Mishnah
1 All substitute names of vows are like vows, of bans like bans, of oaths like oaths, of nazir vows 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 Akiva was stringent in that because of a doubt. As vows of the wicked, he vowed as nazir, a sacrifice, and an oath. As vows of the good ones, he did not say anything. As their freewill gifts, he made a vow of nazir and sacrifice.
Halakhah
“All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written “Any person who vows,”Numbers 30:3 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,”Leviticus 27:28 why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir,”Numbers 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 Rabbi Akiva who says that these are expressions of additions. For Rabbi Ishmael 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? “ Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,”Numbers 30:3 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.” 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.” 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.
How does Rabbi Akiva 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 Rabbi Ishmael 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 Rabbi Ishmael explain “any person who vows a vow of nazir”Numbers 6:2? From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir. Does Rabbi Akiva 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.
Now estimates, bans, exchanges, and dedications were in the same paragraph, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state? ʿAraphin, ʿaraṣin, ʿaraqin? Temupha, temuna, temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of 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? Terupha, teruṣa, teruqa?
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Eleazar disagree, for Rabbi Joḥanan said, one whips for prohibitions and Rabbi Eleazar said, one does not whip. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so did Rabbi Joḥanan answer Rabbi 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! Rabbi Jeremiah said, there is a difference there because of the ways of peace. Rabbi 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: “Vows are forbidden, oaths permitted.”
“What is a prohibition? This loaf is for me as the day of my father’s death, as the day X was killed, as the day I saw Jerusalem in ruins; that is the prohibition the Torah spoke of.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan and Rav: Both say, only if he had made a vow about that day. Rabbi Yose asked: If only he had made a vow about that day, why a separate prohibition? He should say on that day!
“‘Prohibition,’ is an oath. ‘Expression,’Numbers 30:4 is an oath. If you say prohibition is an oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. If you say prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.” “Prohibition is an oath,” and you say “if you say so”? Rabbi Eleazar said, these are two Tannaim. Rabbi Jeremiah said, it is from one Tanna. If he said it in the language of a vow you catch him in the language of a vow. If he said it in the language of an oath you catch him in the language of an oath. If you say, prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. Rabbi Yose said, this comes only for five loaves. But for a single loaf, from the moment he mentioned “oath” for it, he made it a cadaver. Furthermore, he may want to have oaths apply to prohibited items, but oaths cannot apply to prohibited items. Rabbi Ḥananiah said, it applies even to a single loaf. As we have stated, “in that the past is more stringent than the future, if he said I did not eat, I did not eat, he is guilty for every statement; I shall not eat, I shall not eat, he is guilty only once.” Rabbi Yudan said, only if he first mentioned “vow” and then mentioned “oath.” But if he mentioned oath and then vow, vows can apply to prohibitions but oaths cannot apply to prohibitions.
Rabbi Yose explained “to forbid”Numbers 30:3: That should be forbidden to me; there should be a prohibition on it, it is forbidden. An oath is on me, it is forbidden, there should be an oath on it, it is forbidden. Rabbi Yudan said, in vows it is forbidden, in oaths it is permitted. There is a prohibition on me, it is forbidden. There is a prohibition on it, it is forbidden. An oath is there on me, it is forbidden. There is an oath on it is permitted.
“I am vowed away from you.” Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, both of them are mutually forbidden; as if the other person had said: and I from you. If he said, this loaf is vowed away from me and I from it, or I am vowed away from this loaf and it from me. It does not make any difference whether he said “from me” in Aramaic, מינך, or in Hebrew, מימך, or he said “I am to you forbidden” or “I am on you forbidden,” “you are to me forbidden” or “you are on me forbidden.” It was stated: “I am jailed away from you, I am separated away from you.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked, why did one not state “taken away from”? Rabbi Yose said, that was stated at the end, “I am taken away from the Jews.”
“That I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours.” Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah. One catches him because of a handle for qorban. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath? Rabbi Yose said, people usually say “handle of an axe,” do they ever say “axe of a handle”?
“I am excommunicated from you, Rabbi Akiva was stringent in that because of a doubt.” To forbid all his possessions. As you say, “all his property should be banned and he should be separated from the community of the diaspora.”Ezra 10:8 What do the rabbis do with this? An excommunication by the court is weightier.
“As vows of the wicked, he vowed as nazir, a sacrifice, and an oath.” Samuel said, the Mishnah speaks about several cases, either as nazir, or a sacrifice, or an oath. Rabbi Zeira said, he is a nazir in all three of them. Rabbi Abin said, if somebody wants to explain that of Rabbi Zeira, it is such: There was before him a bunch of grapes and another person came and said, there is an oath on me, then there is an oath on him. Another person came and said, that is qorban for me, it is qorban for him. Another person came and said, there is an oath on me, then there is an oath on him. Another person came and said, what these three said is on me, does it not turn out that this one is obligated for qorban and oath?
It was stated: “As to their free-will offerings, he did not say anything.” Does that mean that the wicked give free-will offerings? Since he gave a free-will offering, he is not wicked. The Mishnah follows Rabbi Judah, since it was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: “It is better that you should not make a vow than that you make a vow but do not pay,”Ecclesiastes 5:4 better in any case is that you should not make a vow at all. Rabbi Meir says, “it is better that you should not make a vow than that you make a vow but do not pay,” better in any case is that you should make a vow and pay. And so it says, “make vows and pay to your God.”Psalms 76:12 How does one handle a free-will offering? He brings his sheep to the Temple courtyard and says, that one is an elevation offering. Rabbi Abin said, Rabbi Judah used to open a door: If you had known that one who makes a vow is called wicked, would you have vowed? Rabbi Yannai said, “it is a trap for a human to call ‘sanctified’ and afterwards to check out the vows,”Proverbs 20:25 if one started to make vows, his account book is opened. Another explanation: “it is a trap for a human to call ‘sanctified’ and to be late to check out the vows,” if a person is in arrears with his vows, his account book is opened. It happened to one who said, I undertake to bring an elevation offering and he tarried to bring it. His ship sank at sea.
“Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. The Mishnah follows Rabbi Judah since it was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering, but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering. Rabbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person,”Numbers 6:11 that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from drinking wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rabbi Simeon. As it was stated: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shepherd in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to lose me from the World. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says, “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.”Numbers 6:2 Rabbi Mana asked: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rabbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison.
Mishnah
2 If somebody says qonam, or qonaḥ, or qonas, these are substitute names for qorban. Ḥereq, ḥerek, ḥereph, these are substitute names for ban. Naziq, naziaḥ, paziaḥ, these are substitute names for nazir. Šebuta, šequqa, or he made a vow of Moy, these are substitute names for an oath.
Halakhah
“If somebody says qonam, or qonaḥ,” etc. So far for himself. Can one dedicate to Heaven by saying qonam? Let us hear from the following: One said to another, lend me your spade. He said, qonam the spade if I have it, qonam my property on me. If he has a spade, his property would be forbidden for this one “has no spade.” Rabbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, there is a difference, for he used the same expression to attach the spade and to attach his property. As you look at it, if the spade is sanctified, so is his property. If the spade is not sanctified, neither is his property. If he said, qonam the spade if I have it, and added qonam my property on me, if he owns a spade, his property is forbidden. That is correct. Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, if he had said “my property,” it would be permitted for he stopped. That is correct. He only asserted that the person had no spade. Therefore, if he has a spade, his property is forbidden. That means that the spade was sanctified. That means that the property was sanctified. This means that a person may dedicate to Heaven using the expression qonam.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked: May a person bind himself by a word which has both a profane and a sacral meaning? Did we not state קוֹנָס? Its name is קונסה. Did we not state שְּׁבוּתָה? Its name is שְׁפוּתָה. But did not Bar Qappara state ḥeres? Rabbi Zeira said, that is a name relating to the High One: “If He commands the sun: would it not shine?.”Job 9:7 Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, these are Gentile words, like those Nabateans who say khaspa for ḥaspa. Rabbi Yose said, it is reasonable in other places, but in a place where the nazir is called naziq, do I say that a nazir of people with speech defects should not be a nazir?
