Nedarim 155

Chapter 155

אזהZhהדברHdvrחכםKhkhmמתירMtyrואיןVynבעלVlמתירMtyrתניאTnyאידךYdkhזהZhהדברHdvrבעלVlמפרMfrואיןVynחכםKhkhmמפרMfrשיכולShykhvlומהVmhבעלVlשאיןShynמתירMtyrמפרMfrחכםKhkhmשמתירShmtyrאינוYnvדיןDynשמפרShmfrת"לTl"זהZhהדברHdvrבעלVlמפרMfrואיןVynחכםKhkhmמפרMfr

1'This is the thing', [implying] only a Sage can absolve, but a husband cannot absolve. Another [Baraitha] taught: 'This is the thing', [teaches,] [only] a husband may annul, but a Sage cannot annul. For I might think, If a husband, who cannot absolve, can annul; surely a Sage, who may absolve, can also annul! Therefore it is stated, 'This is the thing', [implying,] a husband can annul, but a Sage cannot annul. [Further:] It is here stated, This is the thing; whilst elsewhere, in connection with [sacrifices] slaughtered without [the Temple Court], it is also written, This is the thing [which the Lord hath commanded]:1

בנאמרNmrכאןKhnזהZhהדברHdvrונאמרVnmrלהלןLhln(ויקרא(vykrיז,Yz,ב)V)זהZhהדברHdvrבשחוטיVshkhvtyחוץKhvtsמהMhבשחוטיVshkhvtyחוץKhvtsאהרןHrnובניוVvnyvוכלVkhlישראלYshrlאףFפרשתFrshtנדריםNdrymאהרןHrnובניוVvnyvוכלVkhlישראלYshrlומהVmhכאןKhnראשיRshyהמטותHmtvtאףFלהלןLhlnראשיRshyהמטותHmtvt

2just as in the latter case, Aaron, his sons, and all Israel [are included in the law],2

גבפרשתVfrshtנדריםNdrymלמאיLmyהלכתאHlkhtאמרMrרבRvאחאKhברVrיעקבYkvלהכשירLhkhshyrשלשהShlshhהדיוטותHdyvtvtוהאVh(במדבר(vmdvrל,L,ב)V)ראשיRshyהמטותHmtvtכתיבKhtyvאמרMrרבRvחסדאKhsdואיתימאVytymר'R'יוחנןYvkhnnביחידVykhydמומחהMvmkhh

3so does the chapter on vows relate to Aaron, his sons, and all Israel; and just as here, the heads of the tribes [are particularly addressed],3

דראשיRshyהמטותHmtvtבשחוטיVshkhvtyחוץKhvtsלמאיLmyהלכתאHlkhtאמרMrרבRvששתShshtלומרLvmrשישShyshשאלהShlhבהקדשVhkdsh

4so there too [the reference is] to the heads of the tribes. In respect of what law [is this deduced] in the chapter of vows? — Said R. Aha b. Jacob: To teach that three laymen are qualified [to grant absolution]. But is not 'the heads of the tribes' stated?4

הלב"שLvsh"דאמרDmrאיןYnשאלהShlhבהקדשVhkdshראשיRshyהמטותHmtvtדכתיבDkhtyvבשחוטיVshkhvtyחוץKhvtsלמאיLmyהלכתאHlkhtב"שVsh"ליתLytלהוLhvגזירהGzyrhשוהShvh

5— R. Hisda, — others state R. Johanan — answered: [That intimates that] a single ordained scholar [can absolve].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the gezerah shawah (v. Glos.) based on 'this is the thing' relates all Israel to vows, whilst 'the heads of the tribes' specifies scholars, the discrepancy can be reconciled only by assuming that either one ordained scholar or three laymen may absolve. — One layman being insufficient, three (not two) are required, as in the case of a Beth din. ');">5

וזהZhהדברHdvrבפרשתVfrshtנדריםNdrymלמאיLmyכתיבKhtyvלומרLvmrחכםKhkhmמתירMtyrואיןVynבעלVlמתירMtyrבעלVlמפרMfrואיןVynחכםKhkhmמפרMfr

