## Nedarim Daf 14a

###### Nedarim 14a:1
[Nedarim 14a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:1)

לָאו אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵן! וְאֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a negative** statement **you** can **infer a positive** statement? How then can it be inferred that it should be like an offering? **And** if it is **rather** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who disagrees with Rabbi Meir in this matter, the ruling of the mishna is superfluous, as **this is** identical to the ruling of the mishna in **the first clause.** The mishna above (10b) already established that a vow that uses the term *laḥullin* takes effect.


###### Nedarim 14a:2
[Nedarim 14a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:2)

אַיְּידֵי דְּקָתָנֵי ״כִּבְשַׂר חֲזִיר״, ״כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״, לְהָכִי קָתָנֵי ״חוּלִּין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The ruling is superfluous. However, **since** the mishna **teaches** that the vow does not take effect when he says that the food will be **like pig meat** or **like** an object of **idol worship, it therefore teaches** incidentally that this ruling also applies when he says that it will be **non-sacred.**


###### Nedarim 14a:3
[Nedarim 14a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:3)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: הָכִי קָתָנֵי, וְאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין: ״כְּחוּלִּין״, ״כִּבְשַׂר חֲזִיר״, ״כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״. וְאִי לָא תְּנָא חוּלִּין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא בָּעֵי שְׁאֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said** that **this is** what the mishna **is teaching: And these are** the vows that do not take effect at all and therefore the item mentioned in the vow remains **permitted:** One who said that a certain item will be **like non-sacred** food, or **like pig meat,** or **like** an object of **idol worship. And if it did not teach** the case of **non-sacred** food, **I would say** that although the vow does not take effect, it still **requires,** by rabbinic law, **a request** to a halakhic authority for its dissolution.


###### Nedarim 14a:4
[Nedarim 14a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:4)

וּמִי אִיכָּא לְאַסּוֹקֵי עַל דַּעְתָּא הָכִי? הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי כְּאִימָּא״ — פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ פֶּתַח מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָא בָּעֲיָא שְׁאֵלָה! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא, חוּלִּין מִמֵּילָא נַסְבַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is there** any reason **to consider this** interpretation? **But from** the fact **that the latter clause teaches** with regard to a man **who says to his wife: You are hereby to me like** my **mother,** that dissolution is **broached with him by** suggesting **a different extenuation, it may be inferred that** the vow in **the first clause does not necessitate a request** to a halakhic authority. **Rather,** the interpretation of Ravina must be rejected, and **it is clear** that the case of **non-sacred** food **was cited tangentially** to the other cases in the mishna.


###### Nedarim 14a:5
[Nedarim 14a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:5)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ כִּי יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַה׳״ — עַד שֶׁיִּדּוֹר בְּדָבָר הַנָּדוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the principle that a prohibition cannot be created by associating a permitted item with one forbidden by Torah law, the Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived? The Gemara answers that **the verse states: “When a man takes a vow to the Lord”** (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that a vow does not take effect **until one takes a vow** by associating the status **of an item that is** forbidden by means of **a vow** with another item. If the item one is using to create the prohibition is forbidden by Torah law, the vow does not take effect.


###### Nedarim 14a:6
[Nedarim 14a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:6)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּדָבָר הָאָסוּר נָמֵי, דְּהָא כְּתִיב ״לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ״! ״לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ אִיסָּר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** then **even** if the item in the vow is associated **with an item forbidden** by Torah law, the vow should **also** take effect, **as** following that phrase in the verse **it is written: “To bind his soul with a bond [*issar*],”** which indicates that the association can be with an item forbidden [*asur*] by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The phrase **“To bind his soul with a bond” is necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita* (12a): **What is the bond mentioned in the Torah.** The *baraita* derives from this phrase that a vow that associates the relevant item with an item whose prohibition was created by a pre-existing vow takes effect, but one whose prohibition is by Torah law does not take effect.


###### Nedarim 14a:7
[Nedarim 14a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:7)

הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ כְּאִימָּא כּוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי כִּבְשַׂר אִימָּא, כִּבְשַׂר אֲחוֹתִי, כְּעׇרְלָה, וּכְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that with regard to a man **who says to his wife: You are hereby** to me **like** my **mother,** dissolution is broached with him suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., by rabbinic law it is treated like an actual vow and it requires dissolution by a halakhic authority. The Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita* that states that if a man says to his wife: **You are hereby to me like the flesh of** my **mother,** or **like the flesh of my sister,** or **like the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [*orla*], or like** forbidden mixtures of **diverse kinds** planted **in a vineyard,** all forbidden items, **he has said nothing.** This indicates that he does not even have to make a request to a halakhic authority.


###### Nedarim 14a:8
[Nedarim 14a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:8)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְצָרִיךְ שְׁאֵלָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא בְּתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, הָא בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: He has said nothing by Torah law,** as the vow does not take effect. **However, he needs** to make **a request** to a halakhic authority **by rabbinic law. Rava said: That** *baraita* is referring **to Torah scholars,** who are aware that this vow does not take effect. **This** mishna, on the other hand, is referring **to an ignoramus,** with regard to whom a rabbinic ordinance is necessary lest they take vows lightly.


###### Nedarim 14a:9
[Nedarim 14a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/14a:9)

וְהָתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹדֵר בַּתּוֹרָה — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְצָרִיךְ שְׁאֵלָה לְחָכָם. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְתַלְמִיד חָכָם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁאֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One who takes a vow** by associating an item **with a Torah** scroll **has not said anything,** i.e., the vow does not take effect. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: But** nevertheless, **he needs** to make **a request to a halakhic authority** for dissolution of the vow. **And Rav Naḥman said: And** if he is **a Torah scholar** he **does not need** to make **a request.** The postulation of Rava, which states that with regard to some vows that do not take effect it is necessary to make a request to a halakhic authority only if they are taken by an ignoramus, can be seen from here.