Nedarim 26

Chapter 26

א לא קשיא הא דאמר הא קרבן והא דאמר הקרבן מאי טעמא חיי קרבן קאמר

1 This is no difficulty: Here he said ha korban,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ha being a separate word, and thus an interjection expressing an affirmative oath — I will eat. [The vowel of the ha as interjection is, in addition, of a longer quality than that of ha as definite article.] ');">1 there he said ha-korban.2

ב קתני לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר והא לית ליה לרבי מאיר מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן אמר רבי אבא נעשה כאומר לקרבן יהא לפיכך לא אוכל לך

2 What is the reason?3 He meant, '[I swear] by the life of the sacrifice.'4

ג <big>מתני׳</big> האומר לחבירו קונם פי מדבר עמך ידי עושה עמך רגלי מהלכת עמך אסור

3 He [the Tanna] teaches: THAT WHICH I MIGHT NOT EAT OF YOURS BE NOT FOR KORBAN, R. MEIR FORBIDS HIM. But R. Meir does not rule that the positive may be inferred from the negative?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And according to our premise the reason for R. Meir's ruling is that we deduce the opposite from his words, thus: 'but that which I might eat of thine be for korban'. ');">5 R. Abba answered: it is as though he said: 'Let it be for korban, therefore I will not eat of yours'.6

ד <big>גמ׳</big> ורמינהו חומר בשבועות מבנדרים ובנדרים מבשבועות חומר בנדרים שהנדרים חלין על המצווה כברשות מה שאין כן בשבועות וחומר בשבועות שהשבועות חלות על דבר שיש בו ממש ושאין בו ממש מה שאין כן בנדרים

4 MISHNAH. IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, 'KONAM BE MY MOUTH SPEAKING WITH YOU,' [OR] 'MY HANDS WORKING FOR YOU,' [OR] 'MY FEET WALKING WITH YOU,' HE IS FORBIDDEN.7 GEMARA. But a contradiction is shown: There is greater stringency in oaths than in vows, and greater stringency in vows than in oaths. There is greater stringency in vows, for vows apply to obligatory as to optional matters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one said, 'I am forbidden by a vow to erect a sukkah (v. Glos.), or put on tefillin', (v. Glos.) the vow is binding, although he is bound to do these things. and if he does them, he violates the injunction he shall not break his word. ');">8

ה אמר רב יהודה באומר ייאסר פי לדיבורי ידיי למעשיהם רגליי להילוכן דייקא נמי דקתני פי מדבר עמך ולא קתני שאני מדבר עמך

5 which is not so in the case of oaths.9 And there is greater stringency in oaths, for oaths are valid with respect to things both abstract and concrete, but vows are not so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Vows being applicable to concrete things only. Walking, talking and working are regarded here as abstractions (by contrast with the vow that a loaf of broad etc shall be as a sacrifice and forbidden), yet the Mishnah states that the vows are valid. ');">10

ו <big>הדרן עלך כל כנויי</big>

6 — Said Rab Judah: It means that he says,11 'let my mouth be forbidden in respect of my speech,' or 'my hands in respect of their work', or 'my feet in respect of their walking'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason for this assumption is this: the konam of the Mishnah may refer either to my mouth (concrete) or to my talking (abstract). In the former case the vow would be valid, but not in the latter. Since it is not clear which, we adopt the more rigorous interpretation. ');">12

ז מתני׳ <big>ואלו</big> מותרין חולין שאוכל לך כבשר חזיר כעבודה זרה כעורות לבובין כנבילות וטריפות כשקצים ורמשים כחלת אהרן וכתרומתו מותר

7 This may be inferred too, for he [the Tanna] teaches: 'MY MOUTH SPEAKING WITH YOU,' not, ['konam] if I speak with you'.13 MISHNAH. NOW THESE ARE PERMITTED:14

ח האומר לאשתו הרי את עלי כאימא פותחין לו פתח ממקום אחר שלא יקל ראשו לכך

8 [HE WHO SAYS,] WHAT I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE HULLIN,' 'AS THE FLESH OF THE SWINE, AS THE OBJECT OF IDOLATROUS WORSHIP,'15 AS PERFORATED HIDES,'16

ט <big>גמ׳</big> טעמא דאמר חולין שאוכל לך הא אמר לחולין שאוכל לך משמע לא לחולין ליהוי אלא קרבן

9 'AS NEBELOTH AND TEREFOTH',17 AS ABOMINATIONS AND REPTILES, AS AARON'S DOUGH OR HIS TERUMAH',18

י מני מתניתין אי רבי מאיר הא לית ליה מכלל

10 — [IN ALL THESE CASES] HE IS PERMITTED. IF ONE SAYS TO HIS WIFE, 'BEHOLD! THOU ART UNTO ME AS MY MOTHER,'19 HE MUST BE GIVEN AN OPENING ON OTHER GROUNDS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from another place'. I.e., when he wishes his vow to be annulled, the Rabbi, who must find for him some grounds of regret to invalidate his vow, must not do so by pointing out that such a vow is derogatory to his mother's dignity. ');">20 IN ORDER THAT HE SHOULD NOT ACT FRIVOLOUSLY IN SUCH MATTERS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His mother's honour is too easy a ground for regret, and if the vow is invalidated on that score it is an encouragement to make such vows lightly, since they can easily be annulled. The making of vows was discouraged: cf. 9a. ');">21 GEMARA. Now, the reason is because he said, 'WHAT I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE HULLIN'; but if he said, 'What I might eat of yours be lehullin,' it would imply: let it not be hullin but a korban.22 Whose view is taught in our Mishnah? If R. Meir's, but he does not hold

Previous Chapter Next Chapter