Nedarim — Talmud Ierușalmi

Nedarim

Nedarim — Talmud Ierușalmi pe Beth HaMidrash: textul ebraic și traducerea lui în română, cu Rași și marii comentatori. Gratuit, online.

משנה: כָּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וַחֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים וּשְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְׁבוּעוֹת וּנְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּדָּר אֲנִי מִמָּךְ מוּפְרָשׁ אֲנִי מִמָּךְ מְרוּחָק אֲנִי מִמָּךְ. שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ אָסוּר. מְנוּדֶּה אֲנִי לָךְ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הָיָה חוֹכֵךְ בָּזֶה לְהַחֲמִיר. כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. כְּנִדְרֵי כְשֵׁירִים לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. כְּנִדְבוֹתָם נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן.MISHNAH: All substitute names and its substitute, as given in Mishnah 2. of vows 1:6) “speaking to Higher Powers is like delivering to a human”; i. e., a promise to God is as final as delivering the merchandise in a commercial transaction. Therefore, these vows are only a minor topic in the present tractate.A person may make a vow to become a nazir for a certain time; then he is required to abstain from grapes and grape products as well as from becoming impure by the impurity of the dead, and he must let his hair grow. This kind of vow is discussed in Tractate Nazir.The main topic of Tractate Nedarim is “any vow or oath of prohibition to deprive oneself” (Num. 30:14), i. e., a vow in which a person for any reason prohibits to himself things which otherwise are permitted. One may also make a vow to forbid certain actions to oneself but the actions must be forbidden as things are forbidden. (Self-flagellation is forbidden in Judaism since inflicting any wound on oneself is forbidden except for medical purposes, Mishnah Baba qama 8:5.) Since an animal which was dedicated as a sacrifice is forbidden for any profane use, it became general practice to say about anything of which one wanted to prohibit all use for himself “this is qorbān for me”, or simply qorbān “sacrifice”. Therefore, if in Math. 15:5 it is noted that a son can say to his parents that all he possesses should be qorbān for them; on the surface it is the height of mistreatment of the parents if the son prohibits them any use whatsoever of his property and even prohibits himself to help his parents in any way. The rabbinic answer would be that if the son goes off to fight as a guerilla against the Romans, or the Herodian government, cutting off all ties might save his parents’ property from confiscation. (Cf. Peah 1:1, Note 113, about the unpredictability of the duty to honor father and mother: “Somebody might serve his father fattened meat and go to hell; another might bind his father to the grindstone and go to paradise.”) The vow could also be in error, cf. Mishnah 3:2. Chapter 4 shows that a person forbidding his property to another can nevertheless take care of that other person. Cf. also Chapter 9, Note 38.{In Math. 15:5, Jesus complains that Pharisees declare a person free from prosecution (פָּטוּר) if he violates the commandment to honor and fear father and mother by maliciously forbidding his property to them. The pharisaic rule in question is that “a prohibition violated without an action is not prosecutable” (Babli Sanhedrin 63a/b). Speech is not counted as an action in this respect. The rule is opposed by R. Jehudah who in many cases represents older traditions (from his father’s teacher R. Eliezer.) The testimony of Math. shows that in this case, the majority opinion is the historic position. R. Jehudah’s position is that of the Qumran community in the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document.} are like vows, of bans. 27:28. like bans, of oaths like oaths, of nazir vows. 6:1–21. like nazir vows. If one says to another, I am vowed away from you, I am separated from you, I am distanced from you, that I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours, he is forbidden. I am excommunicated from you, Rabbi Aqiba was stringent in that because of a doubt. As vows of the wicked, he vowed as nazir, a sacrifice, and an oath prohibits vines and all their products for himself and he needs atonement for his status (Num. 6:11) one concludes (Nedarim 1:1, 36d 1. 50; Babli 10a) that it is essentially sinful to deprive oneself from permitted enjoyments. It follows that just people do not make vows of deprivation or nezirut. They also do not make vows of sacrifices since such a vow implies that the person will be financially responsible until a correct sacrifice has been presented in the Temple. Responsible people offer free-will gifts in which they designate an animal as sacrifice; if anything should happen to that animal before it is sacrificed he is not obligated to offer a replacement.Since the wicked do make vows and swear, any expression of vow or oath declared to be in the form used by the wicked has to be interpreted to imply a maximum obligation. Still, somebody who simply says that he makes a vow of the wicked is not obligated for anything unless some object on which the vow could fall was before him at that moment. For example, if a loaf of bread was before him and he said, this loaf is for me as a vow of the wicked, he is forbidden to eat that loaf. If a long-haired nazir was passing before him and he said, that is for me as a vow of the wicked, he is a nazir for the standard period of 30 days.. As vows of the good ones, he did not say anything. As their freewill gifts and therefore forbidden for all usufruct. Similarly, if a long-haired nazir was passing before him and he said, that is for me as a free-will gift of the just, he is a nazir for the standard period of 30 days., he made a vow of nazir and sacrifice.

