## Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim Chapter 3

###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:1:1)

**משנה:** אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים נִידְרֵי זֵירוּזִין וְנִידְרֵי הֲבַאי וְנִידְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת וְנִידְרֵי אוֹנְסִין. נִדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין כֵּיצַד הָיָה מוֹכֵר חֵפֶץ וְאָמַר קוֹנָם שֶׂאֵינִי פוֹחֵת לָךְ מִן הַסֶּלַע. וְהַלָּה אָמַר קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי מוֹסִיף לָךְ עַל הַשֶּׁקֶל שְׁנֵיהֶן רוֹצִין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דֵינָרִין. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אַף הָרוֹצֶה לְהַדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ כָּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר הוּא בָטֵל וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר בְּשָׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve: Speeding-up vows, exaggeration vows, vows in error, and vows about acts of God¹. What are speeding-up vows? One who has something to sell says, a *qônām*² if I sell for less. that I shall not reduce the price below a tetradrachma, and the other one says, a *qônām* that I shall not increase my bid to more than a sheqel; both of them intend three denarii³. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, also one who wants by a vow to get his neighbor to eat at his place. If he says to himself⁴: any vow which I make in the future shall be void, [it is void] if he remembers at the moment he makes the vow.

footnotes:
¹ These will all be explained in the Mishnah.
² In this form, the vow is void and does not have to be dissolved since it is not indicated to what it refers. One has to assume that the vendor says the money received for the sale shall be qônām
³ A tetradrachma is 4 denarii, a sheqel 2. They split the difference.
⁴ The Mishnah in the Babli יאמר instead of ואמר. This requires a reformulation of what R. Eliezer ben Jacob said, 23b. The second statement of R. Eliezer ben Jacob is not connected to the first which simply extends the definition of speeding-up vows.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:1:2)

**הלכה:** אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים כול׳. וְכָל הַנְּדָרִים לָאו חֲכָמִים הֵן שֶׁהֵן מַתִּירִין. כְּתִיב וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת. תָּלָה הַפָּרָשָׁה בְּרָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ מַתִּירִין נִדְרֵי הָעָם. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. לֹא יֵחַל דְּבָרוֹ. הוּא אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. הָא אַחֵר עוֹשֶׂה דְּבָרוֹ חוּלִין. וְאֵי זֶה זֶה. זֶה חָכָם שֶׁמַּתִיר נִדְרוֹ. חֲנַנְיָה בֶן אֲחִי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר. נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי וָאַקַּיֵימָה. פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַיֵים. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר. אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְאַפִּי. בְּאַפִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי. חוֹזֵר אֲנִי בִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve,” etc. Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written⁶ 30:2.: “Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.” He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve the people’s vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel⁷ 30:3. The same argument in the Babli, *Ḥagigah* 10a, in response to Mishnah 1:8: Dissolutions of vows “hang in the air” (have no biblical basis). This is the only argument accepted in the Babli.: “He shall not profane his word.” *He* cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow. Ḥananiah the nephew of Rebbi Joshua said⁸ 119:106. Also in the Babli, *Ḥagigah* 10a. In *Nedarim* 8a, the verse is interpreted to authorize vows to keep commandments of the Torah. In Sadducee theory (Damascus Document CD XVI 7–8), the consequence of such a vow is that the corresponding commandment cannot be broken even under extreme pain, which in pharisaic theory applies only to idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder., “I swore and I shall keep it.” Sometimes I keep it. Rebbi Joshua said⁹ 95:11. Also in the Babli, *Ḥagigah* 10a., “What I swore in my rage:” In my rage I swore; I change my mind.

footnotes:
⁶ Num.
⁷ Num.
⁸ Ps.
⁹ Ps.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:1:3)

וְכָל הַנְּדָרִים חֲכָמִים הֵם שֶׁהֵם מַתִּירִים. וְתַנִּינָן. אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. אֵילּוּ אֵינָן צְרִיכִין הֵיתֵר חָכָם. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אֵילּוּ הֵן צְרִיכִין הֵיתֵר חָכָם. הָתִיב אִיסִּי. וַהֲרֵי לֹא מָצִינוּ פֶתַח לִנְדָרִים אֶלָּא מִיכָּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל. חֲגַר עֲלֵיהּ מוּתְנָא. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל אִיסִּי. אַף זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר נִדְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי חָכָם. פָּתַר לָהּ. כָּל הַנְּדָרִים צְרִיכִין פֶּתַח מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וְאֵילּוּ פִּתְחָן בְּצִידָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵינָן מַעֲמִידִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מַעֲמִידִין צְרִיכִין הֵיתֵר חָכָם. הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲמִיד וְזֶה אֵינוֹ מַעֲמִיד. מֵאַחַר שֶׁבָּטֵל אֶצֶל זֶה יִבָּטֵל זֶה. תַּלְמִידוֹי דְרִבִּי חִיָיה בַר לוּלִיָינִי אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. שֶׁאִילּוּ הָיָה אוֹמֵר זֶה בְסֶלַע. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לִיתֵּן לוֹ בְשָׁלֹשׁ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁקֶל. מַעֲמִיד. מֵאַחַר שֶׁבִּיטֵּל דֵּינָר זֶה עַל זֶה יְבַטֵּל עוֹד דֵּינָר אַחֵר אֶצְלוֹ וְיִתְּנוּ לוֹ בִשְׁנַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Do the Sages permit all kinds of vows? “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve”! Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Those do not need the permission of a Sage¹⁰.¹¹ need the permission of a Sage. Rav and Samuel both say: they do not need the permission of a Sage.” It is obvious that this cannot be the Yerushalmi text since דְּאָֽמְרֵי תְּרַװַייהוּ is pure Babylonian Aramaic. Rav and Samuel both say that these need the permission of a Sage¹². Issy objected: Did we not find an opening for vows from there only¹³? Samuel said to him, bind a rope on it¹⁴. A Mishnah disagrees with Issy¹⁵: “This one also can dissolve his vow without asking a Sage.” He explains it, that all vows need an opening from another place but these have their openings in themselves¹⁶. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that is, if they do not insist¹⁷. But if they did insist they need the permission of a Sage. If one did insist but the other did not insist, since this one’s is invalid, the other one’s also should be invalid¹⁸. A student of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus said [after] Rebbi Yudan: If one asked a tetradrachma, one was ready to give him three¹⁹, and another one said a sheqel. (Does he insist?)²⁰ Since he renounces one denar for this one he may renounce another one for the other one and give it to him for two²¹.

footnotes:
¹⁰ In the Babli, this is the authoritative opinion of Samuel, 21b.
¹¹ Rosh (R. Asher ben Ieḥiel (~ 1250 Germany - 1327 Toledo) quotes (3,1) a different text: רִבִּי שִׁמעוֹן בַר רַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵילּוּ אֵין צְרִיכִין הֵתֵר חָכָם. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָֽמְרֵי תְּרַװַייהוּ. אֵין צְרִיכִין הֵיתֵר חָכָם. “Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: these
¹² In the Babli, this is the rejected opinion of Rav Assi (Issy).
¹³ This is confirmed in the Babli, 21a, where Rav Assi holds that a vow can be dissolved by a Sage (an ordained rabbi) only if its invalidity is obvious, not because the person making the vow repents his action.
¹⁴ It is not quite clear what this expression means. It might be that this kind of obviously void vow is the “rope with which one lifts other kinds of vows” to dissolution.
¹⁵ Mishnah 8:7, speaking of a person who threatens to forbid to himself all intercourse with another if the other refuses to take gifts from him.
¹⁶ It still needs to be dissolved by a Sage but the dissolution is granted automatically.
¹⁷ If the person never had intended that the offered price should be the final price. R. Nissim Gerondi (“Ran”), in quoting this Yerushalmi (Commentary to the Babli, 21a), holds that the three sheqels quoted in the Mishnah are only an example and that any price between 2 and 4 denarii is acceptable but that the seller may not sell for 4 and the buyer not buy for 2 denarii without confirming their vows as real and requiring the counsel of a Sage.
¹⁸ If, e. g., the seller makes the same vow for two customers and he intends to insist on the full price for one but not for the other, his vow for the first is void since it is void for the second. (Concurrent explanation of Ran and Rashba.)
¹⁹ Denarii.
²⁰ This is missing in the text quoted by Rashba (Novellae, Chapter 3, 20b), probably correctly. (This text not quoted by Ran.)
²¹ It would be incorrect to read the Mishnah as not permitting the seller to lower the price more than half the original difference. (Cf. Note 17.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:1:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי. מָאן תַּנָּא נִידְרֵי זְירוּזִין. רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. דּוּ פָתַר לָהּ בְּמַעֲמִידִין. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. תִּיפְתָּר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שֶׁאֵין מַעֲמִידִין. אִין תֵּימַר בְּמַעֲמִידִין. נִיתְנֵי. רִבִּי אֱלִיעזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וְרִבִּי טַרְפוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. הָרוֹצֶה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אַף הָרוֹצֶה. מָאן דָּמַר. הָרוֹצֶה. מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי בָּא. מָאן דָּמַר. אַף הָרוֹצֶה. מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי אִמִּי. רִבִּי פְדָת בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָאן תַּנָּא נִידְרֵי זְירוּזִין. רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of speeding-up vows? Rebbi Tarphon²² 5:5, and in Tosephta *Nazir* 3:19 R. Jehudah in his name (Mishnah *Ṭahorot* 4:12 in his own name), that a vow of *nezirut* is only valid if it is unquestionable. One then assumes that all other vows follow the same rule. (The Tosephta is quoted another 6 times in the Babli.)
In the Babli, 21a, this is quoted by R. Ammi in the name of R. Jehudah Neśia.! For he explains it for those who insist. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to everybody for those who do not insist²³. If you say for those who insist, one should have stated that Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob²⁴ and Rebbi Tarphon say the same thing. Some Tannaїm say, “one who wants”; some Tannaïm say, “also one who wants”²⁵. He who says “one who wants” supports Rebbi Abba²⁶; he who says “also one who wants”, supports Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is the Tanna of speeding-up vows? Rebbi Tarphon²⁷!