It was stated: šebuta, šequqa; Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: šebuqa, šequʿa, šequra. “A vow,” when he made a vow by Moy, by the oath which Moses vowed, “and Moses accepted the curse.”Exodus 2:21 Rabbi Jonah asked, why do we not say, by the oath which Saul vowed, “Saul menaced the people with a curse”1 Samuel 14:24? By my right hand, that is a vow, by my left hand, that is a vow. Rabbi Mattaniah said, for it is written: “He lifted his right hand and his left hand to the Heavens and swore by the Eternally Living.”Daniel 12:7
Mishnah
3 Not profane I shall not eat from yours, not usable, not pure, pure, or impure, leftover, or mushy, is forbidden. Like a sheep, like the storage places, like wood, like altar gifts, like the altar, like the Temple, like Jerusalem. If one made a vow by one of the serving pieces of the altar even though he did not mention “sacrifice,” it is as if he made a vow by the sacrifice. Rabbi Judah says, he who says “Jerusalem” did not say anything.
Halakhah
“Not profane I shall not eat from yours,” etc. That which I would eat from you shall not be profane but a sacrifice.
“Not usable” for me but it is for the altar.
“Not pure,” for me but it is for the altar.
“Pure,” for the altar but not for me.
“Impure,” for me but pure for the altar.
“Mushy.” There is no difference whether mushy for an elevation offering or mushy for a well-being offering. The leftover of an elevation offering never had a time when it was usable, the leftover of an elevation offering had a time when it was usable. If he said, this is for me as a leftover of a well-being offering, what is it?
“Like a sheep.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, like the sheep of the daily offering. There, they say, like the young of a purification offering. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, like our father Abraham’s ram. What Rabbi Ḥiyya stated supports Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Like a sheep which never suckled. Following the opinions of the rabbis there, one could state: Like the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Abin said, following the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish one could state: Like the sacrifices on the altar. Rabbi Yose ben Abun said, following Rabbi Joḥanan one could state: Like the cleansing of the inner altar and the candelabra.
“Like the storage places,” like the storage places of wood, like the storage places of sacrificial animals. “Like wood,” like the two logs. “Like altar gifts,” like the flame of the fire. “Like the altar,” like the sacrifices on the altar. “Like the Temple hall,” like the sacrifices in the Temple hall. “Like Jerusalem,” like the sacrifices in Jerusalem.
“If one made a vow by one of the serving pieces of the altar,” e.g., cup, shovel, and pouring cup.
“Rabbi Judah says, he who says ‘like Jerusalem’ did not say anything,” since this one intended to refer only to its wood and stones. “Like the Torah,” that is permitted. “Like the sanctity of the Torah, like what is written in it,” that is forbidden like the sacrifices written in it. There are Tannaim who state, “like the Torah and what is written in it,” is permitted. Rabbi Abin bar Cahana said, that is Rabbi Simeon’s, as Rabbi Joḥanan said, by the words of Rabbi Simeon, if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is free also for the rest. Rabbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. “Like the Torah,” like the sanctity of the Torah. “Like what is written in it,” like the sanctity of the verses.
Mishnah
4 If somebody says sacrifice, elevation offering, or flour offering, purification offering, or well-being offering, that I will not eat with you, he is forbidden; Rabbi Judah permits. The sacrifice, like a sacrifice, sacrifice if I would eat with you, he is forbidden. It is for sacrifice what I will not eat with you, Rabbi Meir forbids. If somebody says to another person, a qonam that my mouth speaks with you, that my hand works with you, that my foot goes with you, he is forbidden.
Halakhah
“If somebody says sacrifice, elevation offering, or flour offering,” etc. Everybody agrees this sacrifice is permitted, like a sacrifice is forbidden. Where do they disagree? Sacrifice. Rabbi Judah says, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘this sacrifice’ and is permitted; but the rabbis say, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘like a sacrifice’ and is forbidden. Rabbi Judah said to them: Do you not agree that one who said “oath” is like one who said “this oath” and is forbidden? And here he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘this sacrifice’ and is permitted! But the rabbis throw restrictions on it. One who said “oath” is like one who said “this oath” and is forbidden. But here, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘like a sacrifice’ and is forbidden.
Fife, the fife, with a fife, either ‘that I shall eat with you’ or ‘that I shall not eat with you,’ is permitted. No profane food that I would eat with you, forbidden. Profane food I would eat with you, permitted.
Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Are there words of Rabbi Meir that from a negative one understands a positive? There is no sacrifice from this. What I shall not eat from you. Therefore, what I shall eat from you is profane, it is not qorban.
‘My going is forbidden to you, my speech is forbidden to you,’ he said nothing. Why? Because he referred the vow to something immaterial. “Vow, vow.” Just as “vow” which was said there refers to something material, so “vow” said here refers to something material. ‘My eye is forbidden to see for you, my ear is forbidden to hear you,’ he is forbidden. You say, ‘my hand is forbidden to work with you,’ he is forbidden. If he plowed with him on the ground, what is forbidden to him? Up to the amount of his wages or any improvement of the ground? If he fenced in an oven with him, what is forbidden to him? Up to the amount of his wages or any improvement of the oven?
Mishnah
1 The following vows are permitted: Profane I would eat with you; like pork, like idolatry, like carcasses, like meat from a torn animal, like abominations, like crawling things, like Aaron’s ḥallah and his heave, are permitted. One who says to his wife, you are for me like my mother, one finds for him an opening from another place that he should not be flippant about this. A qonam that I shall not sleep, that I shall not speak, that I shall not walk, or one who says to his wife, a qonam that I shall not sleep with you, he is under the obligation “he shall not profane his word.”Numbers 30:3 An oath that I shall not sleep, that I shall not speak, that I shall not walk, he is forbidden.
Halakhah
“The following vows are permitted,” etc. “To the Eternal,”Numbers 30:3 nobody can forbid anything on himself unless it could be given to the Eternal. What is stated in the House of Rav disagrees: “From where that one may not make and dissolve vows which are dissolved for you from Heaven but people consider them as binding? The verse says, ‘he shall not profane his word.’Numbers 30:3 He should not make his words profane.” They wanted to say, for example using “qorban” or “oath”; but in all other respects it would be permitted. It comes to tell you, also all other respects. “To prohibit a prohibition on himself.”Numbers 30:3 There are Tannaim who state: on himself, not on others. There are Tannaim who state: even on others. They wanted to say that he who says on himself, not on others, to forbid others’ property, but he who says even on others, to forbid his own property for others, but not the property of others for himself.
“One who says to his wife, you are for me like my mother.” Your cohabitation is for me like cohabitation with my mother, like my mother’s flesh; he did not say anything. If he said, this loaf is for me like cohabitation with my mother, what? Let us hear from the following: A qonam that I shall not sleep with you, Rav says, he is forbidden, Samuel says he is permitted. How does Samuel uphold “he shall not profane his word”? As if he shall not profane his word. Rav sticks with his opinion: The Tannaim in the House of Rav disagree: “From where that one may not make and dissolve vows which are dissolved for you from Heaven but people consider them as binding? The verse says, ‘he shall not profane his word.’Numbers 30:3 He should not make his words profane.”
“An oath that I shall not sleep for three days,” one whips him and he can sleep immediately. “An oath that I shall not eat for three days,” one waits until he eats and then whips him.
Mishnah
2 Qorban shall be what I shall not eat at your place, or qorban shall be what I shall eat from you, no qorban shall be what I shall not eat from you; he is permitted. An oath that I shall not eat at your place, an oath that I shall eat from you, no oath that I shall not eat from you; he is forbidden. That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths? If he said qonam that I shall not make a sukkah, that I shall not take a lulab, that I shall not put on phylacteries, as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments.
Halakhah
“Qorban shall be what I shall not eat at your place,” etc. Why did we not state: An oath that I shall eat from you, he is permitted? Only because we stated: “That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows.” We wanted to say about “an oath that I shall not eat of yours,” that the words of the Sages are: he is forbidden. Therefore it was not stated.
“That is a sacrifice, that is for a sacrifice, that is like a sacrifice,” is permitted. “That is an oath, that is for an oath, that is like an oath,” is forbidden.
“That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths?” “Or a person who swears to lightly express with his lips for bad or for good.”Leviticus 5:4 Just as doing good is a matter of choice, so doing bad is a matter of choice; that excludes any prohibition which is a commandment. They wanted to say, inadvertently, but not intentionally. It was found stated: Rabbi Ishmael says, “anything that comes out of his mouth he shall do,”Numbers 30:3 not what comes out of Heaven’s mouth. Should we say that this is the same for vows of sanctification? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila: For a man may vow his sukkah to Heaven.
Mishnah
3 A vow inside a vow is possible, an oath inside an oath is impossible. For example, if one said, I shall be a nazir if I would eat, I shall be a nazir if I would eat, if he eats he is obligated for each pronouncement separately. An oath that I will not eat, an oath that I will not eat, if he eats he is guilty only once.
Halakhah
“A vow inside a vow is possible,” etc. Rabbi Yose asked: An oath, an oath, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat, an oath that I shall not eat. If he ate, he is guilty only once.” Because he said this. Therefore, if he had not said this, he would be guilty for each of the oaths. Avime the brother of Ḥefa said, I studied vows, I studied oaths. Ḥefa wanted to examine him: There were five loaves before him and he said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf. Then he said, these two loaves. Then he said, these three loaves. Then he said, these four loaves. Then he said, these five loaves. Then he ate the first, what are the rules? He said to him, he is guilty for each oath separately. He said to him, he is guilty only once. From the moment he mentioned “oath” about it, he made it like carcass meat. From there on he is as if he wanted to apply oaths to prohibitions, but no oath can be applied to prohibitions. He examined him a second time. There were five loaves and he said, an oath about these five loaves. Then he said, these four. Then he said, these three. Then he said, these two. Then he said, this single one. Then he ate all of them? He said to him, he is guilty only once. He said to him, he is guilty for each oath separately. If somebody had said, an oath that I shall not eat five, and he ate four, would he be free from punishment? Rabbi Yose said, it is reasonable following Ḥefa’s brother in the last case, following Ḥefa in the first.
Mishnah
4 Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively and explicit ones liberally. How is this? If one said, this is for me like salted meat, like libation wine, if his intent was for Heaven, he is forbidden, if for idolatry, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like a ban, if by a ban for Heaven, he is forbidden, if priest’s, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like tithe, if animal tithe, he is forbidden, if from grain, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like heave, if Temple heave, he is forbidden, if heave from the threshing floor, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, indeterminate heave in Judea is prohibited, in Galilee permitted, since Galileans do not know of Temple heave. Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans.
Halakhah
“Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively,” etc. They wanted to say, salted for preservation, not short-term salted. Rabbi Yudan said, since we have stated: “this is for me like salted meat, like libation wine,” this implies that short-term salted is called “salted.” What is short-term salted? As it was stated: “He puts the limbs on the salt and turns them over.” Rabbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, for if he leaves them there, they become salted meat. But which text says it? As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, “one who takes olives from the vat dips each single one in salt and eats it.” That implies that short-term salted is called “salted.”
“This is for me like heave, if Temple heave, he is forbidden,” therefore ‘heave of thanksgiving’ is permitted. “If heave from the threshing floor, he is permitted,” therefore ‘heave of thanksgiving’ is forbidden. Here you say, forbidden; there, you say, permitted. Let us hear from the following: “Like Aaron’s ḥallah and his heave” is permitted, therefore ‘heave of thanksgiving’ is forbidden.
“But the Sages say, indeterminate heave in Judea is prohibited, in Galilee permitted, since Galileans do not know of Temple heave.” But if they did know it, the indeterminate would be forbidden. “Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans.” But if they did know it, the indeterminate would be permitted. Here you say permitted, but there you say forbidden. Rabbi Eleazar says, these are statements of two Tannaim. Rabbi Jeremiah said, all is from one Tanna, following the one who said: “indeterminate bans are for the upkeep of the Temple.” But for the one who said, “indeterminate bans are for priests,” even in Galilee they would be permitted. In Galilee where they are used to invoke Akhan’s ban, you have to say forbidden; in Judea where they are not used to invoke Akhan’s ban, you have to say permitted.
Mishnah
5 If somebody made a vow of ḥerem and said, I referred the vow only to mariner’s nets, or made a vow of qorban and said, I referred the vow only to the gifts for kings, or said, my bone is qorban and said, I referred the vow only to the bone that I keep in my house for purposes of vows, or said a qonam that my wife may not have any use from me and said, I referred the vow only to my first wife whom I divorced, all these do not need a question. If they do question, one punishes them and makes it difficult for them, the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say, one finds for them an opening from another place and teaches them that they should not be flippant about vows.
