Nedarim 23

Chapter 23

א הא נותר ופיגול לאחר זריקת דמים הוא
1 Now, nothar and piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some delete piggul, since at no time was it permitted. If retained in the text, it is so because nothar and piggul are generally coupled; but Raba's deductions are from nothar only. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן בנותר של עולה אמר ליה אם כן ליתני בבשר עולה
2 are [possible only] after the sprinkling of the blood! — 2 R. Huna the son of R. Nathan said to him, This refers to nothar of a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh of which is not permitted even after the sprinkling of the blood: hence it proves nothing. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא בשר עולה דאסור דהא בקרבן קא מתפיס נותר ופיגול דעולה איצטריכא
3 Said he to him, If so, let him [the Tanna] teach: As the flesh of the burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without reference to nothar at all. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד סלקא דעתך אמינא כאיסור נותר כאיסור פיגול והוה ליה כמתפיס בדבר האסור ולא מיתסר קא משמע לן
4 — He proceeds to a climax.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., he states, 'it is unnecessary'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ה מיתיבי איזהו איסר האמור בתורה אמר הריני שלא אוכל בשר ושלא אשתה יין כיום שמת בו אביו כיום שמת בו רבו כיום שנהרג בו גדליה בן אחיקם כיום שראיתי ירושלים בחורבנה ואמר שמואל והוא שנדור באותו היום
5 [Thus:] It is unnecessary [to teach that if one relates his vow to] the flesh of a burnt-offering, that he is forbidden, since he referred it to a sacrifice. But it is necessary for him [to teach the case of] nothar and piggul of a burnt-offering. For I would think that he referred it to the prohibitions of nothar and piggul, so that it counts as a reference to what is inherently forbidden, and he is not prohibited;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a man imposes a prohibition by referring one thing to another, the latter must be also artificially forbidden, e.g., a sacrifice, which was originally permitted, and then forbidden through consecration. But if it is Divinely forbidden, without the agency of man, the vow is invalid. Thus, if one says, 'This be to me as the flesh of the swine', it is not forbidden. Now, the prohibition of piggul and nothar are Divine: therefore, If the reference was in point of that particular prohibition, the vow would be invalid. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ו היכי דמי לאו כגון דקאי בחד בשבא דמית ביה אבוה ואף על גב דאיכא טובא חד בשבא דהיתרא וקתני אסור שמע מינה בעיקר הוא מתפיס
6 hence he informs us [otherwise].
ז דשמואל הכי איתמר אמר שמואל והוא שנדור ובא מאותו היום ואילך
7 An objection is raised: Which is the bond mentioned in the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 3: If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח אמר רבינא תא שמע כחלת אהרן וכתרומתו מותר הא כתרומת לחמי תודה אסור
8 If one says, 'Behold! I am not to eat meat or drink wine, as on the day that my father or teacher died,' [or] 'as on the day when Gedaliah the son of Ahikam was slain,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E. and the deportation of the nobles and the upper classes to Babylon, Gedaliah the son of Ahikam was appointed governor of the small community that was left. As a result of a conspiracy he was slain on the second day of Tishri. Jer. XL-XLI. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> [or] 'as on the day that I saw Jerusalem in ruins.' Now Samuel commented thereon: Providing that he was under a vow in respect to that very day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumed meaning is: he had vowed on the day of his father's death, or had once vowed not to eat meat on the day that Gedaliah the son of Ahikam was slain, and now he vowed a second time, 'I am not to eat meat, etc. as on the day when I am forbidden by my previous vow, thus the second vow was related to an interdict which was itself the result of a vow (Ran.). ');"><sup>9</sup></span> What does this mean? Surely that e.g., he stood thus on a Sunday, on which day his father had died, and though there were many permitted Sundays, it is taught that he is forbidden; this proves that the original [Sunday] is referred to.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Sunday distinguished by his former vow. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> — Samuel's dictum was thus stated: Samuel said, Providing that he was under a vow uninterruptedly since that day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he had been under a vow every Sunday until this present vow. Hence nothing can be proved. v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 105. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> Rabina said, Come and hear: [If one says, 'This be unto me] as Aaron's dough<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 20-21. Ye shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough for an heave offering. This, and terumah (v. Glos.) belonged to Aaron, i.e., the priest, and was prohibited to a star (I.e., a non-priest). ');"><sup>12</sup></span> or as his terumah', he is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To benefit therefrom. The vow is invalid, because the dough and the terumah, not being prohibited to all, are regarded as Divinely forbidden: v. p. 30, n. 2. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Hence, [if he vowed,] 'as the <i>terumah</i> of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VII, 22ff. Of the forty loaves brought (p. 32, n. 1) one out of each set of ten was terumah, and belonged to the priest. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> he would be forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the prohibition of those is evidently due to a vow. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>