## Nedarim Daf 19a

###### Nedarim 19a:1
[Nedarim 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:1)

כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּלָא מְעַיֵּיל לִסְפֵיקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
holds that **all the more so,** one **does not enter himself into uncertainty either.** Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently.


###### Nedarim 19a:2
[Nedarim 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לִסְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל — כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד בְּכוֹרֵי אָדָם וְאֶחָד בְּכוֹרֵי בְהֵמָה, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה — הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rabbi Zeira: **In what** manner **did you establish** the mishna that states **that uncertainty** with regard to **naziriteship** is treated **leniently?** You established it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer. Say the latter clause** of that mishna: If there is **uncertainty** with regard to **firstborns, whether human firstborns, or animal firstborns, whether non-kosher** firstborns, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey, **or** the firstborn of **kosher** animals, **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.** In other words, the priest cannot take the redemption money from the father of the child, or the animal from its owner, and conversely, if the father or owner mistakenly gave it to a priest, he does not get it back.


###### Nedarim 19a:3
[Nedarim 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:3)

וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: וַאֲסוּרִים בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita* **in that regard: But with regard to shearing and working** these uncertain animal firstborns, they are **forbidden,** just like definite firstborns. This indicates a difference between the monetary issue, with regard to which it is ruled that the animal cannot be taken from the owner by the priest, and the prohibition, which applies despite the uncertainty. Evidently, even the *tanna* of this mishna does not hold that all uncertainties with regard to consecration are to be treated leniently.


###### Nedarim 19a:4
[Nedarim 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי קָא מְדַמֵּית קְדוּשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ, לִקְדוּשָּׁה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira **said to** Abaye: This is not difficult. **Why do you compare sanctity that emerges by itself,** i.e., the sanctity of a firstborn, which results from objective reality and not human intent, **to sanctity that emerges by** the volition of **a person** and is dependent on his intention? Only with regard to the latter type of sanctity can it be established that a person does not intend to consecrate an item in an uncertain manner.


###### Nedarim 19a:5
[Nedarim 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:5)

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא, הָא קַשְׁיָא: סְפֵק מַשְׁקִין, לִיטָּמֵא — טָמֵא, לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים — טָהוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר כִּדְבָרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** Rabbi Zeira’s answer **is difficult, this** is what **is difficult.** It is stated in that same mishna: In the case of **liquid** with regard to which there is **uncertainty** whether it became ritually impure through contact with someone who was ritually impure, the *halakha* is as follows: It is considered **impure** with regard to its **being impure** in and of itself, but it is considered **pure** with regard to its ability **to render other** items **impure.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Elazar would also say in accordance with the statements of** Rabbi Meir.


###### Nedarim 19a:6
[Nedarim 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:6)

וּמִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִיטָּמֵא טָמֵא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to Rabbi Zeira’s assertion that the rulings of this mishna with regard to uncertainty are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this causes a difficulty: **But does Rabbi Eliezer hold** that with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status **being impure, it is** considered **impure?**


###### Nedarim 19a:7
[Nedarim 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:7)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין טוּמְאָה לְמַשְׁקִין כׇּל עִיקָּר. תֵּדַע: שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵעִיד יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה עַל אַיָּל קַמְצָא דְּכַן, וְעַל מַשְׁקִין בֵּית מִטְבְּחַיָּא דְּכַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** By Torah law, **impurity does not apply to liquids at all? Know** that this is so, **as Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified concerning** a grasshopper species called ***eil kamtza*** that it is **kosher, and concerning the liquids of the** Temple **slaughterhouse** that **they are pure.** Liquids are susceptible to ritual impurity only by rabbinic law, and liquids in the Temple were not included in this decree so as not to cause additional impurity there. Since Rabbi Eliezer holds that by Torah law liquids are not susceptible to impurity, how can it be his opinion that liquids of uncertain ritual status are considered impure?


###### Nedarim 19a:8
[Nedarim 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:8)

הָנִיחָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: דְּכַן מִלְּטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים, אֲבָל טוּמְאַת עַצְמָן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן, שַׁפִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This works out well according to Shmuel, who said** that the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse are **pure** is that they cannot **render other** items impure, **but they themselves are** susceptible to **impurity.** Accordingly, liquids are susceptible to impurity by Torah law; only their ability to render other items impure is by rabbinic law. The ruling in the mishna that liquid of uncertain ritual status is considered impure is therefore consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Zeira’s answer works out **well.**


###### Nedarim 19a:9
[Nedarim 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:9)

אֶלָּא לְרַב דְּאָמַר דְּכַן מַמָּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, according to Rav, who said** that they are **actually pure,** i.e., they are not susceptible to impurity, **what is there to say?** The mishna that is lenient with regard to uncertain naziriteship and stringent with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status is clearly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Nedarim 19a:10
[Nedarim 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:10)

אֶלָּא: הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Zeira’s answer should be rejected, and the contradiction between the mishna here, which states that unspecified vows should be treated stringently, and the mishna in tractate *Teharot*, which states that uncertain naziriteship should be treated leniently, should be resolved as follows: **That** mishna, in *Teharot*, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and this** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Nedarim 19a:11
[Nedarim 19a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם יֵשׁ בִּכְרִי הַזֶּה מֵאָה כּוֹר״, וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that if someone says: **I am hereby a nazirite if there are in this heap** of grain **one hundred *kor*, and he went** to measure the heap **and found that it was stolen or that it was lost** and cannot be measured, **Rabbi Yehuda permits** him to perform actions forbidden to a nazirite, as he holds that this uncertain naziriteship does not take effect. **And Rabbi Shimon prohibits** him from doing so, as he maintains that it does take effect. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that uncertain naziriteship is treated stringently.


###### Nedarim 19a:12
[Nedarim 19a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/19a:12)

וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא מְעַיֵּיל אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִסְפֵיקָא? וּרְמִינְהִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סְתַם תְּרוּמָה בִּיהוּדָה — אֲסוּרָה, וּבַגָּלִיל — מוּתֶּרֶת, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. טַעְמָא דְּאֵין מַכִּירִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the Gemara **raises a contradiction** between the statement **of Rabbi Yehuda and** another statement **of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rabbi Yehuda** actually **say** that **a person does not enter himself into** a state of **uncertainty,** and therefore as long as the volume of the heap is unknown, naziriteship does not take effect? **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from the mishna, where **Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified *teruma* in Judea is forbidden but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are not familiar with the collection of the chamber.** The Gemara infers: **The reason** it is permitted is **that they are not familiar;**