Nedarim 19

Chapter 19

א אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כי אמר רבי יהודה בנדבה בנדר לא אמר
1 You may even say that it [the Mishnah] agrees with R. Judah, for R. Judah said this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is better to vow and repay. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב והקתני טוב מזה ומזה נודר ומקיים תני נודב ומקיים
2 only of a freewill-offering, but not of a vow. But he teaches: Better than both is to vow and repay? — Learn: To make a freewill-offering and repay. Now, why is a vow objectional: because one may come thereby to a stumbling-block.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 21, nn. 1 &amp; 6. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג מאי שנא נודר דלא דילמא אתי בה לידי תקלה נדבה נמי דילמא אתי לידי תקלה
3 [Does not] the same apply to a free-will offering whereby too he may come to a stumbling-block? — R. Judah conforms to his other view, viz., that a person may bring his lamb to the Temple-court, consecrate and lay [hands] upon it, and slaughter it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It cannot become a stumbling-block, because it is hullin practically until it is killed. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אדם מביא כבשתו לעזרה ומקדישה וסומך עליה ושוחטה
4 This answer suffices for a freewill-offering of a sacrifice; but what can be said of a free-will offering of neziroth? — R. Judah follows his view [there too]. For it was taught: R. Judah said: The early hasidim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hasid, PI. hasidim; lit., 'pious ones'. The hasidim referred to here are definitely not the Essenes (Weiss, Dor, I, P' 110). [Buchler, Types. p. 78, makes these early hasidim contemporaries of Shammai and Hillel.] ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה תינח נדבה דקרבנות נדבה דנזירות מאי איכא למימר
5 were eager to bring a sin-offering, because the Holy One, blessed be He, never caused them to stumble. What did they do? They arose and made a free-will vow of neziroth to the Omnipresent, so as to be liable to a sin-offering to the Omnipresent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. VI, 14. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו רבי יהודה לטעמיה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר חסידים הראשונים היו מתאווין להביא קרבן חטאת לפי שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא מביא תקלה על ידיהם מה היו עושין עומדין ומתנדבין נזירות למקום כדי שיתחייב קרבן חטאת למקום
6 R. Simeon said: They did not vow neziroth. But he who wished to bring a burnt-offering donated it freely, and brought it; if a peace-offering, he donated it freely and brought it; or if a thanks-offering and the four kinds of loaves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A thanks-offering was accompanied by forty loaves of bread, divided into four different kinds. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז 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
7 donated it freely and brought it. But they did not take neziroth upon themselves, so as not to be designated sinners, as it is written, And [the priest] shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against a soul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 11. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח אמר אביי שמעון הצדיק ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר הקפר כולן שיטה אחת הן דנזיר חוטא הוי שמעון הצדיק ורבי שמעון הא דאמרן
8 Abaye said: Simeon the Just, R. Simeon, and R. Eleazar hakappar, are all of the same opinion, viz., that a <i>nazir</i> is a sinner. Simeon the Just and R. Simeon, as we have stated. R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Berabbi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Or, Berebi, designation by which Bar Kappara is known to distinguish him from his father who bore the same name, v. Nazir, (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 1.] ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט 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
9 as it was taught: And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against a soul. Against which 'soul' then has he sinned? But it is because he afflicted himself through abstention from wine. Now, does not this afford an argument from the minor to the major? If one, who afflicted himself only in respect of wine, is called a sinner: how much more so one who ascetically refrains from everything. Hence, one who fasts is called a sinner. But this verse refers to an unclean <i>nazir</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can one deduce that a nazir in general is a sinner? ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י והדין קרא בנזיר טמא כתיב משום דשנה בחטא הוא
10 — That is because he doubly sinned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse shews that a double sin is referred to, because 'for that he sinned' alone would have sufficed; 'against a soul' is superfluous, and teaches that he is a sinner in two respects: (i) by becoming a nazir at all; (ii) by defiling his neziroth (Ran). — The whole passage shows the Jewish opposition to asceticism, for Judaism rejects the doctrine of the wickedness of this life and the inherent corruption of the body, which is the basis of asceticism. Whilst the community as a whole fasted in times of trouble (cf. Esth. IV, 16; Ta'an. 10a, 15a), and certain Rabbis too were addicted to it (e.g. R. Ze'ira, B.M. 85a), yet individual fasting was discouraged, as here; v. Maim. Yad, De'oth, III, 1; VI, 1; Lazarus, Ethics of Judaism, �� 246-256. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> 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:
11 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO SAYS, 'KONAM,' 'KONAH,' OR 'KONAS,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Its derivation is probably from kenum, 'self', 'person', and then the object in an elliptical sentence, 'I pledge (myself) my person with So-and-so (that I will not do this or that)', v. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, p. 34. This is a substitute for korban vow, in which he declares 'this may be forbidden to me as is a sacrifice'. No satisfactory explanation has been given so far for the other terms, which seem to be corruptions of konam.] ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> 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
12 THESE ARE THE SUBSTITUTES FOR KORBAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. for sacrifice. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יג 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
13 'HEREK,' 'HEREK,' [OR] 'HEREF,' THESE ARE SUBSTITUTES FOR HEREM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ban. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יד ותניא רבי שמעון אומר
14 'NAZIK,' 'NAZIAH,' 'PAZIAH,' THESE ARE SUBSTITUTES FOR NEZIROTH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vow of a nazir: 'Behold, I will be a nazir'. These words may be substituted for nazir. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> 'SHEBUTHAH,' 'SHEKUKAH,' OR ONE WHO VOWS BY MOHI,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara. [The Mishnayoth text reads 'BY MOTHA', an abbreviation of Momatha, the Aramaic equivalent of Shebu'ah.] ');"><sup>15</sup></span> THESE ARE SUBSTITUTES FOR SHEBU'AH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. for oath. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was stated: Substitutes: R. Johanan said: They are foreign equivalents [of the Hebrew]; R. Simeon b. Lakish said: They are forms devised by the Sages for the purpose of making vows; (and thus it is written, <i>in the month which he had devised of his own heart</i>).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings XII, 33, referring to the unauthorised festival instituted by Jeroboam in the eighth instead of the seventh month. [The Heb. for 'devised', [H], is the same as used by R. Johanan in his definition. The bracketed words appear to be a copyist's gloss that has crept into the text. They do not occur in MS.M.] ');"><sup>17</sup></span> And why did the Rabbis institute substitutes? — That one should not say <i>korban</i>. Then let him say, <i>korban</i>? — Lest he say <i>korban la-adonai</i> [a sacrifice to the Lord]. And why not say <i>korban la-adonai</i>? — Lest one say <i>la-adonai</i> without <i>korban</i>, and thus utter the Divine Name in vain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This machinery for vows, regulating the manner in which they were to be made, points to the practice as being very prevalent. V. Weiss, Dor, I, 85. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> And it was taught: R. Simeon said:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter