹⁹ This reference is odd since the argument is about vows, not oaths. One has to assume that the scribe left out the relevant portion of the sentence which should be identical to the one used in the preceding case. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:3) מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְּכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה. מִיכָּן לְנֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטֵל מִקְצָתוֹ בָּטַל כּוּלּוֹ. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כֵּן. כּוּלָּהּ מִן תַּמָּן. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן לְנֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטֵל מִקְצָתוֹ בָּטַל כּוּלּוֹ. מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר. מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם קוֹבֵעַ עָלָיו נְזִירוּת בְּתוֹךְ נְזִירוּתוֹ. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כֵּן. אִית לֵיהּ כּוּלָּהּ מִתַּמָּן. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם קוֹבֵעַ עָלָיו נְזִירוּת בְּתוֹךְ נְזִירוּתוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”²⁰? From here that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. Does Rebbi Ismael not agree with this? Everything derives from there. It follows from there that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths²¹ are like oaths and it follows from there that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. How does Rebbi Ismael explain “any person who vows a vow of *nazir*¹⁴ 6:2.”? From there that a person can obligate himself as *nazir* while he currently is a *nazir*²² is always limited in time (when a Temple is in existence. Since a *nazir* is only permitted to drink wine after he has absolved the required Temple ritual, a person vowing to be a *nazir* today must remain in that state until the Temple is rebuilt and officiating Cohanim are found who have complete documentary proof of their priestly status going back to the priests officiating in the second Temple.) The prophetic state of *nazir*, as exemplified by Simson and Samuel, is unlimited but does not include a prohibition of the impurity of the dead. It is noted here that while a person is in the state of a *nazir* for a fixed period, he can undertake to be a *nazir* for an additional period, to begin after the Temple procedure for the current *nezirut* was performed. This statement is needed since the vow of *nazir* of an unincumbered person makes that person a *nazir* immediately upon pronouncing his vow.. Does Rebbi Aqiba not agree with this? He agrees and everything derives from there²³. He agrees that from there a person can obligate himself as *nazir* while he currently is a *nazir*. footnotes: ²⁰ If a vow cannot be fulfilled completely, it is not a vow. ²¹ That conclusion could have been drawn even if the word כל “all, anything” were not written. Therefore, the clause admits two conclusions independent of one another. ¹⁴ Num. ²² The pentateuchal state of nazir ²³ The same verse. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:4) וַהֲלֹא הָעֲרָכִין וְהַחֲרָמִין וְהַתְּמוּרוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת בַּפָּרָשָׁה הָיוּ. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן. כִּינּוּי עֲרָכִין וְכִינּוּי תְמוּרוֹת וְהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. וְאִילּוּ תַנִּינָן מַה הֲוִינָן מִיתְנֵי. עֲרָפִין עֲרָצִין עֲרָקִין. תְּמוּפָה תְּמֻרְנָה תְּמוּקָה. הֶגְדֵּר הֶגְזֵר הֶגְרֵם. נִיחָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר סְתָם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. בְּרַם כְּמַאן דָּמַר. סְתָם חֲרָמִים לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן כִּינּוּי תְרוּמָה. וְאִילּן תַנִּינָן מַה הֲוִינָן מִיתְנֵי. תְּרוּפָה תְּרוּצָה תְּרוּקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Now estimates²⁶. 27:1–8, which in general is a fixed sum but becomes an estimate for poor persons., bans, exchanges²⁷. 27:9–10., and dedications²⁸. 27:11–25. were in the same paragraph²⁹. 27, where bans are treated in v. 28. Why should bans be treated differently from all other categories of gifts?, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state³⁰ vows, and oaths are listed in Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? ‘*Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin*³¹? *Temupha, temuna*³², *temuqa*? *Hegder, hegzer, hegres*³³ was close to that of Arabic ق.. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple³⁴ 8:6), the collection of the gift is a money transaction between Cohanim and the giver, subject to the rule that “the proof is on the claimant” (*Sanhedrin* 3:9, 21b 1. 70; Babli *Baba qama* 46b). The Cohanim would have to prove that the putative giver in his use of the substitute words really did intend to refer to bans. This proof seems almost impossible. Therefore, substitute bans could not be like bans and the Mishnah here must be interpreted as supporting the opinion that unspecified bans are for the Temple.. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state³⁰ vows, and oaths are listed in Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? *Terupha*³⁵, *teruṣa, teruqa*? footnotes: ²⁶ A person who offers to pay to the Temple the monetary value of his person, Lev ²⁷ Exchanging a dedicated animal for another, Lev ²⁸ Giving non-sacrificial animals or any other valuables to the Temple to cover its expenses, Lev ²⁹ Lev ³⁰ Recognized substitutes for vows, bans, nazir ³¹ “Disappearances”. ³² “Picture”. ³³ The substitution of גּ for ק in this series shows that the pronunciation of q ³⁴ If bans are gifts to the Temple they are gifts to God and, as stated in Note 2, they become absolute the moment the intention to give is declared. Therefore, substitute names which are in common use are as effective as the explicit mention of the word “ban”. But if an unspecified ban is intended for Cohanim (the majority opinion in Mishnah ‘Arakhin ³⁰ Recognized substitutes for vows, bans, nazir ³⁵ “Medicine”. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:5) רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לוֹקִין עַל הָאִיסָּרוֹת. וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. אֵין לוֹקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶת רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר. אֵין לוֹקִין עַל הָאִיסָּרוֹת. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הַמּוּדָר הַנָּיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִכְנַס לְבַקְּרוֹ. לֹא יִכָּנֵס. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא תַמָּן מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אִם מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם אֲפִילוּ בִשְׁבוּעוֹת יְהֵא מוּתָּר. וְתַנִּינָן. נְדָרִים אָסִיר וּשְׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar disagree, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, one whips for prohibitions³⁶. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In *Nazir* 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in *Nazir* would remain unexplained.) and Rebbi Eleazar said, one does not whip³⁶. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In *Nazir* 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in *Nazir* would remain unexplained.). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: According to you, who says one does not whip on prohibitions, did we not state³⁷: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him,” let him not enter³⁸! Rebbi Jeremiah said, there is a difference there because of the ways of peace³⁹. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is because of the ways of peace, should he not also be permitted in case of an oath? But we have stated⁴⁰, that I will not wear phylacteries: vows are forbidden, oaths permitted, for one cannot swear to break religious obligations.” If somebody makes a vow that religious objects should be forbidden to him (as if they were dedicated sacrifices), he commits a twofold sin in making a frivolous vow and breaking biblical commandments, but what he did is done. But if he swears that he will not fulfill his religious obligations, the oath is invalid since, in the language of the Babli, “he already is under oath from Mount Sinai”, and a valid oath cannot be superseded by another oath. Since visiting the sick is a religious obligation, if the prohibition of usufruct is interpreted as an oath it should be nonexistent in the case of a visit to a sick person. No answer is given since practice follows R. Joḥanan.: “Vows are forbidden, oaths permitted.” footnotes: ³⁶ Somebody forbade something for himself without using the language either of vows or of oaths or any of the recognized substitute expressions. If he then breaks his own prohibition this falls under the biblical prohibition of “he shall not profane his word” (Num ³⁶ Somebody forbade something for himself without using the language either of vows or of oaths or any of the recognized substitute expressions. If he then breaks his own prohibition this falls under the biblical prohibition of “he shall not profane his word” (Num ³⁷ Mishnah 4:4: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him (when he is sick), he may stand but not sit down and heal him (but not his animals).” He cannot sit down because he would derive usufruct from the other’s possessions. The question makes sense only if R. Eleazar holds that transgressing the prohibition is prosecutable. ³⁸ If transgressing a private prohibition is not prosecutable, one can explain the Mishnah as referring to a prohibition of usufruct, not a formal vow or oath. But if it is prosecutable as a formal vow, why permit to enter since the person entering will find shelter there from the sun in summer and the rain in winter? ³⁹ “Ways of peace” are the obligations of interpersonal relationships necessary in a civilized society; in this case, visiting the sick. ⁴⁰ Mishnah 2:2: “A vow that I shall not build a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:6) אֵי זֶהוּ אִיסָּר. כִּכָּר זֶה עָלַי כַיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ אַבָּא. כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ פְּלוֹנִי. כַּיּוֹם שֶׁרָאִיתִי יְרוּשָׁלֵם חֲרֵיבָה. זֶהוּ אִיסָּר שֶׁאָמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַב. תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא נָדוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אִם בִּשֶׁיְּהֵא נָדוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם לָמָּה לִי אִיסָּר. וְיֹמַר. בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁴¹ 20a.“What is a prohibition? This loaf is for me as the day of my father’s death⁴², as the day X was killed⁴³. 25:25, *Jer*. 41:2), which is a fast day by tradition, not by law, and which therefore needs a declaration to be a binding obligation. (In practice, fasting three consecutive years on a particular date creates the equivalent of a vow to fast.), as the day I saw Jerusalem in ruins; that is the prohibition the Torah spoke of⁴⁴. 30:3). “If in her husband’s house she vowed, or forbade a prohibition on herself by an oath.” (*Num*. 30:11). Since the prohibition can refer both to a vow (tied to a material object that can be vowed to sacrificial use) and an oath (not tied to any object), it creates a category by itself..” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav: Both say, only if he had made a vow about that day⁴⁵ make a vow that food on the anniversary of his father’s death should be forbidden to him like a dedicated sacrifice or had sworn to the same effect, the reference to that day has no effect. In the Babli, the person quoted is Samuel.. Rebbi Yose asked: If only he had made a vow about that day, why a separate prohibition? He should say on that day⁴⁶! footnotes: ⁴¹ A similar text in Tosephta 1:4, quoted in Babli 12a, 14a; Šebuot ⁴² If he keeps the anniversary of his father’s death as a private fast day. In the Babli sources (including the Tosephta) the reference is not to a loaf but to meat and wine, assuming the person had vowed not to eat meat and drink wine at the anniversary of his father’s death. ⁴³ In the Babli: As the day Gedaliah ben Aḥiqam was killed (2K ⁴⁴ “A person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition to deprive oneself” (Num ⁴⁵ If the person did not earlier ⁴⁶ Since the status of a prohibition is in doubt as to whether it is a vow or an oath (Note 44), the reference given will determine its status. If the person fasts in consequence of a vow, the additional prohibition is a vow; if it refers to an oath, it is an oath. In no case is a separate category created. The only case in which one could speak of a separate category is if the additional prohibition is made together with the original one while the status is still undefined. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:7) אִיסָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. מִבְטָא זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. אִיסָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. חַיָיב עַל כָּל אִיסָּר וְאִיסָּר וְעַל כָּל שְׁבוּעָה וּשְׁבוּעָה. אִם אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אִסָּר מִין שְׁבוּעָה. חַיָיב עַל זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אִסָּר זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. וְתֹמַר. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. תְּרֵין תַּנָּיִין אִינּוּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. חַד תַּנַּיי הוּא. אֲמָרוֹ בִלְשׁוֹן נֵדֶר אַתְּ תּוֹפְסוֹ בִלְשׁוֹן נֵדֶר. אֲמָרוֹ בִלְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה אַתְּ תּוֹפְסוֹ בִלְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה. אָסַר הֲרֵי הוּא עַל יָדִי. אם תּוֹפְסוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן נֶדֶר. אִסָּר וְאֵינִי טוֹעֲמוֹ. אם תּוֹפְסוֹ בִּמְקוֹם שְׁבוּעָה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. אִסָּר מִין שְׁבוּעָה. חַיָיב עַל כָּל אִיסָּר וְאִיסָּר וְעַל כָּל שְׁבוּעָה וּשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לָא אַתְיָיא אֶלָּא בַחֲמִשָּׁה כִּכָּרִין. אֲבָל בְּכִכָּר אֶחָד מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִזְכִּיר עָלָיו שְׁבוּעָה עֲשָׂאוֹ כִנְבֵילָה. מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ בִּמְיַיחֵל שְׁבוּעוֹת עַל הָאִיסָּרִין וְאֵין שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל הָאִסָּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. אֲפִילוּ בְכִכָּר אֶחָד אַתְיָיא הִיא. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. זֶה חוֹמֶר לְשֶׁעָבַר מִלָּבֹא. שֶׁאִם אָמַר. לֹא אָכַלְתִּי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי. חָב עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. לֹא אוֹכֵל לֹא אוֹכֵל. אֵינוֹ חָב אֶלֵּא אַחַת. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. אֵין אִסָּר מִין שְׁבוּעָה. חָב עַל זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. וְהוּא שֶׁהִזְכִּיר נֶדֶר וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה. אֲבָל אִם הִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִזְכִּיר נֶדֶר נְדָרִין חָלִין עַל הָאִיסָּרִין וְאֵין שְׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל הָאִיסָּרִין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁴⁸ similar to this one is quoted and explained in the Babli *Šebuot* 20a.“ ‘Prohibition’, is an oath. ‘Expression’⁴⁹ 30:4: “If she be married to a man and her vows are on her or the expression of her lips which she forbade on herself.” Since “expression” is opposed to “vows”, it must refer to oaths. Similarly, “to express with one’s lips” is used for “to swear an oath” in *Lev.* 5:4; cf. *Šebuot* 20a., is an oath. If you say prohibition is an oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. If you say prohibition is⁵⁰ a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.” “Prohibition is an oath”, and you say “if you say so”?⁵¹ Rebbi Eleazar said, these are two Tannaїm⁵². Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is from one Tanna⁵³ as one would reasonably expect, is from one author. But the implicit verb in the first two sentences should not be read as “is” but as “may be”.. If he said it in the language of a vow⁵⁴ you catch him in the language of a vow. If he said it in the language of an oath⁵⁵ you catch him in the language of an oath. If you say, prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath⁵⁶ 5:1–13.. Rebbi Yose said, this comes only for five loaves⁵⁷. But for a single loaf, from the moment he mentioned “oath” for it, he made it a cadaver⁵⁸. Furthermore, he may want to have oaths apply to prohibited items, but oaths cannot apply to prohibitited items⁴⁰, that I will not wear phylacteries: vows are forbidden, oaths permitted, for one cannot swear to break religious obligations.” If somebody makes a vow that religious objects should be forbidden to him (as if they were dedicated sacrifices), he commits a twofold sin in making a frivolous vow and breaking biblical commandments, but what he did is done. But if he swears that he will not fulfill his religious obligations, the oath is invalid since, in the language of the Babli, “he already is under oath from Mount Sinai”, and a valid oath cannot be superseded by another oath. Since visiting the sick is a religious obligation, if the prohibition of usufruct is interpreted as an oath it should be nonexistent in the case of a visit to a sick person. No answer is given since practice follows R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it applies even to a single loaf. As we have stated⁵⁹ 2:4, referred to in Babli *Šebuot* 28b., “in that the past is more stringent than the future, if he said I did not eat, I did not eat, he is guilty for every statement⁶⁰; I shall not eat, I shall not eat, he is guilty only once⁶¹.” Rebbi Yudan said⁶² a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.”, only if he first mentioned “vow” and then mentioned “oath”. But if he mentioned oath and then vow, vows can apply to prohibitions but oaths cannot apply to prohibitions⁶³ to add the prohibition of sacrilege to the prohibition of eating. But if he first declared the loaf to be *qorbān,* it is automatically forbidden to him and no oath can increase the degree of prohibition. Therefore, the oath following the vow is a futile oath.. footnotes: ⁴⁸ A baraita ⁴⁹ Num. ⁵⁰ It seems that “not” has fallen out here. The two cases will be explained below. ⁵¹ First one states that ‘prohibition’ is an expression of an oath. Then one argues ‘if it is an oath’, ‘if it is not an oath’. This contradicts the first statement. ⁵² The first two sentences have one author, the last two a different one. ⁵³ The baraita, ⁵⁴ That he forbids the object for himself. ⁵⁵ That he forbids himself the use of the object. Since “prohibition” is applied to both vows and oaths, the meaning of the word is determined