Nedarim 4

Chapter 4

א <big>גמ׳</big> כל כינויי נדרים כנדרים מאי שנא גבי נזיר דלא קתני להו לכולהו ומאי שנא גבי נדרים דקתני לכולהו

1 GEMARA. ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS: Why other clauses1

ב משום דנדר ושבועה כתיבי גבי הדדי תני תרתין וכיון דתני תרתין תני לכולהו

2 not stated in [the Mishnah of] Nazir,2

ג וליתני כינוי שבועות בתר נדרים איידי דתנא נדרים דמיתסר חפצא עליה תנא נמי חרמים דמיתסר חפצא עליה לאפוקי שבועה דקאסר נפשיה מן חפצא

3 whilst [our Mishnah of] Nedarim includes them all? — Because oaths and Vows are written side by side [in the Bible]3

ד פתח בכינויין כל כנויי נדרים ומפרש ידות האומר לחבירו מודר אני ממך ותו ידות אינשי

4 they are both stated, and since the two are mentioned, the others are stated also. Then let OATHS be taught immediately after VOWS? — Because he states vows In which the article is forbidden to the person, he follows it up with HARAMIM, where likewise the article is forbidden to the person. OATHS, however, are excluded [from the category of vows], since oaths bind the person to abstain from a thing;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A vow is thus taken: 'This shall be forbidden tonic,' the prohibition falling upon the thing. An oath, however, is thus taken: 'I swear to abstain from a certain thing,' the prohibition falling upon the person. ');">4

ה איירי בהון וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני כל כינויי נדרים כנדרים וידות נדרים כנדרים

5 [hence they cannot immediately follow vows].

ו וליפרוש כינויין ברישא

6 The Mishnah commences with substitutes: ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS etc., yet proceeds to explain the laws of abbreviations of VOWS: IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR: I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW … WITH HIS VOW;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the principal way of making a vow is to declare a thing to be as korban, the omission of such a declaration renders the vow merely an abbreviation or suggestion (lit., 'a handle') of a vow, V. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 2. ');">5

ז ההוא דסליק מיניה ההוא מפרש ברישא כדתנן במה מדליקין ובמה אין מדליקין אין מדליקין כו'

7 moreover, [the Tanna] has altogether omitted to state that abbreviations [are binding]? — [The Tanna does] speak of them, but our text is defective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This may mean either that there is actually a lacuna in the text, words having fallen out, or that though it is correct in itself something has to be supplied to complete the sense; v. Weiss, Dor. III, p. 6. n. 14. The former is the most probable here. ');">6

ח במה טומנין ובמה אין טומנין אין טומנין כו' במה אשה יוצאה ובמה אינה יוצאה לא תצא אשה

8 and this is what was really meant: ALL SUBSTITUTES and abbreviations OF VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS. Then let substitutes be first explained? — The clause to which [the Tanna] has last referred is generally first explained, as we have learned: Wherewith may [the Sabbath lights] be kindled, and wherewith may they not be kindled? They may not be kindled etc.7

ט וכל היכא דפתח לא מפרש ברישא והתנן יש נוחלין ומנחילין נוחלין ולא מנחילין ואלו נוחלין ומנחילין

9 Wherein may food be put away [to be kept hot for the Sabbath], and wherein may it not be put away? It may not be put away [etc.].8

י יש מותרות לבעליהן ואסורות ליבמיהן מותרות ליבמיהן ואסורות לבעליהן ואלו מותרות לבעליהן ואסורות ליבמיהן

10 Wherewith may a woman go out (from her house on the Sabbath], and wherewith may she not go out? She may not go out from etc.9

יא יש טעונות שמן ולבונה שמן ולא לבונה ואלו טעונות שמן ולבונה יש טעונות הגשה ואין טעונות תנופה תנופה ולא הגשה ואלו טעונות הגשה

11 [Is it then a universal rule] that the first clause is never explained first? But we have learnt: Some relations inherit from and transmit [their estate] to others; some inherit but do not transmit. Now, these relations inherit from and transmit to each other etc.10

יב יש בכור לנחלה ואין בכור לכהן בכור לכהן ואין בכור לנחלה ואיזהו בכור לנחלה ואין בכור לכהן

12 Some women are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their husbands' brothers;11

יג הלין משום דאוושו ליה מפרש ההוא דפתח ברישא

13 others are the reverse. Now, these are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their husbands' brothers etc.12

יד והא במה בהמה יוצאה ובמה אינה יוצאה דלא אוושא וקתני יוצא גמל

14 Some meal offerings require oil and frankincense, others require oil but no frankincense. Now, these require both oil and frankincense etc.13 Some mealofferings must be taken [by the priest to the south-west corner of the altar], but do not need waving;14 others are the reverse. Now, these must be taken to the altar etc.15 Some are treated as first-borns in respect of inheritance16 but not in respect of the priest;17 others are treated as first-borns in respect of the priest but not in respect of inheritance. Now who is regarded as a first-born in respect of inheritance but not in respect of the priest etc.?18 — In these examples [the first clause is explained first] because it contains numerous instances [to which its law applies]. But, 'Wherewith may a beast go out on the Sabbath, and wherewith may it not go out?' where [the first clause does] not contain numerous instances, yet it is explained [first], viz., a camel may go out etc.?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter