Nedarim 10

אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כי אמר רבי יהודה בנדבה בנדר לא אמר

Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it can be argued that when Rabbi Yehuda said that it is good to take a vow and fulfill it, he said it with regard to a gift offering, but he did not say it with regard to vows.

והקתני טוב מזה ומזה נודר ומקיים תני נודב ומקיים

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the mishna teaching that according to Rabbi Yehuda, better than both this and that is one who vows [noder] and pays, which indicates that he says this even about vows? The Gemara answers: Teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with the following, emended formulation: Better than both this and that is one who volunteers [nodev] a gift offering and pays it.

מאי שנא נודר דלא דילמא אתי בה לידי תקלה נדבה נמי דילמא אתי בה לידי תקלה

The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering, due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it.

רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אדם מביא כבשתו לעזרה ומקדישה וסומך עליה ושוחטה

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said explicitly in a baraita: A person brings his lamb to the Temple courtyard and consecrates it there, and immediately leans on it and slaughters it. Consequently, there is no concern that he will encounter a stumbling block.

תינח נדבה דקרבנות נדבה דנזירות מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: That works out well with regard to voluntary gifts in the context of offerings, but with regard to the voluntary acceptance of naziriteship, what is there to say? There is still room for concern that one will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite.

רבי יהודה לטעמיה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר חסידים הראשונים היו מתאוין להביא קרבן חטאת לפי שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא מביא תקלה על ידיהם מה היו עושין עומדים ומתנדבין נזירות למקום כדי שיתחייב קרבן חטאת למקום

The Gemara answers: Here, too, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The early generations of pious men would desire to bring a sin-offering but did not have the opportunity to do so because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not bring about a stumbling block through them, and they would not sin even unwittingly. What would they do? They would rise and volunteer naziriteship to the Omnipresent in order to be liable to bring a sin-offering of a nazirite to the Omnipresent.

רבי שמעון אומר לא נדרו בנזיר אלא הרוצה להביא עולה מתנדב ומביא שלמים מתנדב ומביא תודה וארבעה מיני לחמה מתנדב ומביא אבל בנזירות לא התנדבו כדי שלא יקראו חוטאין שנאמר וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש

Rabbi Shimon says: They did not take a vow of naziriteship. Rather, one who would want to bring a burnt-offering would volunteer and bring it; one who would want to bring a peace-offering would volunteer and bring it; and one who would want to bring a thanks-offering and its four types of bread would volunteer and bring them. However, they did not volunteer naziriteship in order that they not be called sinners. According to Rabbi Shimon, naziriteship involves some element of sin, as it is stated: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul” (Numbers 6:11).

אמר אביי שמעון הצדיק ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר הקפר כולן שיטה אחת הן דנזיר חוטא הוי שמעון הצדיק ורבי שמעון הא דאמרן

§ Abaye said: Shimon HaTzaddik, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar are all of the same opinion, that a nazirite is a sinner. The statements of Shimon HaTzaddik and Rabbi Shimon in this regard are that which we already said.

ורבי אלעזר הקפר ברבי דתניא רבי אלעזר הקפר ברבי אומר וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש וכי באיזו נפש חטא זה אלא שציער עצמו מן היין והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא המצער עצמו מכל דבר על אחת כמה וכמה מכאן כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא

And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished agrees, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished says: It is written with regard to the priest who sacrificed the offering of a nazirite: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul.” Against which soul did the nazirite sin? Rather, his sin is that he caused himself suffering by refraining from wine. Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: Just as this nazirite, who causes himself suffering only by refraining from wine, is called a sinner, one who causes himself suffering by refraining from everything is all the more so to be considered a sinner. From here it can be derived that whoever fasts unnecessarily is called a sinner.

והדין קרא בנזיר טמא כתיב משום דשנה בחטא הוא

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar. Isn’t this verse written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite? Consequently, only a nazirite who becomes impure shall be considered a sinner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that the verse uses this terminology with regard to a ritually impure nazirite because he repeated his sin. However, becoming a nazirite is itself considered a sin.