by the syntax of the sentence in which it is used; cf. Note 4. ⁵⁶ Violating a vow is a prohibition which, if proved in court by two witnesses, might subject the perpetrator to punishment by whipping. Even if the violation was inadvertent, there never is a possibility of a sacrifice. But inadvertently violating an oath imposes on the perpetrator the duty to offer a reparation or a purification offering in the Temple, Lev. ⁵⁷ Multiple guilt (multiple sacrifices) are possible only for multiple objects of prohibitions, not for repeated prohibitions of the same object. ⁵⁸ If somebody made an oath to the effect that he would not eat a certain food, that food is forbidden to him as if it were cadaver meat, forbidden to any Jew. ⁴⁰ Mishnah 2:2: “A vow that I shall not build a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab ⁵⁹ Tosephta Šebuot ⁶⁰ If he swore falsely that he had not eaten, he committed the sin of a false oath. Since that oath does not forbid anything, each statement stands on its own and subjects him to the punishment for swearing falsely. ⁶¹ The first oath established the prohibition; the following oaths are futile, forbidden in the Third Commandment, but not triggering any obligation of sacrifice. ⁶² He explains the prior statement “If you say prohibition is not ⁶³ Since vows are subject related, if he forbade himself the use of a loaf, he may later declare the loaf to have the status of qorbān, ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:8) רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פָתַר לֶאְסוֹר אִסָּר. הֲרֵי הוּא עָלַי. אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלָיו אִסָּר. אָסוּר. שְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי הוּא עָלַי. אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלָיו בִּשְׁבוּעָה. אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. בִּנְדָרִים אָסוּר וּבִשְׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר. אִסָּר הֲרֵי עָלַי. אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלָיו אִסָּר. אָסוּר. שְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי עָלַי. אָסוּר. הֲרֵי שְׁבוּעָה עָלַי. מוּתָּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yose explained “to forbid”⁶⁴ 30:3, “to forbid a prohibition to himself”, which can be either a vow or an oath.: That should be forbidden to me⁶⁵; there should be a prohibition on it, it is forbidden⁶⁶. An oath is on me, it is forbidden, there should be an oath on it, it is forbidden⁶⁷ to introduce the vow.. Rebbi Yudan said, in vows it is forbidden, in oaths it is permitted⁶⁸. There is a prohibition on me, it is forbidden. There is a prohibition on it, it is forbidden. An oath is there on me, it is forbidden. There is an oath on (me) [it]⁶⁹ is permitted⁷⁰. footnotes: ⁶⁴ Num. ⁶⁵ Even though no oath formula was mentioned, this is an oath since it is person-related. ⁶⁶ Even though no vow was mentioned, this is a vow since it is object-related. ⁶⁷ The only problem is in the last statement, since an oath cannot be binding on a thing. R. Yose holds that an oath formula, used when a vow formula would have been appropriate, induces a vow since it cannot induce a valid oath. In the language of the Talmudim, the oath formula is a handle ⁶⁸ He holds that an oath formula applied to a thing is ineffective; it is as if it had not been said. This paragraph is discussed at length in the Commentary of R. Nissim Gerondi on the Babli, 2b. ⁶⁹ It seems that it must be read עליו instead of עליin order to make sense. ⁷⁰ An oath directed to a thing is void and has no consequences. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:9) מוּדָּר אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין זֶה בַזֶּה. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. וַאֲנָא מִינָּךְ. אָמַר. הַכִּכָּר הַזֶּה נָדוּר מִמֶּנִּי וַאֲנָא מִינָּהּ. הֲרֵינִי נָדוּר מִכִּכָּר זֶה וְהוּא מִמֶּנִּי. הִיא הִימָּךְ הִיא מִמָּךְ. אָמַר. הִיא הֲרֵי אֲנִי לָךְ הִיא הֲרֵי אֲנִי עָלַיִךְ. הִיא הֲרֵי אַתְּ לִי הִיא הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי. תַּנֵּי. כָּלוּי אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. פָּרוּשׁ אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן נָטוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְתַנִּיתָהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ וּנְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הְיְּהוּדִים. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “I am vowed away from you”. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, both of them are mutually forbidden⁶; as if [the other person] had said: and I from you⁷¹. If he said, this loaf is vowed away from me and I from it, or I am vowed away from this loaf and it from me⁷². It does not make any difference whether he said “from me” in Aramaic (מינך) or in Hebrew (מימך), or he said “I am to you [forbidden]” or “I am on you [forbidden]”, “you are to me [forbidden]” or “you are on me [forbidden].”⁷³ ⁷⁴It was stated: “I am jailed away from you, I am separated away from you”. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, why did one not state “taken away from”? Rebbi Yose said, that was stated at the end, “I am taken away from the Jews.” footnotes: ⁶ Here starts the detailed explanation of what substitute names are. All expressions in this sentence are examples of נדר הנאה “a vow [to forbid] usufruct”, in which A tells B that all of B’s property is forbidden to A as if it were a sacrifice or sacred property and A’s property to B.. ⁷¹ In the absence of a specific restriction. For example, if A would say to B: I am separated from you, I shall not eat at your place, then the vow falls only on the specific activity indicated. But in absence of such a qualification, a vow of separation is understood to go both ways as indicated in Note 6. The statement of R. Yose ben Ḥanina is quoted in the Babli, 5a. ⁷² While an inanimate object cannot be told anything, as long as the vow is object directed it is a valid vow, irrespective of the language. ⁷³ The Babli disagrees in principle, 5a. ⁷⁴ This is from Halakhah 11:13. The Mishnah, quoted by R. Yose, speaks of a woman who wants to force a divorce by making a vow that sexual relations with any Jew shall be forbidden to her by saying "I am taken away from the Jews." The other expressions mentioned are equivalents of that statement. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:10 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:10) שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. תּוֹפְשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֵּׁם יַד לְקָרְבָּן. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵי. אִם אָמַר. לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ. תּוֹפְשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֵּׁם יַד לִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּבַר נַשָּׁא מֵימַר. קָנְתָה דְכוּלְכָּה. דִּילְמָא כּוּלְכָּה דְּקָנְתָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “That I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. One catches him because of a handle for *qorbān*⁷⁵ that I shall not eat from yours. Since he used the language of vows, referring to the other person’s food instead of his person, he made it clear that he intended a vow.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath⁷⁶? Rebbi Yose said, people usually say “handle of an axe”, do they ever say “axe of a handle”⁷⁷ 1:2 (51b 1. 28), R. Yose notes that common usage requires the word “oath” to be at the beginning of the sentence, not at the end, to which R. Mattaniah adds the example of the handle of the axe to show that (in rabbinic Hebrew) word order counts. The translation of כולכה (in the parallel כולבא) as “axe” follows J. Levy’s Dictionary.? footnotes: ⁷⁵ Even if he did not spell out: qorbān ⁷⁶ The answer is negative. ⁷⁷ In the parallel, Nazir ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:11 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:11) מְנוּדֶּה אֲנִי לָךְ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הָיָה חוֹכֵךְ בָּזֶה לְהַחֲמִיר. לוֹסַר אֶת כָּל נְכָסָיו. כְּמַה דְאַתֲּ מַר יָחֳרַם כָּל רְכוּשׁוֹ וְהוּא יִבָּדֵל מִקְּהַל הַגּוֹלָה. מַה עָבְדִין לָהּ רַבָּנִן. חוֹמֶר הוּא בְנִידּוּי בֵית דִּין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “I am excommunicated from you, Rabbi Aqiba was stringent in that because of a doubt.” To forbid all his possessions⁸. As you say⁷⁸ 10:8., “all his property should be banned and he should be separated from the community of the diaspora.” What do the rabbis do with this? An excommunication by the court is weightier. footnotes: ⁸ R. Aqiba decided that, while the exact meaning of “excommunicated” in this context is unknown since the use of a judicial term by a private person is inappropriate, the most extensive interpretation must be adopted. ⁷⁸ Ezra ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:12 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:12) כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אוֹ בְנָזִיר אוֹ בְקָרְבָּן אוֹ בִשְׁבוּעָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָה אָמַר. נָזִיר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מָאן דְּבָעֵי מִיפְתּוֹר הָדָא דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא כֵינִי. הָיָה לְפָנָיו אֶשְׁכּוֹל אֶחָד וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁבוּעָה. הֲרֵי עָלָיו שְׁבוּעָה. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי קָרְבָּן. הֲרֵי עָלָיו קָרְבָּן. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁבוּעָה. הֲרֵי עָלָיו שְׁבוּעָה. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עָלַי. לֹא נִמְצָא זֶה נוֹדֵר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “As vows of the wicked, he vowed as *nazir,* a sacrifice, and an oath.” ⁷⁹ Mishnah. However, one should be reluctant to consider this the original text; it might well be Rashba’s reconstruction (it replaces Yerushalmi או by Babli אי and is elliptic elsewhere). But since the text certainly captures the intent of the Yerushalmi, it is presented here with commentary (from edition Brno 1798, reprint New York 1961): שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיא. אִי בְנָזִיר אִי בְקָרְבָּן אִי בִשְׁבוּעָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָה אָמַר. נָדַר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מָאן דְּבָעֵי מִיפְתָּר הָדָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּמִי שֶׁהָיָה לְפָנָיו אֶשְׁכּוֹל אֶחָד וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִמֶּנּוּ. הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. בָּא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְקָרְבָּן. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים. בָּא אַחֵר וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עָלַי. נִמְצָא זֶה נָדוּר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. Samuel said, it is taught about several cases, either about the *nazir*, or a sacrifice, or an oath. Rebbi Ze'ira said, he made a vow in all three of them. Rebbi Abin said, one wants to explain that of Rebbi Ze'ira about a person who has before him a bunch of grapes. A person came and said, I will be a *nazir* from these⁸⁰ cannot be split, he is a *nazir* in all its aspects., he is a *nazir*. Another person came and said, these are for me *qorbän*⁸¹; another person came and said, they are for me like vows of the wicked⁸². Another person came and said, what these three said is on me; it turned out that this one vowed for *nazir*, *qorbän*, and oath. Samuel said, the Mishnah speaks about several cases, either as *nazir,* or a sacrifice, or an oath. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he is a *nazir* in all three of them. Rebbi Abin said, if somebody wants to explain that of Rebbi Ze‘ira, it is such: There was before him a bunch of grapes and another person came and said, there is an oath on me, then there is an oath on him. Another person came and said, that is *qorbān* for me, it is *qorbān* for him. Another person came and said, there is an oath on me, then there is an oath on him. Another person came and said, what these three said is on me, does it not turn out that this one is obligated for *qorbān* and oath? footnotes: ⁷⁹ This text is obviously corrupt. A consistent text is quoted by Rashba [R. Shelomo ibn Adrat, Barcelona (d. 1310)] in his Novellae to the Babli, 9a, s. v. ⁸⁰ He makes a vow by referring to the bunch of grapes which will be forbidden to him. But since the status of nazir ⁸¹ That bunch of grapes is forbidden to him as if it were a dedicated sacrifice. ⁸² As the Mishnah said, since the “wicked” are impulsive people who swear on every occasion, he is considered not only to have vowed but also to have sworn that he will not eat the grapes. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:13 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:13) תַּנֵּי. וּכְנִדְבוֹתָם. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהָרְשָׁעִים מִתְנַדְּבִין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב אֵין זֶה רָשָׁע. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן. טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדּוֹר מִשְׁתִּדּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם. טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה שֶׁלֹּא תִדּוֹר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדּוֹר מִשְׁתִּדּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם. טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה נוֹדֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר נִדְרוּ וְשַׁלְּמוּ לֵאלֹהֵיכֶם. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה עַל נְדָבָה. מֵבִיא כִשְׂבָּתוֹ לָעֲזָרָה וְאוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹלָה. רִבִּי אָבִין אָמַר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה פָתַח. אִילּוּ הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַנּוֹדֵר נִקְרָא רָשָׁע נוֹדֵר הָיִיתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. מוֹקֵשׁ אָדָם יָלַע קוֹדֶשׁ וְאַחַר נְדָרִים לְבַקֵּר. הִתְחִיל לִנְדּוֹר פִּינַקְסָתוֹ נִפְתַּחַת. דָּבָר אַחֵר. מוֹקֵשׁ אָדָם יָלַע קוֹדֶשׁ וְאַחַר נְדָרִים לְבַקֵּר. אִיחוּר נְדָרִים. אִיחֵר אָדָם אֶת נִדְרוֹ פִּינַקְסוֹ נִפְתַּחַת. מִעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה. וְשָׁהָא לַהֲבִיאָהּ וְשָׁקְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ בַיָּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated⁸²: “As to their free-will offerings, he did not say anything.” Does that mean that the wicked give free-will offerings⁸³? Since he gave a free-will offering, he is not wicked. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah⁸⁴ 5:4. In all parallel sources, the attributions are switched between R. Jehudah and R. Meїr *[Eccl. rabba*5(2) a Yerushalmi source; Babli *Nedarim* 9a, *Ḥulin* 2a, Tosephta *Ḥulin*2:17]. *Eccl. rabba* 5(2) is a shortened parallel to the entire paragraph. There, and in *Lev. rabba* 16(5), the next verse, “do not let your mouth make your flesh sin” is referred to people who pledge money for charity but do not redeem their pledges.: “It is better that you should not make a vow than that you make a vow but do not pay,” better in any case is that you should not make a vow at all. Rebbi Meїr says, “it is better that you should not make a vow than that you make a vow but do not pay,” better in any case is that you should make a vow and pay. And so it says⁸⁵ 76:12., “make vows and pay to your God.” How does one handle a free-will offering? He brings his sheep to the Temple courtyard and says, that one is an elevation offering⁸⁶. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah⁸⁷ 20:25, and is rejected in practice. used to open a door⁸⁸ 30, and in their stead one ordained rabbi or a court of three lay people, can free a person from the obligations of his vow. But such a ruling depends on the person making the vow repenting it. An argument which induces such repentance is called “door of regret”, פֶּתַח חֲרָטָה, or simply “door”.: If you had known that one who makes a vow is called wicked, would you have vowed? Rebbi Yannai said, “it is a trap for a human to call ‘sanctified’ and afterwards to check out the vows,⁸⁹ 20:25.” if one started to make vows, his account book⁹⁰ Chapter 9, Note 220. is opened. Another explanation: “it is a trap for a human to call ‘sanctified’ and to be late to check out the vows,” if a person is in arrears with his vows, his account book is opened. It happened to one who said, I undertake to bring an elevation offering and he tarried to bring it. His ship sank at sea⁹¹ 5(2), the man perished in his ship.. footnotes: ⁸² As the Mishnah said, since the “wicked” are impulsive people who swear on every occasion, he is considered not only to have vowed but also to have sworn that he will not eat the grapes. ⁸³ The formulation seems to imply that free-will offerings of the wicked do exist; otherwise how could one speak about them? ⁸⁴ Eccl. ⁸⁵ Ps. ⁸⁶ In this way he is sure to have taken on an open-ended financial obligation. ⁸⁷ In the Babli, 22a, this is attributed to R. Yannai, in connection with his interpretation of Prov. ⁸⁸ This refers to the topic of Chapter Nine. While it is written that the maker of a vow shall not profane his word, it is rabbinic tradition (contested by Samaritans, Karaites, and probably Sadducees) that while he cannot profane his word, the “heads of the tribes” addressed in Num. ⁸⁹ Prov. ⁹⁰ Greek πίναξ, cf. Soṭah ⁹¹ In Eccl. rabba ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:14 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:1:14) כְּנִדְרֵי כְשֵׁירִים לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהַכְּשֵׁירִים נוֹדְרִין. וּמִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּדַר אֵין זֶה כָשֵׁר. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה. חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מִתְאַוִּין לְהָבִיא קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת. לֹא הָיָה הַמָּקוֹם מַסְפִּיק בְּיָדָם חֵט וְהָיוּ נוֹדְרִים בְּנָזִיר בִּשְׁבִיל לְהָבִיא קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. חוֹטְאִים הָיוּ שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹדְרִים בְּנָזִיר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִפֵּר עָלָיו מֵאַשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ. חָטָ זֶה עַל נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁמָּנַע עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן. וָאַתְיָיא דְשִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנֵּי. אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק. מִיָּמַיי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי אָשָׁם נָזִיר אֶלָּא אֶחָד. פַּעַם אָחַת עָלָה אֵלַי אָדָם אֶחָד מִדָּרוֹם. וּרְאִיתִיו אַדְמוֹנִי עִם יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי וּקְווּצוֹתָיו מְסוּדָרוֹת תִּילִים תִּילִים. וְאָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. בְּנִי. מַה רָאִיתָה לְהַשְׁחִית אֶת הַשִּׂיעֵר הַנָּאֶה הַזֶּה. וְנָם לִי. רִבִּי. רוֹעֶה הָיִיתִי בְעִירִי וְהָלַכְתִּי לְמַלְאוֹת אֶת הַשָּׁאוּב מַיִם. וְרָאִיתִי אֶת הַבּוּבִּיָיה שֶׁלִּי בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם וּפָחַז יִצְרִי עָלַי וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְאַבְּדֵינִי מִן הָעוֹלָם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. רָשָׁע. אַתָּה מְפָחֵז בַּדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלָּךְ. עָלַי לְהַקְדִּישָׁךְ לַשָּׁמַיִם. וְהִרְכַּנְתִּיו בְּרֹאשִי וְאָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. בְּנִי. כְּמוֹתָךְ יִרְבּוּ עוֹשֵׂי רְצוֹן הַמָּקוֹם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. עָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַפְלִיא לִנְדּוֹר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַיי. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. לָמָּה לִי כְשִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק אֲפִילוּ כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. לֹא אָכַל שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק חַטָּאת חֵלֶב מִיָּמָיו. לֹא אָכַל שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק חַטָּאת דָּם מִיָּמָיו. סָבַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִיק. בְּנֵי אָדָם מִתּוֹךְ הַקְפָּדָה הֵם נוֹדְרִין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין מִתּוֹךְ הַקְפָּדָה סוֹפוֹ לִתְהוֹת. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא תוֹהֵא נַעֲשׂוּ קָרְבְּנֹתָיו כְּשׁוֹחֵט חוּלִין בָּעֲזָרָה. וְזֶה מִתּוֹךְ יִישׁוּב נָדַר וּפִיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִוין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows⁸³? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. ⁹² The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering⁹³ 1:6, 51c 1. 36., but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of *nazir* in order to be able to bring a purification offering⁹⁴ period; *Num.* 6:14.. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of *nazir,* for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person⁹⁵ 6:11. In *Sifry Num.* 30, R. Ismael points out that this verse is written about the *nazir* who became inadvertently impure in the impurity of the dead, who is in effect a sinner in respect to the dead person. The Babli, 10a, accepts the argument of R. Simeon, which in the Tosephta, 1:1, is in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated⁹⁶ Yerushalmi 1:6, Babli 4b, *Sifry Num.* 22, *Num. rabba*10(20).: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a *nazir* except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves⁹⁷ 17:42) and the friend in the Song of Songs (5:11).. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shephard in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to lose me from the World⁹⁸. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says¹⁴ 6:2., “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of *nazir,* to be a *nazir* for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked⁹⁹: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet¹⁰⁰ 6:19). How can somebody called “the Just” refuse to purify people?? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder¹⁰¹ who has to restart his entire time as *nazir* after his impurity has been repaired. Since the verse repeatedly requires that offerings in the Temple must be brought willingly (*Lev.* 1:3, 22:29), an offering brought unwillingly is of questionable validity.. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison¹⁰². footnotes: ⁸³ The formulation seems to imply that free-will offerings of the wicked do exist; otherwise how could one speak about them? ⁹² Purification offerings cannot be voluntary; they are required either for an inadvertent sin or for purification from a state of impurity. A male who does not sin inadvertently and who does not suffer from an impure sickness has no way to fulfill the commandments relative to the purification offerings. A woman can always bring a purification offering after childbirth. ⁹³ From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Nazir ⁹⁴ One of the 3 prescribed animal sacrifices at the end of the nazir ⁹⁵ Num. ⁹⁶ Babli 9b, Nazir ⁹⁷ A combination of images referring to David (1S. ⁹⁸ He realized how much money he could make as a male prostitute in a hellenized city but that he would lose the World to Come. ¹⁴ Num. ⁹⁹ Babli 9b. ¹⁰⁰ The standard purification offering is for the purification from an inadvertent sin which at least carries a penalty of extirpation by Divine decree, e. g., if somebody ate suet or blood inadvertently. In order to effect the purification, the Cohanim have to eat the sacrificial meat (Lev. ¹⁰¹ They feel that they should not have made the vow. This becomes acute in particular in the case of the reparation offering, which is brought only in case of impurity of the nazir, ¹⁰² Which alone makes the vow unquestionably valid. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:2:1) **משנה:** הָאוֹמֵר קוֹנָם קוֹנָח קוֹנָס הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כִּנּוּיִין לְקָרְבָּן. חֵרֶק חֵרֶךְ חֶרֶף הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כִּנּוּיִין לְחֵרֶם. נָזִיק נָזִיחַ פָּזִיחַ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כִּנּוּיִים לִנְזִירוּת. שְׁבוּתָה שְׁקוּקָה נָדַר בְּמוֹהִי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כִּנּוּיִים לִשְׁבוּעָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody says *qônām*¹⁰³, or *qônāḥ,* or *qônās,* these are substitute names for *qorbān. Ḥēreq, ḥērek, ḥēreph,* these are substitute names for ban. *Nāzîq, nāzîaḥ, pāzîaḥ,* these are substitute names for *nazir. Šĕbûtâ, šĕqûqâ,* or he made a vow of *Moy*¹⁰⁴ (Moses). The connection between Moses and oaths is given later, Note 122. While the difference between vow and oath is important in rabbinic law, people in everyday speech do not make these fine distinctions. If the verb is an expression of making a vow but the noun is “oath”, the entire sentence has to be interpreted as being an oath., these are substitute names for an oath. footnotes: ¹⁰³ “Sacrifice” in Phoenician. The other words have not been identified in any language. Cf. Note 1. ¹⁰⁴ The first half of the name Moyses ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:2:2) **הלכה:** הָאוֹמֵר קוֹנָם קוֹנָח כול׳. עַד כְּדוֹן עַצְמוֹ. מַהוּ שֶׁיַּקְדִּישׁ לַשָּׁמַיִם בִּלְשׁוֹן קוֹנָם. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמַר לוֹ. הַשְׁאִילֵינִי קַרְדּוֹמָךְ. אָמַר קוֹנָם קוֹרְדּוֹם יֵשׁ לִי. קוֹנָם נְכָסַיי עָלִי. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קוֹרְדּוֹם. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין שֶׁאֵין לַזֶּה קוֹרְדּוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי תַחְלִיפָא קַיסָרַיָיא. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. שֶׁבּוֹ בְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁהִתְפִּיס אֶת הַקַּרְדּוֹם בּוֹ בְלָשׁוֹן הִתְפִּיס בּוֹ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. קָדַשׁ קוֹרְדּוֹם קָדְשׁוּ נְכָסִים. לֹא קָדַשׁ קוֹרְדּוֹם אֲפִילוּ נְכָסִים לֹא קָדְשׁוּ. אִילּוּ אָמַר. קוֹנָם קוֹרְדּוֹם יֵשׁ לִי. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. קוֹנָם נְכָסַיי עָלַי. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קוֹרְדוֹם. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. יֵאוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה. אִילּוּ אָמַר. נְכָסַיי מוּתָּרִין. וְקָם לֵיהּ. יֵאוּת. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לַזֶּה קוֹרְדּוֹם. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ קוֹרְדוֹם נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁקָּדַשׁ קוֹרְדּוֹם. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ נְכָסִים. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ לַשָּׁמַיִם בִּלְשׁוֹן קוֹנָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If somebody says *qônām,* or *qônāḥ,*” etc. So far for himself. Can one dedicate to Heaven by saying *qônām*¹⁰⁵ or any other of the recognized substitutes for *qorbān?*? Let us hear from the following¹⁰⁶ Babli 35a and in abbreviated form Tosephta 4:6. The Babylonian version differs from the Yerushalmi in that the lender asserts that he has only one spade which he needs for himself and only asserts that he has no spare and, most importantly, that the lying lender’s property is only forbidden to him during his lifetime but becomes the property of his heir while in the Yerushalmi the property becomes the Temple’s. Therefore, the position of the Babli is opposed to that of the Yerushalmi and every attempt to emend and explain the Yerushalmi in the light of the Babli falsifies the text.: One said to another, lend me your spade¹⁰⁷ used for digging.”. He said, *qônām* the spade if I have it, *qônām* my property on me. If he has a spade, his property would be forbidden for this one “has no spade”¹⁰⁸. Rebbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, there is a difference, for he used the same expression to attach the spade and to attach his property¹⁰⁹. As you look at it, if the spade is sanctified, so is his property. If the spade is not sanctified, neither is his property. If he said, *qônām* the spade if I have it, and added *qônām* my property on me, if he owns a spade, his property is forbidden¹¹⁰. That is correct. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, if he had said “my property”¹¹¹ or any equivalent expression, there is no vow., it would be permitted for he stopped. That is correct. He only asserted that the person had no spade. Therefore, if he has a spade, his property is forbidden. That means that the spade was sanctified. That means that the property was sanctified¹¹² is as valid for dedications as *qorbān.*. This means that a person may dedicate to Heaven using the expression *qônām.* footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Can one dedicate property to the Temple using the expression qônām ¹⁰⁶ There exists a Babylonian version of this baraita, ¹⁰⁷ In modern Hebrew, קרדום is an axe. But in Mishnaic Hebrew it means “spade” as shown by the formulaic expression קרדום לחפור בו “a qardom ¹⁰⁸ He made a conditional vow. The vow must refer to an object. If he has no spade, there is nothing the vow refers to, and the vow is nonexistent. But should he have a spade, the vow refers to an object and is valid. ¹⁰⁹ As described in detail now, the two vows are one and both refer to the spade. ¹¹⁰ To himself, but not to any other person in the world. ¹¹¹ Without repeating the word qônām, ¹¹² R. Joshua ben Ḥanania holds that the property is permanently forbidden to everyone, including the heirs, and must be surrendered to the Temple administrator. This proves that qônām ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:2:3) רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְשֵׁם חוּלִין וּלְשֵׁם קָרְבָּן מַהוּ לוֹסַר עַצְמוֹ בוֹ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. קוֹנָס. קוֹנָסָה שְׁמָהּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן שְׁבוּתָה. שְׁפוּתָה שְׁמָהּ. וְהָא תַנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. חֶרֶס. לֹא חַסְפָּא הִוא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לְשׁוֹן גְּבוֹהַּ הוּא. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֶרֶס וְלֹא יִזְרַח. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לְשׁוֹן אוּמּוֹת הוּא. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין נֵיוַותָּאֵי דִּינוּן קַרֵיָין לְחַסְפָּא כַסְפָּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. נִרְאִין הַדְּבָרִים בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֲחֵרִים. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין לְנָזִיר נָזִיק כֵּן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. נְזִיר פְּסִילִים לֹא יְהֵא נָזִיר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Jeremiah asked: May a person bind himself by a word which has both a profane and a sacral meaning? Did we not state קוֹנָס? Its name is קונסה¹¹³. Did we not state שְּׁבוּתָה? Its name is שְׁפוּתָה¹¹⁴ (5) “a bench”.] This is another example to show that in Galilee, under the influence of Greek, β was /v/ and /v/ close to /f/.. ¹¹⁵ 1:1, 51a 1. 52. But did not Bar Qappara state *ḥeres*¹¹⁶? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that is a name relating to the High One: ¹¹⁷ 9:7.“If He commands the sun: would it not shine?”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, these are Gentile words¹¹⁸ 1:1 (and the Babli 10a), R. Joḥanan is reported to hold that the substitutes are words from foreign languages whereas R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that they are artificial words created by the Sages to avoid using Hebrew sacral words. In the latter case it would be obvious that only officially sanctioned words may be used., like those Nabateans who say *khaspa* for *ḥaspa*¹¹⁹*.* Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable in other places, but in a place where the *nazir* is called *naziq*¹²⁰ that is enough to establish the vow., do I say that a *nazir* of people with speech defects should not be a *nazir*? footnotes: ¹¹³ Which word is intended is not quite clear. The early commentators vote for קְנָס “a fine”; then קוּנְסָה could be a stand-in for קְנָסָא. Another possibility would be קִינְסָא “a chip”. There is no problem in asserting that קוֹנָס is used only for vows. Note Arabic قّونّس “point of the helmet”. ¹¹⁴ “Cooking”. It also could be a word שפתא [Tanḥuma Re’e ¹¹⁵ From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Nazir ¹¹⁶ In Mishnaic Hebrew the word usually means “potsherd”, which certainly is not coming close to the meaning “ban” for which it may be substituted according to Bar Qappara. In Biblical Hebrew, it may be “sun” or “scabies”. ¹¹⁷ Job ¹¹⁸ The Yerushalmi is inconsistent in its attribution. In Nazir ¹¹⁹ They cannot distinguish between ح and خ. ¹²⁰ Where ר is not a dental sound but close to a French /r/, which may be confounded with ق or غ. If the locals hear the equivalent of nazir, ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:2:4) מִיתְנֵי. שְׁבוּתָה שְׁקוּקָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. שְׁבוּקָה שְׁקוּעָה שְׁקוּרָה. נֶדֶר. דְּנָדַר בְּמוֹהִי בְּמוֹמֵי דְנָדַר מֹשֶׁה וַיּוֹאֵל מֹשֶׁה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לִינָן אָמְרִין בְּמוֹמֵי דְנָדַר שָׁאוּל וַיּוֹאֵל שָׁאוּל. יְמִינָא הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. שְׂמֹאלָא הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מִתַּנְיָה. דִּכְתִיב וַיָּרֶם יְמִינוֹ וּשְׂמֹאלוֹ הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיִּשָּׁבַע בְּחֵי הָעוֹלָם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated¹²¹: šĕ*butâ, šĕquqâ*; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: š*ĕbuqa,* š*ĕqu‘â, šĕqurâ.* “A vow”, when he made a vow by Moy, by the oath which Moses vowed, “and Moses accepted the curse.¹²² 2:21. “Moses swore to stay by the man,” not “Moses agreed to stay with the man,” cf. the Targumim.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not say, by the oath which Saul vowed, “Saul menaced the people with a curse¹²³ 14:24. Why is the invocation of Saul’s name not a form of oath. In the verse quoted, the meaning of “imposing a curse by an oath” is clear and undisputed. There is no answer, probably because religious fear was never connected with the name of Saul. It is noteworthy that all through proto-Mishnaic, Mishnaic, and Talmudic periods the name Moses is not used for living persons; there are a few appearences of a substitute name such as Maishe.”? By my right hand, that is a vow, by my left hand, that is a vow¹²⁴. Rebbi Mattaniah said, for it is written¹²⁵ 12:7.: “He lifted his right hand and his left hand to the Heavens and swore by the Eternally Living.” footnotes: ¹²¹ The Babli, 10b, has a different collection of substitutes for “oath”. ¹²² Ex. ¹²³ 1S. ¹²⁴ In the Babli, 10b, only “right hand” is accepted. ¹²⁵ Dan. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:1) **משנה:** לֹא חוּלִים לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ לֹא כָשֵׁר לֹא דְכִי טָהוֹר וְטָמֵא נוֹתָר וּפִיגּוּל אָסוּר. כְּאִמְרָא כַּדִּירִיים כָּעֵצִים כָּאִישִּׁים כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ כַּהֵיכָל כִּירוּשָׁלֵם נָדַר בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּיר קָרְבָּן הֲרֵי זֶה נָדַר בְּקָרְבָּן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הָאוֹמֵר יְרוּשָׁלֵם לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Not profane I shall not eat from yours, not usable, not pure, pure, or impure, leftover, or mushy, is forbidden. Like a sheep, like the storage places, like wood, like altar gifts, like the altar, like the Temple, like Jerusalem. If one made a vow by one of the serving pieces of the altar even though he did not mention “sacrifice”, it is as if he made a vow by the sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says “Jerusalem” did not say anything¹²⁶ in making an oath which forbids the use of certain things to the maker of the vow. Most details are explained in the Halakhah. “Leftover” are the leftovers of a valid sacrifice after the time allotted for its consumption; this is forbidden both as a sacrifice and as leftover. “Mushy” is the biblical term for a sacrifice which was brought from the start with the idea that it should be eaten out of its time and/or its place. This also is doubly forbidden. An extended list of substitute expressions is in the Tosephta, 1:3 (partially quoted in the Babli, 13a).. footnotes: ¹²⁶ The Mishnah enumerates substitute terms for qorbān ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:2) **הלכה:** לֹא חוּלִין לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ כול׳. הָא מַה דָנָא אֲכִיל מִן דִּידָךְ לָא יְהוּ חוּלִין אֶלָּא קָרְבָּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Not profane I shall not eat from yours,” etc. That which I would eat from you shall not be profane but a sacrifice¹²⁷. footnotes: ¹²⁷ The same explanation in the Babli, 11a. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:3) לֹא כָשֵׁר לִי אֶלָּא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Not usable” for me but it is for the altar. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:4) לֹא דְכִי לִי אֶלָּא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Not pure,” for me but it is for the altar. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:5) טָהוֹר לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לִי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Pure,” for the altar but not for me. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:6) טָמֵא לִי וְלֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כָּשֵׁר וְדָכִי מִטָּהוֹר וְטָמֵא. לֹא כָשֵׁר לֹא דְכִי מִלְּטָהֵר וְטָמֵא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Impure,” for me but [pure] for the altar. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:7) פִּיגּוּל. לֹא שַׁנְיָיה. הִיא פִיגּוּל שֶׁלָּעוֹלָה הִיא פִיגּוּל שֶׁלִּשְׁלָמִים. נוֹתָר שֶׁלָּעוֹלָה הָיָה לוֹ שְׁעַת כּוֹשֶׁר. נוֹתָר שֶׁלִּשְׁלָמִים לֹא הָיָה לוֹ שְׁעַת כּוֹשֶׁר. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי כַּנּוֹתָר שֶׁלִּשְׁלָמִים מָהוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Mushy”. There is no difference whether mushy for an elevation offering or mushy for a well-being offering¹²⁸. The leftover of an elevation offering [never]¹²⁹ had a time when it was usable, the leftover of an elevation offering (never) had a time when it was usable¹³⁰. If he said, this is for me as a leftover of a well-being offering, what is it? footnotes: ¹²⁸ The elevation offering is totally burned on the altar; no part of it is eaten. Nevertheless, there is a time limit on the sacrifice; it must be burned on the altar during the day it was slaughtered and the following night. If the blood was received by the officiating Cohen with the idea of burning the sacrifice the next day, the sacrifice itself becomes forbidden as mushy. The well-being offering can be eaten for two days and the intervening night or, for a thanksgiving offering, the day and the following night; but if its blood is brought to the altar with the idea of eating from the sacrifice when mushy, immediately it is permanently forbidden. ¹²⁹ It seems that the scribe switched “had” and “did not have” between elevation and well-being offerings. Since the elevation offering never was permitted to anybody, it was forbidden to use it while it was a sacrifice and it remained forbidden as leftover after its time had expired. Therefore, “leftover from an elevation sacrifice” is a thing which is permanently forbidden. Used in a vow formula it implies permanent prohibition. ¹³⁰ Since a well-being offering can be eaten for some time by the offerer and his family and the prohibition of “leftover” is one after the fact, if somebody refers to food as “leftover from a well-being offering” it is unclear whether one refers to the time it was permitted or when it was forbidden. The Babli (12a) takes it for granted that “leftover” as object of a vow can only refer to leftover from an elevation offering, implicitly answering the open question of the Yerushalmi. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:8) כְּאִימְרָא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כְּאִימָּר תְּמִידָא. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. כִּוְולַד חַטָּאת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כְּאֵילוֹ שֶׁלְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. כְּאִימְרָא דְלָא יְנַק מִן יוֹמוֹהִי. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן נִיתְנֵי. כָּעֲזָרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ נִיתְנֵי. כְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיתְנֵי. כְּדִישׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי וְהַמְנוֹרָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Like a sheep.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, like the sheep of the daily offering¹³¹ In that case, one should read כָּאִימְרָא. The statements are quoted in *Gen. rabba*56(14).. There, they say, like the young of a purification offering¹³² can be something which is forbidden even to the altar (and so could be considered as the opposite of *qorbān*). This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, like our father Abraham’s ram¹³³ 22:13. This was a sacrifice on an altar; one reads כְּאִימְרָא.. What Rebbi Ḥiyya¹³⁴ this is attributed to Bar Qappara. In one opinion, the ram was created at the end of the Sixth Day of Creation [Mishnah *Abot* 5(9)]. stated supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Like a sheep which never suckled. Following the opinions of the rabbis there, one could state: Like the Temple courtyard¹³⁵. Rebbi Abin said, following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish one could state: Like the sacrifices on the altar¹³⁶. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, following Rebbi Joḥanan one could state: Like the cleansing of the inner altar and the candelabra¹³⁷. footnotes: ¹³¹ The most common sacrifice, a natural substitute for qorbān. ¹³² The purification offering of a common person is a female animal. If she gives birth after dedication, the lamb is totally forbidden; it cannot be used for anything and nothing can be done for it. What the rabbis there (Babylonia) assert is that a substitute for qorbān ¹³³ Ber. ¹³⁴ In Gen. rabba, ¹³⁵ This also is forbidden for profane use and is not a sacrifice. ¹³⁶ See next paragraph. ¹³⁷ This really refers to the statement that one may make a vow by referring to the serving pieces of the altar. R. Joḥanan prefers that one make the vow by something which is served daily. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:9) כַּדִּירִיִים. כְּדִירִים שֶׁלָּעֵצִים. כְּדִירִיִים שֶׁלַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת. כָּעֵצִים. כִּשְׁנֵי גֵּיזֵירֵי עֵצִים. כָּאִישִּׁים. כְּשַׁלְהָבִיּוֹת שֶׁלָּאֵשׁ. כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ. כְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כָּהֵיכָל. כְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַהֵיכָל. כִּירוּשָׁלֵם. כְּקָרְבְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלֵם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Like the storage places,” like the storage places of wood, like the storage places of sacrificial animals¹³⁸ 2:5). The holding area for the animals was outside the Temple on the Temple Mount, where animals were checked for blemishes.. “Like wood,” like the two logs¹³⁹ 2:5.. “Like altar gifts,” like the flame of the fire¹⁴⁰, but only the place of the *qorbān*.. “Like the altar,” like the sacrifices on the altar. “Like the Temple hall,” like the sacrifices in the Temple hall¹⁴¹. Like Jerusalem,” like the sacrifices in Jerusalem. footnotes: ¹³⁸ The storage place for altar wood was in the Temple courtyard, where wood was checked for worms (Mishnah Middot ¹³⁹ The logs needed to burn on them the daily sacrifice, Mishnah Yoma ¹⁴⁰ Everywhere in talmudic literature, אִשֶּׁה is derived from the root אֵשׁ “fire”. But fire is not anything a vow can fall on. The same problem arises with the last three terms which cannot represent qorbān ¹⁴¹ The daily incense and the blood of those special sacrifices whose blood has to be sprinkled on the incense altar. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:10 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:10) נָדַר בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. כְּגוֹן כַּף וּמַחְתָּה וּמִזְרָק. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “If one made a vow by one of the serving pieces of the altar,” e. g., cup¹⁴², shovel¹⁴³, and pouring cup. footnotes: ¹⁴² To catch the blood at the moment of slaughter. ¹⁴³ For incense. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:11 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:3:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:3:11) רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הָאוֹמֵר כִּירוּשָׁלֵם לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵון זֶה אֶלָּא לָעֵצִים וְלָאֲבָנִים שֶׁבָּהּ. כַּתּוֹרָה. הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר. כִּקְדוּשַׁת תּוֹרָה כַּכָּתוּב בָּהּ. הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר כַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת הַכְּתוּבִין שֶׁבָּהּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. כַּתּוֹרָה וְכַכָּתוּב בָּהּ. הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר. רִבִּי אָבִין בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר. דְּרִבִּי שְׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין בְיָדוֹ חִיטִּין וּפָטוּר עַל הַשְּׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. כַּתּוֹרָה. כִּקְדוּשַׁת תּוֹרָה. כַּכָּתוּב בָּהּ. כִּקְדוּשַׁת כְּתוּבַיָּא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says ‘like Jerusalem’¹⁴⁴ formula. There is no hint of this in the Yerushalmi. did not say anything,” since this one intended to refer only to its wood and stones¹⁴⁵. “Like the Torah,” that is permitted¹⁴⁶. “Like the sanctity of the Torah, like what is written in it,” that is forbidden¹⁴⁶ like the sacrifices written in it. There are Tannaїm who state, “like the Torah and what is written in it,” is permitted. Rebbi Abin bar Cahana said, that is Rebbi Simeon’s, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the words of Rebbi Simeon, if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is free also for the rest¹⁴⁷ 5:4. A (who has no witnesses and no documents to prove his case) says to B, give me the wheat, barley, and spelt which you hold for me. B says, I have nothing of yours. A says to B, swear that you have no wheat, barley, and spelt of mine, and B says Amen. If it turns out that he swore falsely, he is guilty of one crime. R. Simeon says, if he swore correctly about the wheat, he cannot be prosecuted for swearing falsely about barley and spelt since an oath (and a vow) which is partially voided is totally voided.. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. “Like the Torah”, like the sanctity of the Torah. “Like what is written in it,” like the sanctity of the verses¹⁴⁸. footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ This is a reformulation of the Mishnah. According to the Babli, 11a, according to the Tanna of the Mishnah, R. Jehudah would accept “like Jerusalem” as a qorbān ¹⁴⁵ Which are permitted. ¹⁴⁶ Tosephta 1:4, Babli 14b. ¹⁴⁶ Tosephta 1:4, Babli 14b. ¹⁴⁷ This refers to the discussion in Šebuot ¹⁴⁸ Since the second opinion is treated second and at length, it is the opinion accepted in the Yerushalmi, in contrast to the Babli. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:4:1) **משנה:** הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן עוֹלָה וּמִנְחָה חַטָּאת תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכַל לָךְ אָסוּר וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר. הַקָּרְבָּן כַּקָּרְבָּן קָרְבָּן שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ אָסוּר. לַקָּרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹנָם פִּי הַמְדַבֵּר עִמָּךְ וְיָדִי עוֹשָׂה עִמָּךְ וְרַגְלִי מְהַלֶּכֶת עִמָּךְ אָסוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If somebody says sacrifice, elevation offering, or flour offering, purification offering, or well-being offering, that I will not eat with you, he is forbidden; Rebbi Jehudah permits¹⁴⁹. The sacrifice, like a sacrifice, sacrifice if I would eat with you, he is forbidden¹⁵⁰. It is for sacrifice what I will not eat with you, Rebbi Meїr forbids. If somebody says to another person, a *qônām* that my mouth speaks with you, that my hand works with you, that my foot goes with you, he is forbidden¹⁵¹. footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ R. Jehudah requires that the object to which the vow refers be mentioned. Therefore, if he had said “like a sacrifice, like an offering” it would be a valid vow (Tosephta 1:2). ¹⁵⁰ Since in this case one might read the sentence as: Any food I would eat from you should be a (the, like a) sacrifice. ¹⁵¹ At first glance it seems that these vows are not object-oriented since speech, working, and walking are no concrete objects. But since mouth, hand, and foot are concrete objects, the vow can refer to them and then this person’s mouth, hands, and feet are forbidden any contact with the other person, which can be realized only if the person swearing the oath refrains from doing anything for the person intended by the vow. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:4:2) **הלכה:** הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן עוֹלָה וּמִנְחָה. כול׳. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי. הָקָרְבָּן מוּתָּר. כַּקָּרְבָּן אָסוּר. מַה פְלִיגִין. קָרְבָּן. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן כָּאוֹמֵר הָקָרְבָּן וְהוּא מוּתָּר. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. קָרְבָּן כָּאוֹמֵר כַּקָּרְבָּן וְהוּא אָסוּר. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי יוּדָה. אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִין לִי בָּאוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעָה כָּאוֹמֵר הָשְׁבוּעָה וְהוּא אָסוּר. וָכָא הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן כָּאוֹמֵר כַּקָּרְבָּן וְהוּא מוּתָּר. וְרַבָּנִין מַטִּילִין אוֹתוֹ לַחוּמְרִין. הָאוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעָה כָּאוֹמֵר הָשְׁבוּעָה וְהוּא אָסוּר. וָכָא הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן כָּאוֹמֵר הָקָרְבָּן וְהוּא אָסוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “If somebody says sacrifice, elevation offering, or flour offering,” etc. Everybody agrees *this* sacrifice¹⁵³ is permitted, *like a* sacrifice is forbidden. Where do they disagree? Sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘*this* sacrifice’ and is permitted; but the rabbis say, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘*like a* sacrifice’ and is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah said to them: Do you not agree that one who said “oath” is like one who said “this oath” and is forbidden¹⁵⁴? And here he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘*this* sacrifice’ and is permitted! But the rabbis throw restrictions on it¹⁵⁵. One who said “oath” is like one who said “this oath” and is forbidden. But here, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘*like a* sacrifice’ and is forbidden. footnotes: ¹⁵³ הָא קָרְבָּן “this is a sacrifice” is not an expression of referral. ¹⁵⁴ If he would say “like an oath” it would be a denial of oath and would be invalid, but “like a sacrifice” is the essential formula of a vow. ¹⁵⁵ In matters of vows and oaths, the translation of the vernacular into the formal language of the law always must follow the restrictive interpretation (Mishnah 2:4). ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:4:3) חָלִיל הֶחָלִיל לְחַלִיל בֶּחָלִיל. בֵּין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל לָךְ. מוּתָּר. לָחוּלִין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ. אָסוּר. חוּלִין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ. מוּתָּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Fife, the fife, with a fife, either ‘that I shall eat with you’ or ‘that I shall not eat with you’, is permitted¹⁵⁶ “fife” is derived from the root חלל II, Arabic خلّ “to pierce, make a hole” (among other meanings). Nobody takes this as close to *ḥûlîn* “profane”, derived from חלל I, Arabic حلّ “being permitted, not holy” (among other meanings) or חָלִילָה “desecration, God forbid!”. The expression cannot be interpreted as a vow.. No profane food¹⁵⁷ that I would eat with you, forbidden. Profane food I would eat with you, permitted. footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ Ḥālîl ¹⁵⁷ Read לָא חוּלִין. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:4:4) רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר מִמַּשְׁמַע לָאו אַתְּ שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵין. לֹא קָרְבָּן מִזֶּה. דְּלָ נָא אֲכִיל מִן דִּילָךְ. הָא מַה דָנָא אֲכִיל מִן דִּידָךְ חוּלִין הוּא. לֵית הוּא קָרְבָּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Are there words of Rebbi Meїr that from a negative one understands a positive? There is no sacrifice from this. What I shall not eat from you. Therefore, what I shall eat from you is profane, it is not qorbān¹⁵⁸ 36a, *Soṭah* 17a; Yerushalmi *Erubin* 3, 21b 1. 24, *Qiddušin* 1:3 64a 1. 16, *Šebuot* 4:14 35d 1. 66, 7:1 37c 1. 45). It is obvious that the first sentence is a rhetorical question.. footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ The Mishnah about לָא קָרְבָּן mentions only R. Meїr but does not mention the anonymous majority which must hold that no vow is intended. It is generally accepted that R. Meїr does not accept to derive a positive statement from the inversion of a negative (Babli 11a, 13b; Šebuot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/1:4:5) הִילּוּכִי עָלֶיךָ. דִּיבּוּרִי עָלֶיךָ. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. לָמָּה. שֶׁמַּתְפִּיס אֶת הַנֶּדֶר בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. עֵינִי רוֹאָה לָךְ. אָזְנִי שׁוֹמַעַת לָךְ. אָסוּר. אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. יָדִי עוֹשָׂה עִמָּךְ. אָסוּר. חָרַשׁ עִמּוֹ בַקַּרְקַע עַד כַּמָּה הוּא אָסוּר. עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שְׂכָרוֹ אוֹ עַד כְּדֵי הֲנָיַית קַרְקַע. גְָּדַר עִמּוֹ בַתַּנּוּר עַד כַּמָּה הוּא אָסוּר. עַד כְּדֵי שְׂכָרוֹ אוֹ עַד כְּדֵי הֲנָיַית תַּנּוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ‘My going [is forbidden] to you, my speech [is forbidden] to you,’ he said nothing. Why? Because he referred the vow to something immaterial. “Vow, vow”¹⁵⁹ (cf. *Berakhot* Chapter 1, Note 70) that in legal texts, a word has only one definite meaning. The word “vow” is used in *Lev.* 27:2 to describe the pledge of a predetermined sum of money, which is material. Therefore in *Num*. 30:3, the word “vow” also must refer to something material.. Just as “vow” which was said there refers to something (im-)material¹⁶⁰, so “vow” said here refers to something (im)material. ‘My eye [is forbidden] to see for you, my ear [is forbidden] to hear you,’ he is forbidden¹⁶¹. You say, ‘my hand [is forbidden] to work with you,’ he is forbidden. If he ploughed with him¹⁶² on the ground, what is forbidden to him? Up to the amount of his wages or any improvement of the ground? If he fenced in¹⁶³ an oven with him, what is forbidden to him? Up to the amount of his wages or any improvement of the oven? footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule gezerah šawah ¹⁶⁰ The context requires that both times the expression שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ “immaterial” must be emended to שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ “material”. Unfortunately, there are no parallels to this argument in talmudic literature. ¹⁶¹ Since now the vow is referred to something material. ¹⁶² If the worker makes a vow not to enjoy anything from his employer, can he work for him since the transaction is a simple exchange of work for money, or is he forbidden to work in case his work causes a permanent improvement of the employer’s property? The question is not answered. ¹⁶³ Some commentators and editors want to emend here either to גרר  “to grate”, or גדד “to cut”. There seems to be no reason for emendation.