Nedarim 13

(דברים כג כב) מעמך זה לקט שכחה ופאה

[When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not delay to pay it, far the Lord will surely require it] of thee:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 22. ');">¹</span>

יש יד לצדקה או אין יד לצדקה היכי דמי אילימא דאמר הדין זוזא לצדקה והדין נמי ההוא צדקה עצמה היא אלא כגון דאמר הדין ולא אמר נמי מאי הדין נמי צדקה קאמר או דלמא [מאי] והדין (נמי) לנפקותא בעלמא קאמר ודבורא הוא דלא אסקיה

this refers to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and <i>pe'ah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst he will surely require it refers to sacrifices, supra 4a. Hence they are assimilated to each other, being coupled in the same verse. The Hebrew for of thee is [H] which can be rendered 'of that which is with thee', the reference being to the gleanings etc., which are to be left for those that are 'with dice', i.e., the poor. Ex. XXII, 24. ');">²</span>

מי אמרינן כיון דאיתקש לקרבנות דכתיב (דברים כג כד) בפיך זו צדקה מה קרבנות יש להן יד אף צדקה יש לה יד או דלמא לבל תאחר הוא דאיתקש

Are abbreviations binding in the case of charity or not? How does this arise? Shall we say, that one said, 'This <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zuz, a silver coin, one fourth of a shekel. ');">³</span>

יש יד להפקר או דלמא אין יד להפקר היינו צדקה

is for charity, and this one too,' that is a complete [declaration of] charity! — But, e.g., If one said, '[And] this,' omitting 'too'. What then: did he mean, 'and this too is for charity,' or, 'and this is for my personal expenditure,' his statement being incomplete?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This alternative may apply to the query on pe'ah too: i.e., did he mean, 'and this furrow too', or, 'and this furrow be for my personal use?' V. p. 13, n. 7. ');">⁴</span>

אם תמצא לומר קאמר אם תמצא לומר יש יד לצדקה דאין היקש למחצה הפקר מי אמרינן היינו צדקה או דלמא שאני צדקה דצדקה לא חזיא אלא לעניים אבל הפקר בין לעניים בין לעשירים

Do we say, Since this is likened to sacrifices, as it is written' [That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a free-will offering according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised] with thy mouth, which refers to charity:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is deduced from the verse: the promise of charity is gone out of my mouth (Isa. S>V, 23, so translated here), where a promise by mouth refers to charity. ');">⁵</span>

בעי רבינא יש יד לבית הכסא או לא היכי דמי אילימא דאמר הדין ביתא ליהוי בית הכסא והדין נמי ההוא בית הכסא נמי הוה אלא כגון דאמר והדין ולא אמר נמי מאי הדין דאמר והדין נמי בית הכסא או דלמא מאי והדין לתשמישא בעלמא קאמר

hence, just as abbreviations are valid for sacrifices, so with charity; or possibly the comparison is in respect of 'Thou shalt not delay' only?

מכלל דפשיטא ליה לרבינא דיש זימון לבית הכסא והא מיבעיא ליה לרבינא הזמינו לבית הכסא מהו הזמינו לבית המרחץ מהו זימון מועיל או אין זימון מועיל

Are abbreviations valid in respect of hefker or not? But that is charity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Renunciation of one's property is the equivalent of giving it to charity. Thus the problem has already been stated. ');">⁶</span>

רבינא חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה זימון מועיל או אין זימון מועיל את''ל יש זימון יש יד או אין יד תיבעי ליה:

— This problem is based on a presupposition:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he sass, " if="" you="" should="" say".'="" ');"="">⁷</span>

מנודה אני לך וכו': אמר אביי מודה ר''ע לענין מלקות שאינו לוקה דאם כן ניתני ר' עקיבא מחמיר

Should you rule, abbreviations are valid in the case of charity, because there is no analogy by halves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it cannot be confined to certain aspects only. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב פפא בנדינא מינך דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסור משמתנא מינך לכולי עלמא שרי במאי פליגי

[what of] hefker?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A place so appointed may not be used for reciting prayers, even before it was used as a privy. ');">⁹</span> Do we say: Hefker is charity; or possibly charity differs, charity being for the poor only, whilst hefker is both for the rich and the poor? Rabina propounded: Are abbreviations effective in respect of a privy or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A place so appointed may not be used for reciting prayers, even before it was used as a privy. ');">⁹</span> How does this arise? Shall we say, that he declared, 'Let this place be for a privy, and this one too,' then obviously it is one? — But e.g., if he declared, 'and this,' omitting 'too'. What then? Does '[and] this' mean 'and this too shall be a privy,' or perhaps, what is meant by 'and this'? In respect of general use? Now, this proves that it is certain to Rabina that designation is valid for a privy. But Rabina propounded: What if one designates a place for a privy' or for baths; is designation effective or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that this place may not be used henceforth for reciting prayers. ');">¹⁰</span> — Rabina propounded this problem on an assumption. [Thus:] Is designation effective or not, should you answer, Designation is effective, are abbreviations valid or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all the foregoing problems on kiddushin, pe'ah, charity etc., the abbreviations, though apparently not clear in meaning, since alternatives are given, are regarded as explicit, since the alternatives are, in every case, of a remote character, and the question then arises whether abbreviations, though explicit enough, are effective in these cases, v. Ran. 6b, s.v. [H]. ');">¹¹</span> This question remains. I AM BANNED TO YOU,' etc. Abaye said: R. Akiba admits in respect to lashes, that he is not flagellated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he breaks the vow. ');">¹²</span> for otherwise, let [the Mishnah] state, R. Akiba gave a stringent ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'WAS INCLINED' shows that he entertained some doubt, and would therefore not inflict the penalty of lashes. ');">¹³</span> R. Papa said: With respect to, 'I am isolated [nedinah] from you,' all agree that he is forbidden; 'I am accursed [meshamatna] from you,' all agree that he is permitted. Wherein do they differ?