מתני׳ האומר (לחבירו) קונם קונח קונס הרי אלו כינויין לקרבן חרק חרך חרף הרי אלו כינויין לחרם נזיק נזיח פזיח הרי אלו כינויין לנזירות שבותה שקוקה נודר במוהי הרי אלו כינויין לשבועה:

MISHNA: In the case of one who says to another that a certain object is konam, konaḥ, or konas, these expressions are substitutes for the term offering [korban], and the vow takes effect. Ḥerek, ḥerekh and ḥeref; these are substitutes for the term indicating a dedication [ḥerem] to the Temple treasury. Nazik, naziaḥ, and paziaḥ; these are substitutes for the term naziriteship [nazir]. Shevuta, shekuka, or one who vows with the term mohi, these are substitutes for the term oath [shevua].

גמ׳ איתמר כינויין רבי יוחנן אמר לשון אומות הן רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר לשון שבדו להם חכמים להיות נודר בו וכן הוא אומר בחדש אשר בדא מלבו

GEMARA: It was stated that amora’im disagreed about substitutes for the language of vows. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They are terms from a language of other nations that mean offering, dedication, naziriteship, or oath. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: These terms employ language that the Sages devised [badu] with which one can take a vow. In order to explain the word badu, he adds: And so it states with regard to Jeroboam: “In the month that he had devised [bada] in his own heart” (I Kings 12:33).

וטעמא מאי תקינו רבנן כינויין דלא לימא קרבן ולימא קרבן דילמא אמר קרבן לה׳ ולימא קרבן לה׳ דילמא אמר לה׳ ולא אמר קרבן וקא מפיק שם שמים לבטלה

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, what is the reason that the Sages established substitutes for the language of vows? The Gemara answers: It is so that one not explicitly say the term offering. The Gemara asks: And let him say the term offering; what is wrong with that? The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara asks: And let him say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: To the Lord, and he will then change his mind and not say: An offering, and he will thereby express the name of Heaven in vain.

ותניא רבי שמעון אומר

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

מנין שלא יאמר אדם לה׳ עולה לה׳ מנחה לה׳ תודה לה׳ שלמים תלמוד לומר קרבן לה׳

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.

וקל וחומר ומה זה שלא נתכוון אלא להזכיר שם שמים על הקרבן אמרה תורה קרבן לה׳ לבטלה על אחת כמה וכמה

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.

לימא כתנאי בית שמאי אומרים כינויי כינויין אסורין ובית הלל אומרים כינויי כינויין מותרין

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.

מאי לאו מאן דאמר כינויי כינויין אסורין קסבר (כינויי) כינויין לשון אומות הן ולמאן דאמר מותרים קסבר לשון שבדו להן חכמים

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.

לא דכולי עלמא כינויין לשון אומות הן ובית שמאי סברי בהני נמי משתעי אומות ובית הלל סברי בהני לא משתעי אומות

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.

ואיבעית אימא בית שמאי סברי גזרינן כינויי כינויין משום כינויין ובית הלל סברי לא גזרינן כינויי כינויין משום כינויין

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.

היכי דמי כינויי כינויין דנדרים תני רב יוסף מקנמנא מקנחנא מקנסנא היכי דמי כינויי כינויין דחרם תני מפשאה חרקים חרכים חרפים כינויי כינויין דנזירות תני רב יוסף מחזקנא מנזחנא מפיחנא

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.

איבעיא להו מיפחזנא מאי מיתחזנא מאי מיתעזנא מאי אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי קינמא (קינמא) מאי קונם קאמר או דלמא קנמן בשם קאמר

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?

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב חייא לרב אשי קינה מאי קינה של תרנגולין קאמר או דילמא לשון דקונם תיבעי

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.

כינויי כינויין דשבועה היכי דמי שבואל שבותיאל שקוקאל שבואל שבואל בן גרשום משמע אלא שבובאל שבותיאל שקוקאל מהו אמר שמואל אמר אשיבתא לא אמר כלום אשקיקא לא אמר כלום קרינשא לא אמר כלום

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.

נדר במוהי הרי אלו כינויין תניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר האומר במוהי לא אמר כלום במומתא דאמר מוהי הרי אלו כינויין לשבועה:

§ 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.

מתני׳ האומר לחולין שאוכל לך לא כשר ולא דכי טהור וטמא נותר ופיגול אסור

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.

כאימרא כדירים כעצים כאשים כמזבח כהיכל כירושלים נדר באחד מכל משמשי המזבח אף על פי שלא הזכיר קרבן הרי זה נדר בקרבן רבי יהודה אומר האומר ירושלים לא אמר כלום

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.