## Nedarim Daf 10b

###### Nedarim 10b:1
[Nedarim 10b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:1)

מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם ״לַה׳ עוֹלָה״, ״לַה׳ מִנְחָה״, ״לַה׳ תּוֹדָה״, ״לַה׳ שְׁלָמִים״ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where** is it derived **that a person should not say: To the Lord a burnt-offering,** or: **To the Lord a meal-offering,** or: **To the Lord a thanks-offering,** or: **To the Lord a peace-offering,** but should mention the offering first and then state that it is for the Lord? **The verse states: “An offering to the Lord”** (Leviticus 1:2). The reason for this is that if one first says: To the Lord, perhaps he will change his mind and not complete the sentence in order to avoid consecrating the offering, and he will have uttered the name of God in vain.


###### Nedarim 10b:2
[Nedarim 10b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:2)

וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּון אֶלָּא לְהַזְכִּיר שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם עַל הַקׇּרְבָּן — אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״, לְבַטָּלָה — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as** with regard to **this** individual discussed in the *baraita*, **who intended to mention the name of Heaven only upon an offering, the Torah said** that he should say: **An offering to the Lord,** in order to avoid possibly mentioning the name of God in vain, with regard to one who actually mentions the Divine Name **in vain, all the more so** it is clear that he has committed a severe transgression.


###### Nedarim 10b:3
[Nedarim 10b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:3)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין — אֲסוּרִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין — מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it was taught in a *baraita* that **Beit Shammai say:** If one expresses a vow with **substitutes for** the **substitute terms** mentioned in the mishna, the vow takes effect and the items are **forbidden. And Beit Hillel say:** If one expresses a vow with **substitutes for** the **substitute terms** mentioned in the mishna, the vow does not take effect and the items are **permitted.**


###### Nedarim 10b:4
[Nedarim 10b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:4)

מַאי לָאו: מַאן דְּאָמַר כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין אֲסוּרִין, קָסָבַר (כִּינּוּיֵי) כִינּוּיִין לְשׁוֹן אוּמּוֹת הֵן. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּרִים, קָסָבַר לָשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּדוּ לָהֶן חֲכָמִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** correct that **the one who says** that a vow expressed with **substitutes for** the **substitute terms** mentioned in the mishna takes effect and that the item is consequently **forbidden** likewise **holds that substitutes** for the language of vows are terms from the **language of** other **nations,** and therefore substitutes for those terms, which are also from foreign languages, should be equally acceptable? **And** similarly, **according to the one who says** that the vow does not take effect and the item is **permitted,** it must be that **he holds that** these terms are **language that the Sages devised.** Consequently, substitutes for those terms, which the Sages did not declare to be acceptable terms for expressing a vow, do not cause a vow to take effect.


###### Nedarim 10b:5
[Nedarim 10b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:5)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כִּינּוּיִין לְשׁוֹן אוּמּוֹת הֵן, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: בְּהָנֵי נָמֵי מִשְׁתַּעִי אוּמּוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: בְּהָנֵי לָא מִשְׁתַּעִי אוּמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is possible **that everyone** holds that **substitutes** for the language of vows **are** terms from **the language of** other **nations, and Beit Shammai hold** that **the nations speak** using **these** substitutes for the terms mentioned in the mishna **also, and Beit Hillel hold** that **the nations do not speak** using **these** terms.


###### Nedarim 10b:6
[Nedarim 10b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:6)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: גָּזְרִינַן כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין מִשּׁוּם כִּינּוּיִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: לָא גָּזְרִינַן כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין מִשּׁוּם כִּינּוּיִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** an alternate response: Substitute terms themselves are terms from a foreign language. **Beit Shammai hold** that **we** issue **a decree** with regard to **substitutes for** the **substitute terms** mentioned in the mishna, despite the fact that these terms themselves are not valid terms even in a foreign language, **due to** a concern that if they are not considered to express a vow, one will come to act leniently with regard to a vow expressed with the **substitute terms** mentioned in the mishna. **And Beit Hillel hold: We do not** issue **a decree** with regard to **substitutes for** the **substitute terms** mentioned in the mishna **due to** a concern that one will come to act leniently with regard to a vow expressed with the **substitute terms** themselves.


###### Nedarim 10b:7
[Nedarim 10b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:7)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין דִּנְדָרִים? תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״מַקְנֵמְנָא״ ״מַקְנַחְנָא״ ״מַקְנֵסְנָא״. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין דְּחֵרֶם? תָּנֵי מַפְשָׁאָה: ״חֲרָקִים״ ״חֲרָכִים״ ״חֲרָפִים״. כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין דִּנְזִירוּת? תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״מַחְזֵקְנָא״ ״מַנְזַחְנָא״ ״מַפִּיחְנָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms for vows? Rav Yosef teaches** that they include the following terms: ***Mekanamna*, *mekanaḥna*,** and ***mekanasna*.** These are verb forms of the terms *konam*, *konaḥ*, and *konas* respectively, mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms for dedication [*ḥerem*]?** The Sage **Mafsha’a teaches: *Ḥarakim*, *ḥarakhim*,** and ***ḥarafim*.** The Gemara continues: What are the **substitutes for substitute terms for naziriteship [*nezirut*]? Rav Yosef teaches: *Meḥazakna*, *menazaḥna*,** and ***mafiḥna*.**


###### Nedarim 10b:8
[Nedarim 10b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:8)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״מִיפְּחַזְנָא״ מַאי? ״מִיתְּחַזְנָא״ מַאי? ״מִיתְּעַזְנָא״ מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: ״קִינְּמָא״ (קינמא) מַאי? ״קֻוֽנָּם״ קָאָמַר, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״קִנְּמָן בֶּשֶׂם״ קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If one uses the term ***mifḥazna*, what** is the *halakha*? If one uses the term ***mitḥazna*, what** is the *halakha*? If one uses the term ***mitazna*, what** is the *halakha*? **Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** If one uses the term ***kinma*, what** is the *halakha*? Is he **saying** that the item should be like a ***konam*,** in which case the vow takes effect, **or perhaps** he is **saying sweet cinnamon [*kineman besem*]** (see Exodus 30:23) and does not intend to express a vow with the word *konam*?


###### Nedarim 10b:9
[Nedarim 10b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: ״קִינָּה״ מַאי? קִינָּה שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין קָאָמַר, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָשׁוֹן דְּקֻוֽנָּם? תִּיבְּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ḥiyya, said to Rav Ashi:** If one uses the term ***kina*,** what is the *halakha*? Is he **saying** this term in reference to a **chicken coop,** which is also called a *kina*, **or perhaps it is a term for *konam*** and expresses a vow? With regard to these cases, the Gemara says: **The dilemma remains** unresolved.


###### Nedarim 10b:10
[Nedarim 10b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:10)

כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין דִּשְׁבוּעָה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? ״שְׁבוּאֵל״ ״שְׁבוּתִיאֵל״ ״שְׁקוּקָאֵל״. שְׁבוּאֵל? שְׁבוּאֵל בֶּן גֵּרְשׁוֹם מַשְׁמַע! אֶלָּא: ״שְׁבוּבָאֵל״ ״שְׁבוּתִיאֵל״ ״שְׁקוּקָאֵל״ מַהוּ? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָמַר ״אַשִּׁיבְתָּא״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, ״אַשְׁקִיקָא״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, ״קָרִינְשָׂא״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms of oaths [*shevua*]?** The Gemara answers that this category includes the terms ***shevuel*, *shevutiel*,** and ***shekukael*.** The Gemara asks: Why is the term ***shevuel*** included? This word **indicates Shevuel, son of Gershom,** the proper name of an individual (see I Chronicles 26:24), and therefore it should not be considered a substitute term for an oath. **Rather,** the list of terms includes ***shevuvael*, *shevutiel*,** and ***shekukael*. What is** the *halakha*? **Shmuel said:** If **he said *ashivta* he has not said anything,** despite the fact that there is some similarity between this term and the word oath [*shevua*]. Similarly, if he said ***ashkika* he has not said anything.** If he said ***karinsha* he has not said anything,** although it is somewhat similar to *konam*.


###### Nedarim 10b:11
[Nedarim 10b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:11)

״נָדַר בְּמוֹהִי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִינּוּיִין״. תַּנְיָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹמֵר ״בְּמוֹהִי״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, ״בְּמוֹמָתָא דַּאֲמַר מוֹהִי״ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּינּוּיִין לַשְּׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna: If one used the terms *shevuta* or *shekuka*, or **took a vow with** the term ***mohi*, these are substitute terms** for an oath. **It is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who says** that he is taking an oath **by *mohi* has not said anything.** However, if he says: **By an oath [*bemomata*] that *Mohi* said, these are** valid **substitute terms for an oath.**


###### Nedarim 10b:12
[Nedarim 10b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר ״לַחוּלִּין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ״, ״לָא כָּשַׁר״ וְ״לָא דְּכֵי״, ״טָהוֹר״ וְ״טָמֵא״, ״נוֹתָר״ וּ״פִיגּוּל״ — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **If one says** to another: **That which I eat of yours** shall be considered ***laḥullin*,** it is interpreted as though he said: *La ḥullin*, not non-sacred, and the food is thereby forbidden to him. Similarly, if he said that food shall be considered **not valid** or **not *dekhi*,** i.e., not **ritually pure, or** if he said the food shall be considered an offering that has become **ritually impure, left over [*notar*], or *piggul*,** i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time, **it is forbidden.**


###### Nedarim 10b:13
[Nedarim 10b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/10b:13)

כְּאִימְּרָא, כְּדִירִים, כָּעֵצִים, כָּאִשִּׁים, כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ, כַּהֵיכָל, כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. נָדַר בְּאֶחָד מִכׇּל מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּיר קׇרְבָּן — הֲרֵי זֶה נָדַר בְּקׇרְבָּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹמֵר ״יְרוּשָׁלַיִם״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one says that food shall be considered **like the lamb** of the daily offering, **like the** animals designated as offerings and kept in special **enclosures, like the wood** of the altar, **like the fires** on the altar, **like the altar, like the Sanctuary,** or **like Jerusalem,** or if **he took a vow with any of the accessories of the altar, although he did not** explicitly **mention** that the food should be like **an offering, it is** considered **a vow** that associates a different item with **an offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says** that an item shall be considered **Jerusalem,** instead of saying that it shall be considered like Jerusalem, **has not said anything.**