footnotes:
²² He says in Mishnah and Halakhah Nazir
²³ As explained in the preceding paragraph.
²⁴ Who in the Mishnah permits self help in the dissolution of vows.
²⁵ In the Mishnah. In the first version, R. Eliezer ben Jacob’s statement is not a continuation of the first part of the Mishnah and does not necessarily deal with the same situation. In the second version, the one of our Mishnah, R. Eliezer ben Jacob’s first statement continues the Mishnah and, if the first part follows R. Tarphon, he does the same.
²⁶ The first part refers to people who intend to change their mind but it implies nothing for R. Eliezer ben Jacob.
²⁷ R. Pedat disputes the originality of R. Immi’s statement and claims priority for the latter’s teacher.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:1:5)

כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. כָּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא בָטֵל וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר בְּשָׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִתְנָה. אֲבָל אִם הִתְנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זָכוּר. בַּנְּדָרִים. אֲבָל בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת תְּנַיי בַּנְּדָרִים וְאֵין תְּנַיי בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָינִין כִּתְנַיִין שֶׁבְּלִיבֵּינוּ לֹא כִתְנַיִין שֶׁבִּלְבָבְכֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. כִּתְנַיִין שֶׁבְּלִיבּוֹ הוּא מַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְלָמָּה הוּא מַתְנֶה עִמּוֹ. מִפְּנֵי הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ. יֵשׁ תְּנַיִין בַּשְׁבוּעוֹת. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְהָא כְתִיב כִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁנוֹ פֹּה. מַה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים אַחֲרֵינוּ אֵין בְּלִיבָּן תְּנַיי אַף אָנוּ אֵין בְּלִיבֵּינוּ תְּנַיי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
So is the Mishnah²⁸: “Any vow which I make in the future shall be void, [it is void] if he remembers at the moment he makes the vow,” if he did not stipulate a reservation²⁹. But if he stipulated a reservation, then even if he does not remember. That is for vows; but for oaths? There are reservations for vows, there are no reservations for oaths, as it was stated about oaths imposed by judges³⁰ 7:1, Note 27.: “According to our understanding, not according to your understanding.” Rebbi Jehudah said, he makes him swear according to his understanding. Why does he stipulate with him? Because of the uneducated, lest they say that there may be mental reservations for oaths.

footnotes:
²⁸ This language is somewhat unexpected since it usually introduces an emendation of the Mishnah.
²⁹ If a person stipulates expressly that his vows shall be void even if he does not remember that stipulation at the moment of the vow, the stipulation is valid and active.
³⁰ Text from Soṭah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:1)

**משנה:** נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי אָמַר אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי בַדֶּרֶךְ הַזּוֹ כְּעוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם. אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְּקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבַּד. נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת כֵּיצַד אָמַר אִם אָכַלְתִּי וְאִם שָׁתִיתִי וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁאָכַל וְשֶׁשָּׁתָה שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכֵל וְשֶׁאֵינִי שׁוֹתֶה וְשָׁכַח וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. אָמַר קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי שֶׁגָּנְבָה אֶת כִּיסִי וְשֶׁהִיכָּת אֶת בְּנִי וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא הִכַּתּוּ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא גָנְבָה. רָאָה אוֹתָן אוֹכְלִין תְּאֵינִים וְאָמַר לָהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן עֲלֵיכֶם כְּקָרְבָּן וְנִמְצְאוּ אָבִיו וְאֶחָיו וְהָיוּ עִמָּהֶן אֲחֵרִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֵן מוּתָּרִין וּמַה שֶׁעִמָּהֶן אֲסוּרִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מוּתָּרִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Exaggeration vows: If he said³¹ for me if …, if I did not see on this road [crowds] like those who left Egypt³². 12:37.; if I did not see a snake [as thick] as the beam of the olive press. Vows in error how? If he said, if I ate or drank, and he remembers³³ that he had eaten or drunk, that I shall not eat or shall not drink, and he forgot and ate or drank. If he said, a *qônām* that my wife cannot enjoy anything from me because she stole my wallet or hit my son³⁴, and it turns out that she did not hit him or became known that she did not steal. If he saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, these are for you as *qorbān*³⁵, but the persons turned out to be his father or brothers with others. The House of Shammai say, these are permitted, those with them forbidden. But the House of Hillel say, these and those are permitted³⁶.

footnotes:
³¹ In all these cases, it is understood that he says such and such should be qônām
³² About 600‘000 men; Ex
³³ He remembers later but at the moment of his vow he was oblivious of the fact.
³⁴ From another wife.
³⁵ It is to be assumed that people were not afraid to steal but would never break a vow.
³⁶ Since a vow which is partially voided is completely voided; Mishnah 9:6.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:2)

**הלכה:** נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי וכו׳. אֵיפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר בָּהּ כְּעוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בִּרְאִיָיה אַחַת. וְהָא לוּלְיָינוּס מַלְכָּא כַּד נְחַת לְתַמָּן נְחוֹת עִימֵּיהּ מֵאָה עֶשְׂרִים רִיבְּוָון. אֶלָּא אָכֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בִּרְאִיָיה אַחַת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Vows of exaggeration,” etc. ³⁷ 3:9–11. Is it impossible that crowds like those who left Egypt went by? But we are dealing with one look. Was it not the case that when Emperor Julianus went there³⁸, 1‘200‘000 [men] went with him? But we must be dealing with one look.

footnotes:
³⁷ From here on, most of the Halakhah is also in Šebuot
³⁸ The Babylonian campaign against Sapor II in the year 383 C. E.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:3)

וְהָא חִיוְיָה דְשָׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא בְּלַע גְּמָלִין בְּלַע קָרוֹנִין. כַּד בָּעוּ מִקְטְלוֹנֵיהּ מְלוֹן פְּחָלִין שֶׁלַּגְּמָלִין תֶּבֶן וִיהָבוֹן בּוֹן גּוֹמְרִין וּבַלְעוֹן וָמֵית. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. אֲנָא חָמִית מְשַׁךְ דְּחִיוִי עֲבַד אוֹרֵי עַל עוֹמָנֵי מֶסָסְטוֹלֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אֲנָא חָמִית מְשַׁךְ דְּחִיוִי סְלִיק בְּדִיוְיִין [דְּ]מַלְכוּתָא. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בִּמְרוּבַּע. אִין תֵּימַר בִּשְׁאֵינוֹ מְרוּבַּע. לָמָּה לִי גָדוֹל. אֲפִילוּ קָטוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. לֵית אוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּהָדֵין תַּנָּיָיה מַתְפִּיס אֶלָּא מִילָּה רוֹבָא. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנִּינָן גָּמָל פּוֹרֵחַ בָּאֲוֵיר. נִיתְנֵי עַכְבָּר פּוֹרֵחַ בָּאֲוֵיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts⁴³ 29a. There, the story of the snake is discussed by Samuel, which shows that the reference is to Sapor I.? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags⁴⁴ 24:9 פָּחֲלָץ. with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw a snake skin which filled⁴⁵ the space between two columns. Rebbi Samuel bar Jacob said, I saw a snake skin which covered the genii⁴⁶. But cf. Note 41. of government. Samuel said, square⁴⁷. Could you say it was not square⁴² וְאִם בִּמְרוּבַּע “if square, why must it be large?”, why must it be large? Even if it was small! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is the way of this Tanna to speak only about large things. You should know that it is so, for we have stated⁴⁸ 3:8, example of something impossible.: “A flying camel”. Could he not have stated “a flying rat”?

footnotes:
⁴³ A toned down version of King Sapor’s snake is in the Babli, 25a and Šebuot
⁴⁴ In Mishnah Kelim
⁴⁵ Reading עומני from Arabic عمن “to stay”. Cf. also Note 40.
⁴⁶ Possibly statues of emperors who after death became divi
⁴⁷ The snake was perhaps not particularly large but it had the form of a beam with square cross-section.
⁴² In Šebuot
⁴⁸ Mishnah Šebuot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:4)

תַּנִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵין מְרוּבַּע מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית. הָתִיב רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. גּוּפָהּ שֶׁלַּבַּהֶרֶת כִּגְרִיס הָאִיטַלְקִי מְרוּבַּע. אָמַר רִבִּי בִּיסְנָה. כָּל גַּרְמָא דָא דְלֵית הוּא מְרוּבַּע. וְלָמָּה תַנִּינָן מְרוּבַּע. יְרִבְעֶנָּה הוּא. וְהוּא כְנָעָה. מָלֵי קִיטְרִין. וְהָא אַרְכּוּבָה דַעֲיָלָא. עָגִיל הוּא מִלְּמַטָּה. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. לֹא אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶלָּא בַּבִּרְיוֹת. וְתַנִּי כֵן. מְרוּבַּע בְּאוֹכְלִין. אֵין מְרוּבַּע בַּבִּרְיוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁴⁹ 5:7, fol. 52a, with variants and commentary in Notes 122–129. The text is also in *Šebuot* 3:9 (fol. 34d). It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of *baheret* is like a square Italian grit.” Rebbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are lice! They are full of knots. But there is the knee of a mountain goat! It is round below. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ This text is from Ma‘serot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:5)

שָׁוְא וְשֶׁקֶר שְׁנֵיהֶם נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. מַה שֶׁאֵי אֶיפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. זָכוֹר וְשָׁמוֹר שְׁנֵיהֶם בְדִבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ. מַה שֶׂאֵי אֶפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת וּשְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה תְמִימִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. מַה שֶׁאֵי אֶיפְשַׁר לַפֶּה לוֹמַר וְלֹא לָאוֹזֶן לִשְׁמוֹעַ. עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ שְׁנֵיהֶן נֶאֶמְרוּ בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. וְלֹא תִסּוֹב נַחֲלָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר וְכָל בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה שְׁנֵיהֶן בְדִיבּוּר אֶחָד. גְּדִילִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לְךָ לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז שְׁנֵיהֶן בְדִבּוּר אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר אַחַת דִּיבֵּר אֱלֹהִים שְׁתַּיִם זוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ. וּכְתִיב הֲלֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאוּם יי וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפוֹצֵץ סָלַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear⁵⁰. 20:16 and *Deut*. 5:17, both are Sinaitic versions which had been said in parallel and were written serially.. “Remember” and “keep”⁵¹. 20:8 and *Deut*. 5:12. The first two examples are also in the Babli, *Šebuot* 20b, this example only in Babli *Roš Haššanah* 27a, *Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai* 20:5 (p. 148). A parallel text from here to the end of the Halakhah is *Sifry Deut*. 233; *Midrash Tannaïm* p. 138 (*Midrash Haggadol Deut.* 22:11), *Mekhilta dR. Ismael Yitro* Chap. 7. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep⁵². 3; a radically different one in Babli *Ḥulin*109b, where Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, holds that all of Sinaitic legislation has exceptions (in contrast to the commandments given to Noah which represent Natural Law and are without exceptions).” both were said together⁵³. 31:14 on the observation of the Sabbath, the second is *Num*. 28:9 on the Sabbath sacrifice which requires many actions which if performed outside the Temple on a Sabbath would be capital crimes., which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover⁵⁴. 18:16.”, “her brother-in-law shall come to her⁵⁵. 25:5; cf. Introduction to Tractate *Yebamot*.”, both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together⁵⁶. 36:8–9, say the same, viz., that an heiress may marry only a man of her own tribe. The explanation is given in Babli *Baba batra* 111b, where it is shown that the entire chapter 36 only refers to the daughters of Ṣelofḥad; for all others only the rules of *Num*. 27:7–11 are applicable without restrictions. In this case, *Num*. 36:8–9 is the exception from *Num.* 27:8.. “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear *sha‘ṭnez*”, both were said together⁵⁷. 22:11, wearing wool and linen together is forbidden. In v. 12, *any* garment, including linen ones, is required to have fringes, which according to *Num*. 15:38 must contain a dark blue woolen thread.. And so it says⁵⁸. 62:12., “God spoke once, two I heard from this.” And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”

footnotes:
⁵⁰ The two versions of the Ninth Commandment, Ex
⁵¹ The two versions of the Fourth Commandment, Ex
⁵² From here to the end of the paragraph one speaks of laws that contradict one another, not different parallel texts. Another approach to the problem of contradiction in pentateuchal legislation is in Sifry Num
⁵³ The first verse is Ex
⁵⁴ Lev
⁵⁵ Deut
⁵⁶ On the face of it, both verses, Num
⁵⁷ In Deut
⁵⁸ Ps


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:6)

שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָאָדָם. שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע וּמַחֲלִיף. אֵי זֶהוּ שָׁוְא וְאֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁקֶר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יָדוּעַ לִשְׁנַיִם זֶהוּ שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. לִשְׁלֹשָׁה זֶהוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אֲפִילוּ יָדוּעַ לִשְׁנַיִם וְאֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם מַכִּירוֹ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא הִיא. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. שִׁינָּה בוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ לַיָּם וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר לוֹקֶה. הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לוֹקֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. אֲפִילוּ בֵּיעָה וּמַרְגָלִיתָא. וְהֵן אֲפִילוּ. אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן בֵּיעָה וּמַרְגָלִיתָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A vain oath, if one swears to change what is known to men; a false oath if he swears and changes⁶⁰ 3:8.. What is vain and what is false? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is known to two persons, that is a false oath, to three, it is vain. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If it is known to two persons and another one at the end of the earth knows about it, that is a vain oath⁶¹ 29a, Ulla (= R. Hila) simply states that 3 people have to know to make an oath vain, without discussion whether they have to be together or not.. What is the difference between them? If he was untrue before two [persons], threw it⁶² 3:8) of a stone that it was gold. into the sea, and they had warned him because of a vain oath⁶³ 8:1, Note 9., in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not whipped, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is whipped⁶⁴. If they had warned him because of a false oath, in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is whipped, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is not whipped. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even an egg and a pearl⁶⁵ 3:8, the first explanation is more likely to be the correct one.. What means *even*? But, *for example* an egg and a pearl.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ He changes what is true. This and the following paragraphs refer to Mishnah Šebuot
⁶¹ Since according to R. Eleazar the three people who know the truth do not have to be at the same place, it follows that for R. Joḥanan they have to be at the same place. In the Babli, Šebuot
⁶² The object about which he swore, e. g., (Mishnah Šebuot
⁶³ To establish criminal intent, essential for criminal conviction; cf. Kilaim
⁶⁴ Since certainly some other person at another place knew the truth.
⁶⁵ If he swears about an egg that it is a pearl (R. David Fraenckel) or that he had seen a pearl the size of an egg (R. Moshe Margalit). In connection with Mishnah Šebuot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:7)

תַּנֵּי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּדְרֵי הֲבַאי מוּתָּרִין כָּךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת הֲבַאי מוּתָּרוֹת. וְהָתַנֵּי. שְׁבוּעוֹת הֲבַאי אֲסוּרוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פְּדָת. כָּאן בְּמַעֲמִידִין וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָן מַעֲמִידִין. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא. כָּאן וְכָאן בְּמַעֲמִידִין כָּאן וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵין מַעֲמִידִין. כֵּאן בְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעָה עַל נְכָסָיו. שְׁבוּעַת נִכְסַיי עָלַי. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָא לִלְקוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין מוּתָּרִין כָּךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת זֵירוּזִין מוּתָּרוֹת. עוֹד הוּא כְּמֵיחַל שְׁבוּעָה עַל נְכָסָיו. שְׁבוּעַת נִכְסַיי עָלַיי. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָא לִלְקוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated⁶⁶: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden⁶⁷? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist⁶⁸, there about those who do not insist. Rebbi Abba said, you may even say in either case if they insist or if they do not insist; here about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped⁶⁹ deal with the same case; “permitted” means that the maker of such a vow, even if he uttered it after due warning, cannot be prosecuted; but what he forbade on himself remains forbidden. As noted by Rashba (*Novellae* to 24b), this contradicts the position of the Babli in the reading of most mss.. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property then his property is forbidden [to him]. But concerning the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ Tosephta 2:1.
⁶⁷ Babli 24b.
⁶⁸ They show that their oaths should not be considered as exaggerations. Then they are bound by them.
⁶⁹ Both Tosephta and baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:8)

חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. הָהֵן דְּמִישְׁתַּבַּע עַל תְּרֵיי דִּינוּן תְּרֵיי לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הָהֵין דְחָמָא מִיטְרָא נְחֵית וָמַר. בלי קורי בריקשון. לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. רִבִּי חוֹנְיָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בּוּלַייוֹת הָיוּ בִיהוּדָה וְכוּלָּן חָרְבוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלָּאֱמֶת. דִּכְתִיב לַשָּׁוְא הִכִּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷¹ 22 (ed. M. Friedmann p. 113a).Ḥizqiah said, he who swears that two are two is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who saw rain falling and said: “O Lord, inundate with much water⁷⁰, the reading is קוּרִי פָּלֻּי בּרֶיכּסוֹן which N. Brüll (Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 1, p. 130) reads as κύριε πολὺ βρέξον “o Lord, give abundant water”, as first verse of a prayer for rain. S. Lieberman, in a full discussion of this text (יונית ויונות בארץ ישראל, Jerusalem 1962, pp. 25–27), points out that the invocation of God’s name in a vain prayer is forbidden by the Third Commandment and that the characterization as “vow” is only a reference to that Commandment.”, is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: 24 city councils⁷² were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written⁷³. 2:30. Another version in *Tanḥuma Maṭṭot* 1, *Vayiqra* 7.: “For the vain did I hit your sons.”

footnotes:
⁷¹ A somewhat different text is in Pesiqta rabbati
⁷⁰ In Šebuot
⁷² Greek βουλή.
⁷³ Jer


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:9)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. דָּבָר שֶׁאִילּוּ בִנְדָרִין אָסוּר וּבִשְׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר. לֹא הָדָא אָמְרָת אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא. אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּעַצְמָן וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלָּאֲחֵרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁנָּתַן פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי מָנֶה. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לָבֹא אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְשֶׁעָבַר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷⁴ 3:11 but it is not a copy. There, we have stated⁷⁵ 3:7, reads: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it, he is guilty only once” if he ate the loaf. This parallels Mishnah *Nedarim* 2:3 which explains that repeated vows are separate vows but repeated oaths are one and the same oath.: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf.” Something which would be forbidden for vows and is permitted for oaths⁷⁶. Not on that it was said but on the following⁷⁷ 3:5. An oath can refer to others; e. g., he swears to give a certain sum to another person.: “Whether it was for himself or for others.” Rebbi Abba said in Samuel’s name: An oath that X gave a mina to Y. If it turns out that he had not given [a mina], since it is not in his hand for the future, it is not in his hand for the past⁷⁸.

footnotes:
⁷⁴ The first part of this paragraph has a parallel in Ṡebuot
⁷⁵ This Mishnah, Šebuot
⁷⁶ Repeated oaths are not permitted but they do not add prohibitions to a simple oath.
⁷⁷ Mishnah, Šebuot
⁷⁸ Since X cannot swear that Y will give a mina to Z, having no power over Y’s actions, if he swears that Y gave to Z it is an invalid oath, neither vain not false.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:2:10)

אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי עַל תַּרְתֵּיהוֹן. זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִין. שֶׁשִּׁגְּגַת שְׁבוּעוֹת אֲסוּרָה וְשִׁגְּגַת נְדָרִין מוּתֶּרֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. עַד שֶׁבָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וְלִימֵּד שֶׁנֶּדֶר שֶׁהוּתָּר מִכְּלָלוֹ הוּתָּר כּוּלּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה אִם תַּמָּן נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם אַתְּ אָמַר. נֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטַל מִקְצָתוֹ בָטַל כּוּלּוֹ. כָּאן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. מִשֵּׁם נֶדֶר טָעוּת. שֶׁאִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאַבָּא וַאֲחַי שָׁם לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷⁹ is no longer a parallel. It was found stated about both cases⁸⁰: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted⁸¹ 28b, states the opposite: Both erroneous vows and oaths are permitted.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ]⁸² does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel?” However this is not more than a weak conjecture since R. Abba I belongs to the generation of the students of R. Joḥanan. Probably the question was asked before R. Yannai, as most of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s other questions., does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there⁸³, “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.⁸⁴” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more⁸⁵! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow⁸⁶.

footnotes:
⁷⁹ Here the text in Šebuot
⁸⁰ About vows and oaths.
⁸¹ The Babli, 25b and Šebuot
⁸² It is clear that something must be missing since R. Simeon ben Laqish could have asked Rebbi only as a very little boy but this is improbable since he was a wild youth not interested in studies. The commentaries all assume that the original text was בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי [בָּא מַה] בָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה and the copyist mistook the name בָּא for the verb בָּא: “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Abba, what
⁸³ Mishnah 9:6.
⁸⁴ R. Aqiba adds much in that Mishnah, that a vow which is voided because the maker of the vow did not consider that it would deprive him of the enjoyment of sabbaths or holidays. Before him, the vow was lifted only for sabbaths or holidays. But in the Mishnah here, the House of Hillel lifts the vow for all people who were eating the figs when his vow was lifted as an erroneous vow only for his father and brothers. So why is the teaching of Mishnah 9:6 not credited to the House of Hillel, who are not mentioned in the Mishnah?
⁸⁵ From 9:6 one can infer the last statement of 3:2 but not vice-versa; the House of Hillel held that the principle does not apply to vows which have to be investigated by a Sage.
⁸⁶ R. Hila holds that in Mishnah 3:2 the vow is not partially but totally in error; the farmer would not have made the vow at all had he known that his father was there, and did not object to the presence of others. One has no information about the views of the House of Hillel in the matter of partially voided vows.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:3:1)

**משנה:** נִדְרֵי אוֹנְסִין הִדִּירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ וְחָלָה הוּא אוֹ שֶׁחָלָה בְנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁעִיכְּבוֹ נָהָר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ נִדְרֵי אוֹנְסִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Vows in connection with acts of God: His friend made him vow that he would eat with him but he or his child fell sick⁸⁷ or a river prevented him⁸⁸; these are vows in connection with acts of God⁸⁹.

footnotes:
⁸⁷ And he has to stay home to treat him.
⁸⁸ By a flood.
⁸⁹ Since none of the parties had intended that the vow should include the case that the invited party was prevented by an act of God.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:3:2)

**הלכה:** נִדְרֵי אוֹנְסִין. הִדִּירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחָלָה. הָא אִם לא חָלָה לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְלָמָּה לֵית אֲנָן פָּתְרִין לָהּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי. בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדִי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדִי. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. אִם בְּזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדִי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדָךְ אָמַרְתִּי. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. כֵּן אוֹרְחֵהּ דְּבַר נָשָׁא מֵימוֹר לְחַבְרֵיהּ. בורוסתי בייה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Vows in connection with acts of God: His friend made him vow,” etc. because he fell ill. Therefore, if he did not fall ill, no⁹⁰. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, “he is forbidden until he gives⁹¹ that I shall not have anything from you unless you come and take so and so much grain and wine for your son, he can annul his vow alone by saying, I said that only for my honor and that is my honor. But one who says, a *qônām* that you will not have anything from me unless you give so and so much grain and wine to my son, *R. Meïr says he is forbidden until he gives*. But the Sages say, this one also can annul his vow alone by saying, it is as if I received it.”.” Rebbi Yose said, why do we not explain it according to everybody⁹²? As my teacher said⁹³, they disagree when it was indeterminate. Where do we hold? If each one of them said, because of my honor, everybody agrees that he is forbidden⁹⁴. If one of them said, because of my honor, and the other said, I said it in your honor, everybody agrees he is permitted⁹⁵. Rebbi Hila said, is it the way of people to say χαρίζεσθαι βίᾳ⁹⁶.
As Lieberman explains, in Egyptian legal papyri one frequently finds the formula ὁμολογῶ χαρίζεσθαί σοι “I agree that I gave you”. R. Hila asked, would anybody say ὁμολογῶ χαρίζεσθαί σοι βίᾳ “I agree that I gave you by force?” A gift can be given only with the consent of the recipient; in the case of Mishnah 8:11, a vow involving a gift can be valid only with the agreement of both parties.?

footnotes:
⁹⁰ It is a valid vow which must be kept.
⁹¹ Mishnah 8:11: “If somebody says to his friend, a qônām
⁹² Since the entire vow falls under the category of speeding-up vows. But in the case of 8:11 there is another principle involved.
⁹³ R. Ze‘ira, in Halakhah 8:11, explaining the difference between R. Meïr and the Sages.
⁹⁴ Both parties agree that they meant the vow to mean what it said; the vow is valid.
⁹⁵ Since the vow never was accepted by the other party.
⁹⁶ An interpretation by N. Brüll (cf. Note 70, p. 138), erroneously ascribed to Jastrow by S. Lieberman (p. 34). Lieberman reads כורוסתי instead of בורוסתי of the Leiden ms., כורוסתי of the editio princeps


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:4:1)

**משנה:** נוֹדְרִין לֶהָרָגִים וְלֶחָרָמִים וְלַמּוֹכְסִין שֶׁהִיא תְרוּמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלְּבֵית הַמֶּלֶךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁלָּהֶן. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים בַּכֹּל נוֹדְרִין חוּץ מִבִּשְׁבוּעָה וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אַף בִּשְׁבוּעָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים לֹא יִפְתַּח לֹו בְנֶדֶר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אַף יִפְתַּח לוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים בַּמֶּה שֶׁהוּא מַדִּירוֹ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אַף בַּמֶּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַדִּירוֹ. כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ לוֹ קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי וְאָמַר קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי נֶהֱנִין לִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת וּבָנָיו אֲסוּרִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מוּתָּרִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One makes a vow to tax assessors⁹⁷ (Roman 15 year periods, Byzantine 5 year periods). This reading is confirmed as that of the Babylonian Mishnah by Ravad (R. Abraham ben David of Posquières, *Temim De‘im* No. 59). Earlier commentators explain הרגים as criminal gangs who kill people unless they deliver to them all their money and/or valuables. and to people who condemn property⁹⁸ and to toll collectors⁹⁹ 10:1–2, where toll collectors are classified with robbers. that it is heave even though it is not heave¹⁰⁰, that it is king’s family’s property even though it is not theirs¹⁰¹, his slaves and freedmen, whom he uses to administer the empire. Their property would be exempt of taxes and shielded from confiscation. This vow would be valuable also against Gentile claimants.. The House of Shammai say, one vows anything except an oath, but the House of Hillel say, even an oath. The House of Shammai say, one may not offer a vow¹⁰², but the House of Hillel say, one may offer. The House of Shammai say, only what he prescribes as vow, but the House of Hillel say, even what he does not prescribe.
How is this? They said to him, say: a *qônām* that my wife cannot have any use from me¹⁰³ be valid if anything he said was untrue., and he said: a *qônām* that my wife and my children cannot have any use from me; the House of Shammai say, his wife is permitted but his children are forbidden¹⁰⁴; but the House of Hillel say, both are permitted.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ Reading with the Vienna ms. of Tosephta 2:2 edited by S. Lieberman: חָרָג, “fiscal agent” [Y. Kutscher, לשוננו 27 (1963), p.35], as in Arabic خراج “real estate tax, revenue.” This refers to the periodical assessment of wealth by the Roman government known as indiction
⁹⁸ Government fiscal agents acting on an arbitrary decree (in the way it was Roman practice, introduced by Augustus, to condemn any inherited property if the emperor was not named principal heir for a third of the property, with the real heirs being reduced to the status of co-heirs to the emperor.)
⁹⁹ Since tolls were always farmed out, the tax farmer had to try to collect more than the legal rate in order to make money on the transaction, and the toll collector may be presumed to have asked for more than he would deliver to the tax farmer. These practices are classified as robbery; cf. Mishnah Baba qama
¹⁰⁰ A Jewish killer, robber, or toll collector would be much too superstitious to touch heave.
¹⁰¹ Property of a member of the emperor’s familia
¹⁰² One may make such a false vow only if required to do so by the extortionist who does not believe his victim’s assertions.
¹⁰³ That the qônām
¹⁰⁴ Since that part of the vow was not imposed on him.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:4:2)

**הלכה:** נוֹדְרִין לֶהָרָגִים וְלֶחָרָמִים כול׳. לֶהָרָגִים בֶּהָרָגָה. לֶחָרָמִים בִּשְׁעַת הַחֶרֶם. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם הָיָה דָבָר שֶׁלַּסַּכָּנָה מוּתָּר. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חִינְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם הָיָה דָבָר שֶׁל יִישׁוּב אָסוּר. תַּנֵּי. תּוֹלִים בַּגּוֹיִם וּבְמַלְכוּת אֲבָל לֹא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁבַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ מְצוּיִין לִיפּוֹל. דְּלָא יַפֵּל וִיגַלְגֵּל עֲלוֹהִי קַדְמִיתָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One makes a vow to assessors and to people who condemn property,” etc. To assessors in time of *indiction*⁹⁷ (Roman 15 year periods, Byzantine 5 year periods). This reading is confirmed as that of the Babylonian Mishnah by Ravad (R. Abraham ben David of Posquières, *Temim De‘im* No. 59). Earlier commentators explain הרגים as criminal gangs who kill people unless they deliver to them all their money and/or valuables.; to condemners in times of expropriations. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a dangerous situation, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was civilized, it is forbidden¹⁰⁵. It was stated: One hangs on Gentiles and government but not on Jews¹⁰⁶, because the strong-armed will fall and he should not risk that the prior [obligations] fall on him.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ Reading with the Vienna ms. of Tosephta 2:2 edited by S. Lieberman: חָרָג, “fiscal agent” [Y. Kutscher, לשוננו 27 (1963), p.35], as in Arabic خراج “real estate tax, revenue.” This refers to the periodical assessment of wealth by the Roman government known as indiction
¹⁰⁵ If the tolls were collected according to a published tariff, or a condemnation was collected pursuant to a court judgment. In the Babli, 28a, the Babylonian opinion is quoted that one may lie to the toll collector if he does not work following an official tariff, and the Galilean that one may not lie to a toll collector appointed by the government.
¹⁰⁶ If a person frees himself from paying tolls, he may claim that certain of his properties belong to other people. But he should not claim that they were another Jew’s property since the other Jew may sue him for damages once the rule of law has been re-established.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:4:3)

עָבַר וּפָתַח. עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי מָהוּ. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת וּבָנָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָדָא אָמְרָה. עָבַר וּפָתַח עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי מוּתָּר. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. בִּנְדָרִים. הָא בִשְׁבוּעוֹת לֹא. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. לֹא תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר. נִשְׁבַּע אַתְּ לֶהָרָגִין וְלֶחָרָמִין וּלְמוֹכְסִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he transgressed and offered [a vow], how is that in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Let us hear from the following: “The House of Shammai say, his wife is permitted but his children are forbidden.” That means, if he transgressed and offered [a vow], in the opinion of the House of Shammai he is permitted¹⁰⁷. They wanted to say, vows but not oaths. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, “¹⁰⁸do not swear falsely in My Name,” you may swear to assessors and to people who condemn property and to toll collectors.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ It seems that since his wife is permitted even following his voluntary addition of his children, that this addition has no influence on the rest of the vow. (R. David Fraenckel emends the text from “permitted” to “prohibited”.)
¹⁰⁸ Lev. 19:12. It seems that the argument is based on the second half of the verse, not quoted in the text: "for you would desecrate your God's Name, I am the Eternal". It is general rabbinic doctrine that the note "I am the Eternal" at the end of a verse indicates that a transgression depends on the intention, that God will judge whether a person intended evil or not (Sifra Qedošim Parašah 2(14). This means that when clearly no desecration of the Name is intended, the oath cannot be forbidden.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:5:1)

**משנה:** הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ קָרְבָּן אִם אֵינָן נִקְצָצוֹת טַלִּית זוֹ קָרְבָּן אִם אֵינָהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן. הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ קָרְבָּן עַד שֶׁיִּקָּצֵצוּ טַלִּית זוֹ קָרְבָּן עָד שֶׁתִּישָּׂרֵף אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** These orchard trees shall be *qorbān* if they are not cut, this garment be *qorbān* if it is not burned; these have redemption¹¹⁰. These orchard trees shall be *qorbān* until they are cut, this garment be *qorbān* until it is burned; these have no redemption¹¹¹.

footnotes:
¹¹⁰ The circumstances of the vow are explained in the Halakhah. Since neither trees nor garments can be sacrifices, by dedication they become Temple property and can be bought back from the Temple, i.e., redeemed.
¹¹¹ All Temple property other than sacrificial animals can be bought back from the Temple administration. But in this case, buying the property back would have no effect; immediately it would be rededicated if the trees were not cut or the garment burned.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:5:2)

**הלכה:** הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ קָרְבָּן כול׳. רָאָה קְצִיעוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין. רָאָה דְלֵיקָה מְמַשְׁמֶשֶׁת וּבָאָה וְאָמַר. הֲרִי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ קָרְבָּן אִם אֵינָן מְקֻצָּצוֹת. טַלִּית זוֹ קָרְבָּן אִם אֵינָהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת וְנִקְרָעָה. לְמַפְרֵיעָן קָדְשׁוּ אוֹ מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא. מַה נְפִיק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. נֶהֱנֶה מֵהֶן. אִין תֵּימַר. לְמַפְרֵיעָן קָדְשׁוּ. מָעַל. אִין תֵּימַר. מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא. לֹא מָעַל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “These orchard trees shall be *qorbān*,” etc. If he saw the king’s cutting crew coming near¹¹², if he saw fire coming near, and he said: These orchard trees shall be *qorbān* if they are not cut, this garment shall be *qorbān* if it is not burned or torn. Were they sanctified retroactively or only for the future¹¹³? What is the difference? If he used them. If you say that they are sanctified retroactively, he committed larceny. If you say for the future, he did not commit larceny.

footnotes:
¹¹² They will cut trees for public works without paying for them. The owner promises money to Heaven if he will be protected.
¹¹³ If it turns out that his property was saved, what is the exact moment when his vow becomes active. If one says from the moment he made the vow, that point in time is well defined. If one says, from the moment it is clear that his property will be spared, that moment is difficult to pin down. The question is not answered.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:5:3)

חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. פְּדָיָין חָזְרוּ לִקְדוּשָׁתָן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. פְּדָיָין פְּדוּיִין. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. פָּתַר לָהּ. לִכְשֶׁיִּקָּצֵצוּ אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַה דְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה בְּשֶׁפְּדָיָין הוּא. אֲבָל אִם פְּדָיָין אַחֵר פָּקְעָה מֵהֶן קְדוּשָׁתָן. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. פְּדָיָין פָּקְעָה מֵהֶן קְדוּשָׁתָן. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר. נִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר לֹא פָקְעוּ מִמֶּנָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת אַחַת מִכְּבָר וְאַחַת לִכְשֶׁיְּגָרְשֶׁנָּה מָהוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹¹⁴ 3:5 (64a, 1. 72). Therefore “there” means here and “here” the text in *Qiddušin*.Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity¹¹⁵. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed¹¹⁶. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption¹¹⁷. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them¹¹⁸. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them¹¹⁹. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here¹²⁰ 3:5, where the question was raised, what is the status of a woman whose husband gives her some valuables and says that these should serve as *qiddušin* (preliminary marriage, cf. *Yebamot* 1:1, Note 63) after he will have divorced her. It is obvious that if another man gives *qiddušin* to a married woman to be valid once she will be divorced, those *qiddušin* are invalid (Mishnah *Qiddušin*3:5) since the divorce depends on a third party (the husband). R. Yose holds that the husband himself can give *qiddušin* for after a divorce since no third party is involved. Therefore, there is no contradiction in R. Yose’s position here and there., he says that if she was married to another man the *qiddušin* [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two *peruṭot*, one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation¹²¹?