6For what purpose are the heads of the tribes related to [sacrifices] slaughtered without? — R. Shesheth said: To teach that the law of revocation applies to hekdesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. I.e., if one consecrates an animal, which is really a form of vow, and then slaughters it without the Temple court, he can be absolved of his vow, thus revoking his consecration, whereby he is found to have slaughtered an unconsecrated animal. ');">6

זזהZhהדברHdvrבשחוטיVshkhvtyחוץKhvtsלמאיLmyכתיבKhtyvלומרLvmrעלLהשחיטהHshkhythחייבKhyyvואיןVynחייבKhyyvעלLהמליקהHmlykh

7But according to Beth Shammai, who maintained that hekdesh cannot be revoked, for what purpose are the heads of the tribes related to [sacrifices] slaughtered without? — Beth Shammai do not admit [the validity of] this gezerah shawah. Now, for what purpose is 'this is the thing' written in the chapter on vows? — To teach that only a Sage may absolve, but a husband cannot absolve; and that only a husband can annul, but a Sage cannot annul. Why is 'this is the thing' related to [sacrifices] slaughtered without? — To teach that one incurs guilt only for slaughtering [without the prescribed place], but not for wringing [a bird's neck outside].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage reads: This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded … what man that slaughtered an ox … and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, etc.; yishhat ('slaughtered'), implies cutting the throat (cf. shehitah). A bird sacrifice was killed by its neck being wrung, Lev. I, 15. ');">7

חאלאLלב"שLvsh"להכשירLhkhshyrג'G'הדיוטותHdyvtvtמנלןMnlnנפקאNfkלהוLhvמדרבMdrvאסיSyברVrנתןNtn

8Then on the view of Beth Shammai, whence do we know that three laymen are valid?8

טדכתיבDkhtyv(ויקרא(vykrכג,Khg,מד)Md)וידברVydvrמשהMshhאתTמועדיMvdyה'H'אלLבניVnyישראלYshrlוהתניאVhtnyרביRvyיוסיYvsyהגליליHglylyאומרVmrמועדיMvdyנאמרוNmrvולאVlנאמרהNmrhשבתShvtבראשיתVrshytעמהןMhnבןVnעזאיZyאומרVmrמועדיMvdyנאמרוNmrvולאVlנאמרNmrפרשתFrshtנדריםNdrymעמהןMhn

9— They deduce it from [the teaching reported by] R. Assi b. Nathan. For it is written, And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the set feasts of the Lord.9

ירבRvאסיSyברVrנתןNtnקשיאKshyליהLyhהאHמתניתאMtnytאתאTלנהרדעאLnhrdלקמיהLkmyhדרבDrvששתShshtולאVlאשכחיהShkhkhyhאתאTאבתריהVtryhלמחוזאLmkhvzא"לL"מועדיMvdyה'H'נאמרוNmrvולאVlנאמרהNmrhשבתShvtבראשיתVrshytעמהןMhn

10Whereon it was taught. R. Jose the Galilean said: The festivals were stated, but not the Sabbath of the Creation10

יאוהאVhכתיבKhtyvשבתShvtעמהןMhnותוVtvמועדיMvdyה'H'נאמרוNmrvולאVlנאמרהNmrhפרשתFrshtנדריםNdrymעמהןMhnוהאVhמסיטראMsytrכתיבאKhtyvא"לL"הכיHkhyקתניKtny

11with them: Ben 'Azzai said: The festivals were stated, but not the chapter on vows with them. Now, this Baraitha was unintelligible to R. Assi b. Nathan, so he went to Nehardea, before R. Shesheth. Not finding him there, he followed him to Mahuza,11 and said to him: 'The festivals were stated, but not the Sabbath of the Creation with them': but the Sabbath is written together with them!12 Furthermore, the festivals were stated, but not the chapter on vows with them, but that is written alongside thereof!13 — Said he to him, It means this:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter