## Nedarim Daf 12a

###### Nedarim 12a:1
[Nedarim 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/12a:1)

וְהָא נוֹתָר וּפִיגּוּל לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But *notar* and *piggul* are** conditions that apply **after the sprinkling of the blood,** when the prohibition against misusing consecrated property, which the individual is attempting to extend to a permitted item, no longer applies. Since the vow takes effect, this proves that the individual is associating the object of his vow with the original forbidden status of the offering.


###### Nedarim 12a:2
[Nedarim 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/12a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: בְּנוֹתָר שֶׁל עוֹלָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנֵי בִּבְשַׂר עוֹלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to him:** It is possible to say that it is speaking here about ***notar* of a burnt-offering.** Since a burnt-offering may not be eaten even after its blood is sprinkled, the original prohibition against misusing consecrated property continues to apply to the meat of this offering. Rava **said to** Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan: **If so, let it teach** explicitly that the individual referred **to the meat of a burnt-offering.**


###### Nedarim 12a:3
[Nedarim 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/12a:3)

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא ״בְּשַׂר עוֹלָה״ דְּאָסוּר, דְּהָא בְּקׇרְבָּן קָא מַתְפֵּיס, נוֹתָר וּפִיגּוּל דְּעוֹלָה אִיצְטְרִיכָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The *tanna* **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to state that if one **associates** the object of his vow with **meat of a burnt-offering,** it is **forbidden, as he extends** the status of **an offering** to the other item. However, if one extends the status of ***notar* and *piggul* of a burnt-offering, it is necessary to say** that the other item is forbidden.


###### Nedarim 12a:4
[Nedarim 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/12a:4)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כְּאִיסּוּר נוֹתָר, כְּאִיסּוּר פִּיגּוּל, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמַתְפֵּיס בְּדָבָר הָאָסוּר, וְלָא מִיתְּסַר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It could **enter your mind to say** that the individual intended to declare the item forbidden **like the prohibition of *notar*** or **like the prohibition of *piggul*, and this would be like one who associates** the object of his vow with **an item that is forbidden** by the Torah rather than an item forbidden by means of a vow. Consequently, the item **is not forbidden,** as one can take a vow by associating the object of his vow with a forbidden item only if that item is itself prohibited due to a vow. The mishna therefore **teaches us** that his intention is to transfer the prohibition of the offering, and the vow takes effect.


###### Nedarim 12a:5
[Nedarim 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/12a:5)

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵיזֶהוּ אִיסָּר הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרָה? אָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן כַּיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ אָבִיו״, ״כַּיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ רַבּוֹ״, ״כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ גְּדַלְיָה בֶּן אֲחִיקָם״, ״כַּיּוֹם שֶׁרָאִיתִי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בְּחוּרְבָּנָהּ״, וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁנָּדוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** based upon the following *baraita*: **Which is the** vow of **prohibition [*issar*] mentioned in the Torah?** It is a case where **one said: I hereby** declare **that I will not eat meat and I will not drink wine** today **like the day his father died,** referring to the father of the individual making the vow, as there is a custom to fast on the anniversary of a parent’s death, or: **Like the day his teacher died,** as one mourns his primary teacher like a father, or: **Like the day Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed** (see Jeremiah, chapter 41), i.e., the Fast of Gedaliah, or: **Like the day I saw Jerusalem in its** state of **destruction. And Shmuel said: And this is if he was obligated by** a previous **vow** to abstain from meat and wine **on that day** that he refers to in his declaration.


###### Nedarim 12a:6
[Nedarim 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/12a:6)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו כְּגוֹן דְּקָאֵי בְּחַד בְּשַׁבָּא דְּמִית בֵּיהּ אֲבוּהּ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא טוּבָא חַד בְּשַׁבָּא דְּהֶיתֵּרָא, וְקָתָנֵי אָסוּר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּעִיקָּר הוּא מַתְפֵּיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances? Is it not** a case where, **for example, it was Sunday,** the same day of the week **on which his father died? And although there were many permitted Sundays** in the interim, nevertheless, when he said he would not eat meat or drink wine like the day of the week on which his father died, his intention was to the particular Sunday when his father died, when he had vowed to abstain from meat and wine, **and** therefore **the *tanna* teaches** that it is **prohibited. Learn from this that he associates** the object of his vow with **the original** halakhic status of the Sunday his father died, and not the status of the intervening Sundays. Similarly, in the case of peace-offerings following the sprinkling of the blood, he is referring to the original status of the meat before the sprinkling of the blood.


###### Nedarim 12a:7
[Nedarim 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/12a:7)

דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁנָּדוּר וּבָא מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְאֵילָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that **this is how** the comment **of Shmuel was stated: Shmuel said: And this is if he was continuously obligated by a vow from that day forward** to abstain from meat and wine on the anniversary of his father’s death. Consequently, when he associates another day with the day of his father’s death, he expresses a vow based upon the current status of the day, and there is no proof with regard to the case of the meat of the peace-offering.


###### Nedarim 12a:8
[Nedarim 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/12a:8)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כְּחַלַּת אַהֲרֹן״, ״וְכִתְרוּמָתוֹ״ — מוּתָּר. הָא ״כִּתְרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״ — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another attempted proof. **Ravina said: Come** and **hear** that which was taught in the mishna (13b): If one declares an item to be **like the *ḥalla* of Aaron,** i.e., the portion of dough given to the priests, **or like his *teruma*,** the portion of agricultural produce given to priests, the item remains **permitted.** Although these items are prohibited to non-priests as soon as they are designated, they are considered forbidden by the Torah rather than forbidden by a vow. The Gemara infers: **But** if one declares an item to be **like the *teruma* of the loaves of the thanks-offering,** i.e., the four loaves of the thanks-offering that were eaten by the priests, the item is **forbidden.**