Nedarim 25

Chapter 25

א דמחית בשר בכור קמיה ומחית בשר דהאיך גביה ואמר זה כזה ותנאי היא
1 that flesh of a firstling lay before him, and this other flesh lay at its side, and he declared, 'this be as this,' and [thus] it is a controversy of Tannaim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the reference is to its present (permitted) state or to its original (forbidden) condition. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב לא דכולי עלמא לפני זריקת דמים ומאי טעמא דמאן דשרי אמר קרא כי ידור עד שידור בדבר הנדור לאפוקי בכור דדבר האסור הוא
2 — No. All treat of before the sprinkling of the blood; and what is the reason of him who permits it? The Writ States, If a man vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 3. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ומאן דאסר אמר קרא לה' לרבות דבר האסור
3 [teaching] that one must vow by that which is [itself] forbidden through a vow; thus excluding a firstling, which is an interdicted thing. And he who forbids it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is his reason? ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד ומאן שרי לה' מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה למתפיס בחטאת ואשם
4 — The Writ states, 'unto the Lord,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 3. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ה ומה ראית לרבות חטאת ואשם ולהוציא את הבכור מרבה אני חטאת ואשם שהוא מתפיס בנדר ומוציא אני את הבכור שהוא קדוש ממעי אמו
5 to include an interdicted thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This will not apply to all Divinely forbidden things, but only to such as the firstling, as the Talmud proceeds to explain. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו ומאן דאסר בכור נמי מתפיסו בנדר הוא דתניא משום רבי אמרו מניין לנולד בכור בתוך ביתו שמצווה להקדישו שנאמר הזכר תקדיש
6 Then he who permits it, how does he interpret 'unto the Lord'? — He employs it in respect of relating [a vow] to a sin-offering or a guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the vow is valid. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז ומאן דשרי כי לא מקדיש ליה מי לא מיקדיש
7 Now, what [reason] do you see to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and exclude the firstling? — I include the sin-offering and the guilt-offering which one sanctifies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'seizes'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח כאימרא כדירים
8 by a vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though one cannot offer these as vows, without having incurred the obligation, the actual animal is forbidden as a result of the vow of consecration, since another could equally well have been sacrificed. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט תנא אימרא לאימרא כאימרא דירים לדירים כדירים עצים לעצים כעצים אישים לאישים כאישים מזבח למזבח כמזבח היכל להיכל כהיכל ירושלים לירושלים כירושלים כולן שאוכל לך אסור לא אוכל לך מותר
9 but exclude the firstling, which is holy from its mother's womb. But he who forbids?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How will he meet this argument? ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י מאן שמעינן ליה דלא שני ליה אימרא לאימרא כאימרא רבי מאיר היא
10 A firstling too one sanctifies by a vow. For it was taught: It was said on the authority of Rabbi, Whence do we know that one is bidden to consecrate the firstling born in one's house? — From the verse, [All] the firstling males [that come of thy herd and thy flock] thou shalt sanctify [unto the Lord].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 19. Thus, though Divinely consecrated, yet its owner must formally declare it holy, and hence it may be regarded as subject to a vow. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא אימא סיפא וכולן לא אוכל לך מותר והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר ואמר רבי אבא נעשה כאומר לקרבן יהא לפיכך לא אוכל לך
11 But he who permits it [argues thus]: If he does not consecrate it, is it not holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it is! Hence its interdict is not the result of a vow. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב לא קשיא הא דאמר לא אימרא הא דאמר לאימרא
12 &nbsp;… AS THE LAMB, AS THE TEMPLE SHEDS etc. It was taught: A lamb, for a lamb, as a lamb; [or] sheds, for sheds, as sheds; [or] wood, for wood, as wood; [or] fire, for fire, as fire; [or] the altar, for the altar, as the altar; [or] the temple, for the temple, as the temple; or Jerusalem, for Jerusalem, as Jerusalem, — in all these cases, [if he says,] 'what I might eat of yours,' he is forbidden; 'what I might not eat of yours,' he is permitted.
יג <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר קרבן עולה מנחה חטאת תודה שלמים שאני אוכל לך אסור רבי יהודה מתיר הקרבן כקרבן קרבן שאוכל לך אסור לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר
13 Now which Tanna do we know draws no distinction between a lamb, for a lamb and as a lamb? — R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Judah rules that if one says Jerusalem, without 'for' or 'as', the vow is invalid. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יד <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> קתני קרבן הקרבן כקרבן שאוכל לך אסור סתמא תנא כרבי מאיר דלא שני ליה בין אימרא לאימרא
14 Then consider the second clause: and in all these cases, [if he says], 'that which I might not eat of yours [be so],' he is permitted. But we learnt: [If one says to his neighbour,] 'That which I might not eat of yours be not for korban, R. Meir forbids [him]. Now R. Abba commented thereon: It is as though he said, 'Let it [i.e., your food] be for korban, therefore I may not eat of yours'? — This is no difficulty: in the one case he said, 'lo le-imra';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Let it not be for the lamb' — hence it is permitted. [So cur. edd. MS.M. and Ran read: In one case he said la'-imra; 'let it not be the lamb'. V. supra. p. 28, n. 8.] ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טו [אי רבי מאיר הא] דקתני הקרבן שאוכל לך אסור והתניא מודים חכמים לרבי יהודה באומר הא קרבן והא עולה והא מנחה והא חטאת שאוכל לך שמותר שלא נדר זה אלא בחיי קרבן
15 in the other he said, 'le-imra'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Let it be for the lamb' — there he is forbidden. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE SAYS [TO HIS NEIGHBOUR], 'THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE KORBAN', [OR]' A BURNT-OFFERING',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The two may also be taken together and thus rendered 'a sacrifice of a burnt-offering'.] ');"><sup>14</sup></span> [OR] 'A MEAL-OFFERING', [OR]' A SIN-OFFERING [OR] 'A THANKSGIVING-OFFERING', [OR]' A PEACE-OFFERING, — HE IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To eat aright of his neighbour's. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> R. JUDAH PERMITTED [HIM].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he did not say, 'as a sacrifice', etc. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> [IF HE SAYS,] 'THE KORBAN,' [OR] 'AS A KORBAN,' [OR]' KORBAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this last case korban is used as an oath: I swear by the sacrifice to eat naught of thine. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> BE THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS,' HE IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Vowing by means of korban formula was a specifically Jewish practice: v. Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1, �� 22, Halevy, Doroth I, 3, pp. 314 f. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> IF HE SAYS: THAT WHICH I MIGHT NOT EAT OF YOURS BE FOR A KORBAN,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Gemara these words are subsequently otherwise interpreted, but in the promise they are thus translated. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> R. MEIR FORBIDS [HIM]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Now, the Mishnah teaches, [IF HE SAYS.] 'THE KORBAN,' [OR] 'AS KORBAN,' [OR] 'A KORBAN BE THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS,' HE IS FORBIDDEN. Thus, it is anonymously taught as R. Meir, who recognises no distinction between 'it sheep' and 'for a sheep'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 33, n. 6. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> But if so, then as to what he [the Tanna] teaches: 'THE KORBAN&nbsp;… [BE] THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS,' HE IS FORBIDDEN. But it was taught: The Sages concede to R. Judah that if one says, 'Oh, korban,' or 'Oh, burnt-offering,' 'Oh, meal-offering,' 'Oh, sin-offering, what I will eat this of thine,' he is permitted, because he merely vowed by the life of the korban!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he would eat. Then why not assume the same in our Mishnah? ');"><sup>21</sup></span> —
Previous ChapterNext Chapter