Nedarim 20

Chapter 20

א מניין שלא יאמר אדם לה' עולה לה' מנחה לה' תודה לה' שלמים תלמוד לומר קרבן לה'
1 Whence do we know that one must not say, 'Unto the Lord a burnt-offering,' 'unto the Lord a meal-offering,' 'unto the Lord a thanks-offering,' or 'unto the Lord a peace-offering'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this order, the Divine Name preceding. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> Because it is written, [<i>If any man of you bring</i>] <i>an offering to the Lord</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 1; thus the offering must precede. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב וקל וחומר ומה זה שלא נתכוון אלא להזכיר שם שמים על הקרבן אמרה תורה קרבן לה' לבטלה על אחת כמה וכמה
2 And from the minor we may deduce the major: If concerning one who intended uttering the Divine Name only in connection with a sacrifice, the Torah taught, <i>an offering to the Lord</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not the reverse, lest one utter the Name in vain. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> how much more [care must one take against its deliberate utterance] in vain!
ג לימא כתנאי בית שמאי אומרים כינויי כינויין אסורין ובית הלל אומרים כינויי כינויין מותרין
3 Shall we say that this [conflict] is dependent on Tannaim? For it was taught: Beth Shammai maintain: Substitutes of substitutes are binding; whilst Beth Hillel Say: They are not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are permitted'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> Surely, the ruling that secondary substitutes are valid is based on the view that substitutes are foreign equivalents;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, the first modifications are correct foreign words, the substitutes thereof are corrupt, but also used, and hence valid for oaths. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד מאי לאו מאן דאמר כינויי כינויין אסורין קסבר (כינויי) כינויין לשון אומות הן, ולמאן דאמר מותרים קסבר לשון שבדו להן חכמים
4 whilst he who says that they are invalid holds that they are forms devised by the Sages?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence secondary substitutes, not having been assigned by the Sages to that purpose, are invalid. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> — No. All agree that substitutes are foreign words; but Beth Shammai hold that Gentiles speak in these [terms] too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. secondary substitutes; hence they are valid. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה לא דכולי עלמא כינויין לשון אומות הן ובית שמאי סברי בהני נמי משתעי אומות ובית הלל סברי בהני לא משתעי אומות
5 whilst Beth Hillel hold that they do not speak in these [terms]. Alternatively Beth Shammai hold: Secondary substitutes [are declared valid] as a precautionary measure on account of substitutes themselves;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would otherwise be treated as invalid by the masses. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> but Beth Hillel maintain: We do not enact a precautionary measure for secondary substitutes on account of the substitutes themselves.
ו ואיבעית אימא בית שמאי סברי גזרינן כינויי כינויין משום כינויין ובית הלל סברי לא גזרינן כינויי כינויין משום כינויין
6 What forms do double modifications of vows take? — R. Joseph recited: Mekanamana, mekanehana, mekanesana. What are the secondary substitutes of herem? — Mafash'ah taught: harakim, harakim, harafim. Secondary substitutes of neziroth? — R. Joseph learnt: mehazakana, menazahana, mephana.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read Menazakna&nbsp;… mepazahna, each of which consists ofthe three consonantal letters of the substitutes with prefix and suffix; v. Strashun]. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> The scholars inquired: What of mipahazna, mithhazana, mith'azana?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Strashun reads: Mepahazna, menahazna, menakazna, the last consonantal letters of the substitutes being transposed. This receives support from MS.M.]. Are they binding or not? ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז 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
7 Rabina asked R. Ashi: What of kinema: does it mean konam,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is valid. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> or perhaps, kinemon besem [sweet cinnamon]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 23; i.e., it is not a vow-form at all. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ח איבעיא להו מיפחזנא מאי מיתחזנא מאי מיתעזנא מאי אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי קינמא (קינמא) מאי קונם קאמר, או דילמא קינמן בשם קאמר
8 R. Aha, the son of R. Hiyya, asked R. Ashi: What of kinah: does it mean a fowl's sty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fem. of [H] (kin), a bird's nest. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> or konam? These remain questions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all these doubtful forms the question arises when they were actually used to express vows, the question being whether they imply vows or something else — notwithstanding the intention of their user. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב חייא לרב אשי קינה מאי קינה של תרנגולין קאמר או דילמא לשון דקונם תיבעי
9 What are secondary substitutes of oaths? — Shebuel, shebuthiel, shekukeel. But shebuel may simply mean Shebhuel the son of Gershon? But say thus: Shebubiel, shebuthiel shekukeel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'What is the law' in cur. edd. is to be deleted; BaH. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> Samuel said: If one says ashbithah, he says nothing: ashkikah, he says nothing; karinsha, he says nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These forms are ineffective for expressing oaths. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
י 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
10 OR ONE WHO VOWS BY MOHI, THESE ARE SUBSTITUTES [FOR SHEBU'A]. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One who says 'by Mohi' [Moses]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ['By Moses', was one of the common forms of asseveration, cf. Bez. 38b; Shab. 101b. V. Chajes, Notes.] ');"><sup>17</sup></span> says nothing; 'by Momtha which Mohi said,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the oath which Moses uttered. [The allusion is to Ex. II, 21, where [H] is rendered, 'Moses swore'. (Ran).] ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יא נדר במוהי הרי אלו כינויין תניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר האומר במוהי לא אמר כלום במומתא דאמר מוהי הרי אלו כינויין לשבועה:
11 these are substitutes for an oath. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE SAYS [TO HIS NEIGHBOUR], 'THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE NOT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew is la-hullin, here regarded as meaning: not hullin. V. also p. 28, n. 8. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר לחולין שאוכל לך לא כשר ולא דכי טהור וטמא נותר ופיגול אסור
12 HULLIN,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> 'BE NOT KASHER,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fit', ritually permitted for consumption. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יג 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
13 'BE NOT PURE,' 'BE CLEAN OR UNCLEAN,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So cur. edd. Asheri explains: be as sacrifices, to which the laws of cleanliness and uncleanness apply — i.e., forbidden. Rashi's text reads simply: be not clean, be unclean, etc. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> 'BE NOTHAR,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'left over'. The flesh of an offering which remains over after the period in which it must be eaten, v. Ex. XXIX, 34, and Lev., VII, 17. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> OR PIGGUL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'abomination'. The flesh of an animal sacrificed with the deliberate intention of eating it after the permitted period; it is then forbidden even within the period, v. Lev. VII, 18. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> HE IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To eat aught of his neighbour. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> AS THE LAMB,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the lamb of the daily sacrifice. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> AS THE TEMPLE SHEDS OF CATTLE OR WOOD,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The alternative is implied by the use of the plural in the Mishnah (Tosaf.). ');"><sup>27</sup></span> 'AS THE WOOD' [ON THE ALTAR], AS THE FIRE [ON THE ALTAR],'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So T.J. Others: Fire-offerings, cf. Lev. XXI. 6. (V. Asheri and Tosaf.)] ');"><sup>28</sup></span> 'AS THE ALTAR,' 'AS THE TEMPLE, AS JERUSALEM;' [OR] IF ONE VOWED BY REFERENCE TO THE ALTAR UTENSILS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., your food be as the altar utensils unto me, hence, forbidden. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> THOUGH HE DID NOT MENTION KORBAN, IT IS AS THOUGH HE HAD VOWED BY KORBAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah 20a. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> R. JUDAH SAID: HE WHO SAYS JERUSALEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without as i.e., 'Your food be Jerusalem to me'. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> HAS SAID NOTHING.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter