Commentary for Nedarim 38:11

אמר אביי סיפא רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק היא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר סתם תרומה ביהודה אסורה רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק אומר סתם חרמים בגליל אסורין

For it was taught: R. Judah said on the authority of R. Tarfon: Neither is a <i>nazir</i>, because neziroth must be expressed with certainty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the following case: If two persons were walking together, and one said: 'I will be a nazir, if the man who is coming towards us is one'; whereupon the other said: 'I will be a nazir if he is not', the vow is binding upon neither, because of the element of doubt in each when it was made, v. Naz. 34a. ');">¹¹</span> If so, why particularly if the stack was stolen or destroyed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the stack is intact and contains the stipulated measure, the vow of neziruth is invalid, since when it was taken it was unknown. ');">¹²</span> — To shew how far-reaching is R. Simeon's view, that even if it was stolen or destroyed, he still maintains that one places himself in a doubtful position. R. JUDAH SAID: AN UNSPECIFIED REFERENCE TO <i>TERUMAH</i> IN JUDEA etc. But if they were familiar therewith, it would be binding, which shews that the doubt is ruled stringently. Then consider the last clause: UNQUALIFIED ALLUSIONS TO HARA MIM IN JUDEA ARE NOT BINDING BUT IN GALILEE THEY ARE, BECAUSE THE GALILEANS ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH PRIESTLY HARAMIM. But if they were familiar, they would be invalid: thus in doubt we are lenient? — Abaye answered: The last clause is the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok. For it was taught: R. Judah said: An unspecified [reference to] <i>terumah</i> in Judah is binding. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: unspecified [references to] haramim in Galilee are binding.

Explore commentary for Nedarim 38:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.