הלכה: כָּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים כול׳. כְּתִיב אִישׁ כִּי יִדּוֹר. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר נֶדֶר. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים. אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁבוּעָה. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. אַךְ כָּל חֶרֶם. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יַחֲרִים. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי חֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים. נֶדֶר נָזִיר. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְהַזִּיר. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְאָמַר. לְשׁוֹנוֹת רִיבּוּיִין הֵן. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר. לְשׁוֹנוֹת כְּפוּלִין הֵן וְהַתּוֹרָה דִיבְּרָה כְדַרְכָּהּ. הָלוֹךְ הָלַכְתָּ. נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּ. גָּונֹב גּוּנַּבְתִי. מְנָלָן. אִישׁ כִּי יִדּוֹר נֶדֶר לַיי אוֹ הִשָׁבַע שְׁבוּעָה לֶאֱסוֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא יָחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כְּכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כִּשְׁבוּעָה. וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁכִּינּוּי חֲרָמִים כַּחֲרָמִים. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כִּינּוּי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כַּשְּׁבוּעָה. אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן כִּינּוּי חֲרָמִין כַּחֲרָמִין. וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁכִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כִּינּוּי שְׁבוּעָה כַּשְּׁבוּעָה אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן כִּינּוּי נְזִירוּת כַּנְּזִירוּת.HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written 30:3. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban, 27:28.” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir 6:2.”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. 8:1, Note 72, Babli Avodah zarah 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in Gen. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “ 30:3. Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow” “equal cut”. If it was established in Num. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in Lev. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”, but this time the reference quote is Num. 6:2, cf. Note 14.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְּכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה. מִיכָּן לְנֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטֵל מִקְצָתוֹ בָּטַל כּוּלּוֹ. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כֵּן. כּוּלָּהּ מִן תַּמָּן. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן שֶׁכִּינּוּי נְדָרִים כַּנְּדָרִים וְכִינּוּי שְׁבוּעוֹת כַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן לְנֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטֵל מִקְצָתוֹ בָּטַל כּוּלּוֹ. מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר. מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם קוֹבֵעַ עָלָיו נְזִירוּת בְּתוֹךְ נְזִירוּתוֹ. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כֵּן. אִית לֵיהּ כּוּלָּהּ מִתַּמָּן. אִית לֵיהּ מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם קוֹבֵעַ עָלָיו נְזִירוּת בְּתוֹךְ נְזִירוּתוֹ.How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. Does Rebbi Ismael not agree with this? Everything derives from there. It follows from there that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths and it follows from there that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. How does Rebbi Ismael explain “any person who vows a vow of nazir 6:2.”? From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir is always limited in time (when a Temple is in existence. Since a nazir is only permitted to drink wine after he has absolved the required Temple ritual, a person vowing to be a nazir today must remain in that state until the Temple is rebuilt and officiating Cohanim are found who have complete documentary proof of their priestly status going back to the priests officiating in the second Temple.) The prophetic state of nazir, as exemplified by Simson and Samuel, is unlimited but does not include a prohibition of the impurity of the dead. It is noted here that while a person is in the state of a nazir for a fixed period, he can undertake to be a nazir for an additional period, to begin after the Temple procedure for the current nezirut was performed. This statement is needed since the vow of nazir of an unincumbered person makes that person a nazir immediately upon pronouncing his vow.. Does Rebbi Aqiba not agree with this? He agrees and everything derives from there. He agrees that from there a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.

וַהֲלֹא הָעֲרָכִין וְהַחֲרָמִין וְהַתְּמוּרוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת בַּפָּרָשָׁה הָיוּ. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן. כִּינּוּי עֲרָכִין וְכִינּוּי תְמוּרוֹת וְהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. וְאִילּוּ תַנִּינָן מַה הֲוִינָן מִיתְנֵי. עֲרָפִין עֲרָצִין עֲרָקִין. תְּמוּפָה תְּמֻרְנָה תְּמוּקָה. הֶגְדֵּר הֶגְזֵר הֶגְרֵם. נִיחָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר סְתָם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. בְּרַם כְּמַאן דָּמַר. סְתָם חֲרָמִים לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן כִּינּוּי תְרוּמָה. וְאִילּן תַנִּינָן מַה הֲוִינָן מִיתְנֵי. תְּרוּפָה תְּרוּצָה תְּרוּקָה.Now estimates. 27:1–8, which in general is a fixed sum but becomes an estimate for poor persons., bans, exchanges. 27:9–10., and dedications. 27:11–25. were in the same paragraph. 27, where bans are treated in v. 28. Why should bans be treated differently from all other categories of gifts?, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state vows, and oaths are listed in Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? ‘Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin? Temupha, temuna, temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres was close to that of Arabic ق.. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple 8:6), the collection of the gift is a money transaction between Cohanim and the giver, subject to the rule that “the proof is on the claimant” (Sanhedrin 3:9, 21b 1. 70; Babli Baba qama 46b). The Cohanim would have to prove that the putative giver in his use of the substitute words really did intend to refer to bans. This proof seems almost impossible. Therefore, substitute bans could not be like bans and the Mishnah here must be interpreted as supporting the opinion that unspecified bans are for the Temple.. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state vows, and oaths are listed in Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? Terupha, teruṣa, teruqa?

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לוֹקִין עַל הָאִיסָּרוֹת. וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. אֵין לוֹקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶת רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר. אֵין לוֹקִין עַל הָאִיסָּרוֹת. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הַמּוּדָר הַנָּיָיה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִכְנַס לְבַקְּרוֹ. לֹא יִכָּנֵס. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא תַמָּן מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אִם מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם אֲפִילוּ בִשְׁבוּעוֹת יְהֵא מוּתָּר. וְתַנִּינָן. נְדָרִים אָסִיר וּשְׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר.Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar disagree, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, one whips for prohibitions. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In Nazir 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in Nazir would remain unexplained.) and Rebbi Eleazar said, one does not whip. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In Nazir 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in Nazir would remain unexplained.). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: According to you, who says one does not whip on prohibitions, did we not state: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him,” let him not enter! Rebbi Jeremiah said, there is a difference there because of the ways of peace. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is because of the ways of peace, should he not also be permitted in case of an oath? But we have stated, that I will not wear phylacteries: vows are forbidden, oaths permitted, for one cannot swear to break religious obligations.” If somebody makes a vow that religious objects should be forbidden to him (as if they were dedicated sacrifices), he commits a twofold sin in making a frivolous vow and breaking biblical commandments, but what he did is done. But if he swears that he will not fulfill his religious obligations, the oath is invalid since, in the language of the Babli, “he already is under oath from Mount Sinai”, and a valid oath cannot be superseded by another oath. Since visiting the sick is a religious obligation, if the prohibition of usufruct is interpreted as an oath it should be nonexistent in the case of a visit to a sick person. No answer is given since practice follows R. Joḥanan.: “Vows are forbidden, oaths permitted.”

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim.1.1