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ This paragraph is copied from Qiddušin
¹¹⁵ This refers to the second part of the Mishnah, where the orchard was vowed for the time before it was cut. The opinion of Ḥizqiah is that described in Note 111. In the Babli, 28b, the opinion is ascribed to bar Pada, a contemporary of Ḥizqiah.
¹¹⁶ In the Babli, 28b, this is the opinion of Ulla (R. Hila).
¹¹⁷ In general, we say that anything sanctified cannot become profane without some form of redemption. But in this case, the cutting of the trees or the burning of the garment is the act of profanation.
¹¹⁸ Because he himself stated that his orchard be holy until cut down. In the Babli, 130a, this is the opinion of R. Joḥanan.
¹¹⁹ For a third party the orchard is Temple property and becomes profane by payment of the redemption price.
¹²⁰ In Qiddušin
¹²¹ In the Babli, 30a, this is a question of R. Hoshaia.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:6:1)

**משנה:** הַנּוֹדֵר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם מוּתָּר בְּיוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה אָסוּר בְּיוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם. שֶׁיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם בִּכְלָל יוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה. לֹא כָאֵילּוּ שֶׁהוֹלְכִין מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One who makes a vow¹²² by the maker of the vow, who then is forbidden any use of X’s property and may not receive any favors from him. away from the seafaring men is permitted the dwellers on dry land; from the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men¹²³ because the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. [One speaks] not of those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea.

footnotes:
¹²² A “vow away from X” is always a vow that all of X’s property should be considered qorbān
¹²³ I. e., also the seafaring men.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:6:2)

**הלכה:** הַנּוֹדֵר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם כול׳. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. אֵילּוּ הַהוֹלְכִים מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ. מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה אָסוּר בְּיוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם. וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר אֶלָּא כְגוֹן אֵילּוּ הַהוֹלְכִין מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ. וְלֹא מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה נָדַר. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם בִּכְלָל יוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה. נָדַר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם נַעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי יַבֶּשֶׁת. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. אַחַר הַנֶּדֶר. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אַחַר הָאִיסָּר. וּבְאִילֵין טַלְיָיתָא צְרִיכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One who makes a vow away from the seafaring men,” etc. That you should not say, not from those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea. “From the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men,” not only those who go from Acco to Jaffa but even those who frequently take to the sea. But did he not make a vow regarding the dwellers on dry land? This implies that the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land¹²⁷. If he made a vow away from the seafaring men after thirty days but [a certain mariner] became a land dweller, there is a dispute between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba¹²⁸ after 30 days and before the 30 days elapsed she married. R. Ismael holds that the time of the vow is determining, and since she made the vow while on her own, the husband cannot dissolve her vow even though it will start to become active only during marriage. He will hold that any mariner who became a land dweller within 30 days of the vow is forbidden since he was a mariner at the moment the vow was made. R. Aqiba holds that the moment the vow becomes active is determining. Therefore, he holds that the husband can dissolve his wife’s vow and in the case of a vow against mariners, the person who became a dweller on dry land before the vow was activated is permitted.. For Rebbi Ismael says, after the vow, and Rebbi Aqiba says, after the prohibition. And about children it is a problem¹²⁹ sense only when he enters a seagoing vessel of his own will?.

footnotes:
¹²⁷ In the words of the Babli, 30b, “every seafaring man will eventually reach land.”
¹²⁸ The problem is compared to that of Halakhah 11:9 (Babli 89a) dealing with a widow who vowed to be a nezirah
¹²⁹ All commentators identify טלייתא with תלייתא “people going on pleasure trips.” This procedure has no basis. טליא only means “boy, young man”. Since minors are subject to their parents’ will, is a boy who is taken on a sea trip automatically a mariner or becomes a mariner in halakhic


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:7:1)

**משנה:** הַנּוֹדֵר מֵרוֹאֵי הַחַמָּה אָסוּר אַף בְּסוּמִין שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵון זֶה אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁהַחַמָּה רוֹאָה אוֹתוֹ. הַנּוֹדֵר מִשְּׁחוֹרֵי הָרֹאשׁ אָסוּר בַּקֵּרְחִין וּבְבַעֲלֵי שֵׂיבוֹת וּמוּתָּר בַּנָּשִׁים וּבַקְּטַנִּים שֶׁאֵין נִקְרָאִין שְׁחוֹרֵי רֹאשׁ אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיִּלּוֹדִים מוֹתָּר בַּנּוֹלָדִים. מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים רִבִּי מֵאִיר מַתִּיר אַף בַּיִּלּוֹדִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְכַּוֵון זֶה אֶלָּא בְמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִוָולֵד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One who makes a vow away from those who see the sun is also forbidden the blind since he intended only that seen by the sun¹²⁴. 7:11..
One who makes a vow away from those who see the sun is also forbidden the blind since he intended only that seen by the sun¹²⁴. 7:11..
One who makes a vow away from those who will be born¹³⁹. 1:22 יִלּוֹד clearly means “will be born”. is permitted those who are already born. From those who are born, Rebbi Meïr permits even those who will be born, but the Sages say, he intended only those in whose nature it is to be born.

footnotes:
¹²⁴ Cf. Eccl
¹²⁴ Cf. Eccl
¹³⁹ The Babli, 30b, switches the meanings between ילודים and נולדים. However, the Halakhah here confirms the translation as given; which is also confirmed by biblical usage; in Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:7:2)

**הלכה:** הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַיִּלּּוֹדִים כול׳. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְעַתָּה שְׁנֵי בָנֶיךָ הַנּוֹלָדִים לְךָ. וּכְבָר נוֹלְדוּ. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַבָּנִין. הִנֵּה בֶּן נוֹלַד לְבֵית דָּוִד יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ שְׁמוֹ. וְעַדַּיִין לֹא נוֹלַד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One who makes a vow away from those who will be born,” etc. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “And now your two sons born to you¹⁴³. 48:5.”, and they already were born. What is the Sages’ reason? “Lo, a son is born to the House of David, Josiah his name,¹⁴⁴. 13:2.” and he was not yet born.

footnotes:
¹⁴³ Gen
¹⁴⁴ 1K


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:8:1)

**משנה:** הַנּוֹדֵר מִשּׁוֹבְתֵי שַׁבָּת אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בַּכּוּתִים. מֵאוֹכְלֵי שׁוּם אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בַּכּוּתִים. מֵעוֹלֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בַּכּוּתִים. קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לִבְנֵי נֹחַ מוּתָּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בְּאוּמּוֹת. שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לִבְנֵי אַבְרָהָם אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בְּאוּמּוֹת. שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לוֹקֵחַ בְּיֵתֶר וּמוֹכֵר בְּפָחוֹת. שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל נֶהֱנִין לִי לוֹקֵחַ בְּפָחוֹת וּמוֹכֵר בְּיֵתֶר אֵין שׁוֹמְעִים לוֹ. שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָהֶם וְהֵם לִי יַהֲנֶה לָאוּמּוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One who makes a vow away from those who keep the Sabbath is forbidden Jews and Samaritans¹⁴⁰, from garlic eaters¹⁴¹ is forbidden Jews and Samaritans, from those who make pilgrimage to Jerusalem is forbidden Jews but permitted Samaritans¹⁴².
A *qônām* that I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Noah; he is permitted Jews and forbidden Gentiles¹⁴⁵. That I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Abraham; he is forbidden Jews and permitted Gentiles¹⁴⁶. 21:12).. That I shall not enjoy from Jews; he buys higher and sells lower¹⁴⁷. That Jews shall not enjoy from me; he buys lower and sells higher, if they agree¹⁴⁸. That I shall not enjoy from them nor they from me; he should deal with Gentiles.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁰ But Sabbatist Christians who do not accept the obligation to keep all laws of the Pentateuch are not included in the prohibition.
¹⁴¹ In general use as fertility medication.
¹⁴² For their pilgrimages are to Mount Gerizim.
¹⁴⁵ Even though Jews also are descendants of Noah, the technical term “descendants of Noah” applies only to those outside the Sinaitic covenant, who are only bound by the natural law given to Adam and Noah.
¹⁴⁶ Including the descendants of Hagar and Qeturah since only Isaac is called “Abraham’s descendant” (Gen
¹⁴⁷ Than the going market rate. In that case, he is guaranteed a loss in any commercial transaction; he may trade without violating his vow.
¹⁴⁸ He would have to tell his customers that he was overcharging them.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:8:2)

**הלכה:** קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לִבְנֵי נֹחַ. מוּתָּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בְּאוּמּוֹת. שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לְזֶרַע אַבְרָהָם. אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בְּאוּמּוֹת כול׳. וְאֵין יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלַל זַרְעוֹ שֶׁלָּאַבְרָהָם. כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע. וְאֵין עֶשָׂיו בִּכְלַל זֶרַע יִצְחָק. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר שָׁלוֹם. בְּיִצְחָק. בְּמִקְצָת יִצְחָק. רִבִּי הוּנָא אָמַר. בֵּית תְּרֵי. בֶּן שֶׁהוּא עָתִיד לִנְחוֹל שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמוֹת. הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רִבִּי גֵרשׁוֹם בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. דָּרַךְ כּוֹכָב מִיַּעֲקֹב. מִמִּי דָּרַךְ כּוֹכָב וְעָתִיד לַעֲמוֹד. מִיַּעֲקֹב. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנָא. עָתִיד עֵשָׂו הָרָשָׁע לַעֲטוֹף טַּלִּיתוֹ וְלֵישֵׁב עִם הַצַּדִּיקִים בְּגַן עֵדֶן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹוֹא. וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא גּוֹרְרוֹ וּמוֹצִיאוֹ מִשָּׁם. מַה טַעֲמָא. אִם תַּגְבִּיהַּ כַּנֶּשֶׁר וְאִם בֵּין כּוֹכָבִים שִׂים קִנֶּךָ מִשָּׁם אוֹרִידְךָ נְאוּם יי. וְאֵין כּוֹכָבִים אֶלָּא צַדִיקִים. כְּמַה דְּאַתְּ אֲמַר וּמַצְדִּיקֵי הָרַבִּים כַּכּוֹכָבִים לְעוּלָם וָעֶד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A *qônām* that I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Noah; he is permitted Jews and forbidden Gentiles¹⁴⁵. That I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Abraham; he is forbidden Jews and permitted Gentiles,” etc. Is Ismael not part of Abraham’s seed? “¹⁵⁰. 21:12. The same in the Babli 31a, *Sanhedrin* 59b.. For in Isaac will be called your seed.” And is not Esaw part of Isaac’s seed? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, “in Isaac,” in part of Isaac. Rebbi Huna said, “ב” are two¹⁵¹, the son who will be inheriting two worlds, this world and the world to come. Rebbi Gershom in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, “¹⁵². 24:17. a star did step out from Jacob,” from whom did a star step out and will appear in the future? From Jacob! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: In the future world, evil Esaw will put on his prayer shawl and sit with the Just in Paradise, but the Holy One, Praise to Him, draws him away. Why? “¹⁵³. 1:4. If you climb as high as an eagle or if you would make your nest between stars, from there I would take you down, says the Lord.” But “stars” are only the Just. As you say¹⁵⁴. 12:3., “those who justify the many are like stars, eternally.”

footnotes:
¹⁴⁵ Even though Jews also are descendants of Noah, the technical term “descendants of Noah” applies only to those outside the Sinaitic covenant, who are only bound by the natural law given to Adam and Noah.
¹⁵⁰ Gen
¹⁵¹ Following the Alexandrian practice to denote numbers by letters.
¹⁵² Num
¹⁵³ Ob
¹⁵⁴ Dan


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:9:1)

**משנה:** קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָעֲרֵלִים מוּתָּר בְּעָרֵילֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לַמּוּלִים אָסוּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָאוֹלֵם. שֶׁאֵין הָעָרְלָה קְרוּיָה אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי כָל הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵילִים וְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל עַרְלֵי לֵב. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה שֶׁשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֶה בְּרִיתוֹת נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה שֶׁהִיא דוֹחָה שַׁבָּת הַחֲמוּרָה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְלָה לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה הַצַּדִּיק עָלֶיהָ מְלֹא שָׁעָה. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה שֶׁהִיא דוֹחָה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה שֶׁכָּל הַמִּצְווֹת שֶׁעָשָׂה אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ לֹא נִקְרָא שָׁלֵם עַד שֶׁמָּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הִיא לֹא בָרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כֹּה אָמַר יי אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וְלַיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שַׂמְתִּי. דָּבָר אַחֵר גְּדוֹלָה הַמִּילָה שֶׁהִיא שְׁקוּלָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הִנֵּה דַּם הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת יי עִמָּכֶם עַל כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A *qônām* that I shall not enjoy from the uncircumcized, he is permitted uncircumcized Jews and forbidden circumcized peoples of the world. That I shall not enjoy from the circumcized, he is forbidden uncircumcized Jews and permitted circumcized peoples of the world, since the prepuce is simply a name for Gentiles as it was said¹⁴⁹. 9:25.: “For all Gentiles are uncircumcized and all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.”
Rebbi Ismael says, circumcision is great, for its covenant was concluded thirteenfold. Rebbi Yose says, circumcision is great, for it pushes aside the stringencies of the Sabbath. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, circumcision is great, for it was not suspended even one hour for Moses the Just. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, Rebbi Yose says, circumcision is great, for it pushes aside skin disease¹⁵⁵.
Rebbi says, circumcision is great, for with all the commandments which Abraham fulfilled he was not called whole until he circumcized himself as it is written¹⁵⁶. 17:1.: “Walk before me and be perfect.”
Another word: Circumcision is great, for without it the Holy One, praise to Him, would not have created his world as it is said¹⁵⁷. 33:25. In the Babli, this is mostly explained as referring to the Torah (which has to be studied day and night, *Jos*. 1:8) as blueprint for the world; 32a, *Pesaḥim* 68b; *Avodah zarah*3a. A similar text is in Tosephta 2:7.: “So says the Eternal, if it were not for my covenant day and night, I would not have put in place the laws of heaven and earth.” ¹⁵⁸ Another word: Circumcision is great, for it is weighty corresponding to all other commandments of the Torah, as it is said¹⁵⁹. 24:8. This verse speaks about the Sinaitic covenant; it is used here because in rabbinic and modern Hebrew the word בְּרִית “covenant” is synonymous with “circumcision”.: “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Eternal concluded with you about *all* these words.”

footnotes:
¹⁴⁹ Jer
¹⁵⁵ The Halakhah will explain the Mishnah.
¹⁵⁶ Gen
¹⁵⁷ Jer
¹⁵⁸ This addition is not in the Babylonian Mishnah; it is in Tosephta 2:6.
¹⁵⁹ Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:9:2)

**הלכה:** אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּר מַרְיָיה. כְּתִיב בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כָּרַת יי בְּרִית אֵֶת אַבְרָם לֵאמוֹר וגו׳ עַד וְאֶת בְּרִיתִי אָקִים אֶת יִצְחָק וגו״ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Yoḥanan bar Marya said, it is written: “On that day, the Eternal concluded a covenant with Abram as follows,” etc., up to “but my covenant I shall affirm with Isaac,” etc., thirteen covenants¹⁶⁰. 17:2–21 the word “covenant” appears 12 times. Therefore, *Gen*. 15:18 is added to reach the lucky number 13, the number of God’s attributes of mercy (*Ex*. 34:6–7) even though it speaks of a prior covenant; cf. the preceding Note..

footnotes:
¹⁶⁰ In Gen


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:9:3)

בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל. אֲפִילוּ בְשַׁבָּת. מַה אֲנִי מְקַיֵים מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוֹמָת. אַף בְּמִילָה. מַה אֲנִי מְקַיָים בַּשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל. חוּץ מִן הַשַּׁבָּת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבַיּוֹם. אֲפִילוּ בְשַׁבָּת. בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַנְּבִיאִים וּבַכְּתוּבִּים מָצִינוּ שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת שְׁקוּלָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. בַּתּוֹרָה. דִּכְתִיב עַד אָנָה מֵאַנְתֶּם לִשְׁמוֹר מִצְווֹתַי וְתוֹרוֹתָיי. וּכְתִיב רְאוּ כִּי יי נָתַן לָכֶם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. בַּנְּבִיאִים. דִּכְתִיב וַיַּמְרוּ בִי הַבָּנִים בְּחוּקּוֹתַי לֹא הָלָכוּ וגו׳. וּכְתִיב וְאֶת שַׁבְּתוֹתַי חִילְּלוּ מְאוֹד. בַּכְּתוּבִּים. דִּכְתִיב וְעַל הַר סִינַי יָרַדְתָּ וּכְתִיב וְאֶת שַׁבָּת קָדְשְׁךָ הוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם וגו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי אַבּוּנָא. מִצְווֹת שַׁבָּת מָלֵא. לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁהִיא שְׁקוּלָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל מִצְווֹתֵיהָ שֶׁלַּתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּילָה דוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ. מָשָׁל לִשְׁנֵי מַטְרֹנִיּוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בָאוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ וְאֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זוֹ גְדוֹלָה מֵחֲבֵירָתָהּ. זוֹ שֶׁהִיא יוֹרֶדֶת מִפְּנֵי חֲבֵירָתָהּ אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁחֲבֵירָתָהּ גְּדוֹלָה מִמֶּנָּהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“On the eighth day one shall circumcize¹⁶¹. 12:2.,” even on the Sabbath. How can I confirm “its desecrator shall certainly die¹⁶². 31:14.?” Even for circumcision? How can I confirm “on the eighth day one shall circumcize”? Even on the Sabbath? The verse says “¹⁶¹. 12:2.*But* on the eighth day one shall circumcize,” even on the Sabbath¹⁶³ 132a, *Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq* 1(4)] the argument for performing circumcision on the Sabbath is based on the expression “on the Sabbath day” and not simply “on the Sabbath”.. In Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs we find that the Sabbath is as weighty as all other commandments of the Torah¹⁶⁴ 1:8, Note 207. The text is copied in *Ex. rabba* 25(16). [taken together]. In the Torah, “until when will you refuse to keep My Commandments and Teachings¹⁶⁵. 15:28.,” and it is written: “See that the Eternal gave you the Sabbath¹⁶⁶. 15:29. The Sabbath is called “commandments and teachings” when no other prohibitions were yet given to the Israelites..” In Prophets, as is written¹⁶⁷. 20:21.: “But the sons rebelled against Me; My Laws they did not follow” etc., and it is written¹⁶⁸. 20:13. In *Ex. rabba* the quote is instead from *Ez*. 20:21, where the Sabbath is the only commandment singled out of all “laws and rules”. The word מאד “much” probably should be deleted.: “My Sabbaths they much desecrated.” In Hagiographs, as it is written: “On Mount Sinai You descended¹⁶⁹. 9:13.,” and it is written: “And about Your holy Sabbath You informed them¹⁷⁰. 9:14; again the Sabbath is the only commandment singled out of all “commandments and laws”.,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Abuna said, *commandment* of Sabbath is written *plene*¹⁷¹, to inform you that it is as weighty as all other commandments of the Torah. A parable of two ladies who meet and you do not know which one is of higher standing. If one makes room for the other, you know that the other is of higher standing.

footnotes:
¹⁶¹ Lev
¹⁶² Ex
¹⁶¹ Lev
¹⁶³ In the Babylonian versions [Šabbat
¹⁶⁴ Cf. Berakhot
¹⁶⁵ Ex
¹⁶⁶ Ex
¹⁶⁷ Ez
¹⁶⁸ Ez
¹⁶⁹ Neh
¹⁷⁰ Neh
¹⁷¹ In all other occurrences in the Hebrew Bible the spelling is מִצְוֹת, only at this place it is מִצְווֹת.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:9:4)

עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קָשָׁה מִכּוּלָּם. וְכִי תִשְׁגּוּ וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵת כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֵלֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹדָה בַּר פָּזִי. חִילּוּל הַשֵּׁם קָשֶׁה מִכּוּלָּן. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב וְאַתֶּם בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל כֹּה אָמַר יי אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ גִּילוּלָיו לְכוּ עֲבוֹדוּ וְאֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי לֹא תְחַלְּלוּ וגו׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Idolatry is worse than all others: “But if you should err and not fulfill all these commandments.¹⁷². 15:22. The rules for purification offerings are given in *Lev*. 4–5. The appearance of another set of purification offerings in *Num*. 15:22–28 is explained by the rule that these offerings are only for expiation of inadvertent idolatry (*Sifry Num*. 111). The Babli, *Erubin* 69b, equates desecration of the Sabbath and idolatry in severity.” Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, the desecration of the Name is worse than all others. That is what is written¹⁷³. 20:39.: “But to you, the House of Israel, so says the Eternal, Israel’s God, go and worship everybody his abominations but My holy Name do not desecrate, etc.

footnotes:
¹⁷² Num
¹⁷³ Truncated from Ez


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:9:5)

וְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁנִּתְעַצֵּל מֹשֶׁה בְּמִילָה בִּיקֵּשׁ הַמַלְאָךְ לְהוֹרְגוֹ. הָהוּא דִכְתִיב וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ יי וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לֹא נִתְעַצֵּל מֹשֶׁה בְּמִילָה אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה דָן בְּעַצְמוֹ וְאוֹמֵר. אִם לָמוּל וְלָצֵאת סַכָּנָה הִיא. וְאִם לִשְׁהוֹת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר לוֹ. לֵךְ שׁוּב מִצְרַיְמָה. אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁנִּתְעַצֵּל בְּלִינָה קוֹדֶם הַמִּילָה. הָהוּא דִכְתִיב וַיְהִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. חַס וְשָׁלוֹם. לֹא בִיקֵּשׁ הַמַלְאָךְ לַהֲרוֹג לְמֹשֶׁה אֶלָּא לְתִינּוֹק. בּוֹא וּרְאֶה. מִי קָרוּי חָתָן. מֹשֶׁה אוֹ הַתִּינּוֹק. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מֹשֶׁה קָרוּי חָתָן. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. הַתִינּוֹק קָרוּי חָתָן. מָאן דָּמַר. מֹשֶׁה קָרוּי חָתָן. חָתָן. דָּמִים מִתְבַּקֵּשׁ מִיָּדָךְ. וּמָאן דָּמַר. הַתִינּוֹק קָרוּי חָתָן. חָתָן. בְּדָמִים אַתְּ עוֹמֵד לִי. וַתִּקַּח צִפּוֹרָה צֹר וַתִּכְרוֹת אֶת עָרְלַת בְּנָהּ וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו וגו׳. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי נֶחֶמְיָה וְרַבָּנִין. חַד אָמַר. לְרַגְלָיו שֶׁלְּמֹשֶׁה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לְרַגְלָיו שֶׁלְּמַלְאָךְ. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לְרַגְלָיו שֶׁלְּתִינּוֹק. מָן דָּמַר. לְרַגְלָיו שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה. הֵילָךְ גְּזִי חוֹבָךְ. מָן דָּמַר. לְרַגְלָיו שֶׁל מַלְאָךְ. הֵילָךְ עֲבַד שְׁלִיחֻתֵּךְ. מָן דָּמַר. לְרַגְלָיו שֶׁל תִּינוֹק. נָגְעָה בְגוּף הַתִּינּוֹק. וַיִּרֶף מִמֶּנּוּ אָז אָמְרָה חֲתַן דָּמִים לַמּוּלוֹת. מִיכָּן לִשְׁתֵּי מִילוֹת. אַחַת לִפְרִיעָה וְאַחַת לְצִיצִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Because Moses was lazy for circumcision, the angel tried to kill kim. That is what is written¹⁷⁴. 4:24.: “The Eternal met him and wanted to kill him.” Rebbi Yose said, far be the thought that Moses was lazy for circumcision but he argued on his own: To perform circumcision and leave would be dangerous¹⁷⁵. To wait¹⁷⁶, the Holy One, praise to Him, told him: “Go, return to Egypt.” But because he was lazy in preparing for the overnight stay before circumcision; that is what is written¹⁷⁴. 4:24.: “It was on the way, at the overnight stay.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, far be the thought that the angel wanted to kill Moses; it was the baby. Come and see, who is called *ḥātān*¹⁷⁷? Moses or the baby? There are Tannaïm who state that Moses is called *ḥātān*. There are Tannaïm who state that the baby is called *ḥātān*. He who said that Moses is called *ḥātān: Ḥātān*, blood is required from you¹⁷⁸. And he said that the baby is called *ḥātān: Ḥātān*, in blood you are preserved for me. “Ṣippora took a flintstone and cut her son’s prepuce and touched his feet.¹⁷⁹. 4:25.” Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Neḥemiah, and the rabbis. One said, Moses’s feet. Another said, the angel’s feet. Another said, the baby’s feet. He who said Moses’s feet: Here I cut your obligation for you. He who said, the angel’s feet: Here your mission was accomplished. He who said the baby’s feet, she touched the baby’s body. “He left off from him; then she said, a blood *ḥātān* for circumcisions¹⁸⁰. 4:26..” From here that there are two circumcisions; one for baring the gland and one for the fibers¹⁸¹ 71b..

footnotes:
¹⁷⁴ Ex
¹⁷⁵ Acute danger to a person’s life suspends all commandments and prohibitions (except those of murder, incest and adultery, and idolatry). In practice, this means that it is forbidden to circumcize a sick baby.
¹⁷⁶ To wait in Midyan until the baby had recovered. In the Babli, 31b, this argument is attributed to Rebbi. The argument of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is quoted in his name, 32a.
¹⁷⁴ Ex
¹⁷⁷ Since Ṣippora, being a Midyanite Arab, spoke Arabic, the root ختن can mean either to circumcize or to become a relative through one’s wife. Therefore, the word is appropriate both for the boy and his father.
¹⁷⁸ Explanations of the expression חתן דמים.
¹⁷⁹ Ex
¹⁸⁰ Ex
¹⁸¹ A circumcision is not valid unless the gland is exposed and the wound is smooth; cf. Babli Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:9:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Nedarim/r/3:9:6)

יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת. מַה אֲנִי מְקַיֵים הִשָּׁמֵר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר מְאֹד וְלַעֲשׂוֹת וגו׳. אַף בְּמִילָה. מַה אֲנִי מְקַיֵים יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. בְּשַׂר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה דְאָמַר. מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה אֶת מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ כְּתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ. נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה דְאָמַר. אֵין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה לְמִצְוַת (ב)לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה כְתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא כְתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁸² 1(4), Babli *Šabbat* 132b.“The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized.¹⁸³. 12:3.” Even if it has white skin disease¹⁸⁴. 13:2–28.. How can I confirm: “Beware of skin disease to watch it carefully and to do …¹⁸⁵. 24:8. The injunction to follow all instructions of the priests in matters of impure skin disease is interpreted to mean that it is forbidden to cut out the diseased part of the skin. Then if a baby is born with diseased prepuce, how could it be circumcised?”? Also at a circumcision. Then how can I confirm: “The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized”? If there is no white skin disease? The verse says, “the flesh¹⁸⁶”, even if it has white skin disease. ¹⁸⁷ 2:1, Notes 9,10. This is simple in the opinion of Rebbi Jonah, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition even if they are not written together. But in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition only if they are written together? Since it is written “the flesh of his prepuce,” it is as if it were written together¹⁸⁸.

footnotes:
¹⁸² This paragraph is in Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq
¹⁸³ Lev
¹⁸⁴ Lev
¹⁸⁵ Deut
¹⁸⁶ Since the intent is to cut the flesh, cutting the skin is only incidental and is not in the mind of the person who does the circumcision.
¹⁸⁷ The disagreement between rabbis Jonah and Yose is discussed in Ḥallah
¹⁸⁸ The prohibition is irrelevant, cf. Note 186.