Halakhah
“If somebody made a vow of ḥerem,” etc. A person made a vow by one of these expressions. He came before Rabbi Meir who sent him to Rabbi Judah and told him, inform him that you came to me and I sent you to him. He came before Rabbi Judah who sent him to Rabbi Yose and told him, inform him that you came to Rabbi Meir who sent you to me and I sent you to him. He came to Rabbi Yose, who told him, if the first one does not permit it, nobody else can permit it to you, for he holds that “if they do question, one punishes them and makes it difficult for them.” He returned before Rabbi Meir and said to him, since you knew that, why did you not tell me from the start? He said to him, I saw you flippant and made it difficult for you.
Mishnah
1 Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve: Speeding-up vows, exaggeration vows, vows in error, and vows about acts of God. What are speeding-up vows? One who has something to sell says, a qonam that I shall not reduce the price below a tetradrachma, and the other one says, a qonam that I shall not increase my bid to more than a sheqel; both of them intend three denarii. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, also one who wants by a vow to get his neighbor to eat at his place. If he says to himself: any vow which I make in the future shall be void, it is void if he remembers at the moment he makes the vow.
Halakhah
“Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve,” etc. Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written: “Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.”Numbers 30:2 He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve the people’s vows. Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: “He shall not profane his word.”Numbers 30:3 He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow. Ḥananiah the nephew of Rabbi Joshua said, “I swore and I shall keep it.”Psalms 119:106 Sometimes I keep it. Rabbi Joshua said, “What I swore in my rage”Psalms 95:11: In my rage I swore; I change my mind.
Do the Sages permit all kinds of vows? “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve”! Rabbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: Those do not need the permission of a Sage. Rav and Samuel both say that these need the permission of a Sage. Issy objected: Did we not find an opening for vows from there only? Samuel said to him, bind a rope on it. A Mishnah disagrees with Issy: “This one also can dissolve his vow without asking a Sage.” He explains it, that all vows need an opening from another place but these have their openings in themselves. Rabbi Zeira said, that is, if they do not insist. But if they did insist they need the permission of a Sage. If one did insist but the other did not insist, since this one’s is invalid, the other one’s also should be invalid. A student of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus said after Rabbi Yudan: If one asked a tetradrachma, one was ready to give him three, and another one said a sheqel.... Since he renounces one denar for this one he may renounce another one for the other one and give it to him for two.
Rabbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of speeding-up vows? Rabbi Tarphon! For he explains it for those who insist. Rabbi Abba said, explain it according to everybody for those who do not insist. If you say for those who insist, one should have stated that Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob and Rabbi Tarphon say the same thing. Some Tannaim say, “one who wants”; some Tannaim say, “also one who wants.” He who says “one who wants” supports Rabbi Abba; he who says “also one who wants,” supports Rabbi Immi. Rabbi Pedat in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: who is the Tanna of speeding-up vows? Rabbi Tarphon!
So is the Mishnah: “Any vow which I make in the future shall be void, it is void if he remembers at the moment he makes the vow,” if he did not stipulate a reservation. But if he stipulated a reservation, then even if he does not remember. That is for vows; but for oaths? There are reservations for vows, there are no reservations for oaths, as it was stated about oaths imposed by judges: “According to our understanding, not according to your understanding.” Rabbi Judah said, he makes him swear according to his understanding. Why does he stipulate with him? Because of the uneducated, so that they do not say that there may be mental reservations for oaths.
Mishnah
2 Exaggeration vows: If he said, if I did not see on this road crowds like those who left Egypt; if I did not see a snake as thick as the beam of the olive press. Vows in error how? If he said, if I ate or drank, and he remembers that he had eaten or drunk, that I shall not eat or shall not drink, and he forgot and ate or drank. If he said, a qonam that my wife cannot enjoy anything from me because she stole my wallet or hit my son, and it turns out that she did not hit him or became known that she did not steal. If he saw people eating his figs and said to them, these are for you as qorban, but the persons turned out to be his father or brothers with others. The House of Shammai say, these are permitted, those with them forbidden. But the House of Hillel say, these and those are permitted.
Halakhah
“Vows of exaggeration,” etc. Is it impossible that crowds like those who left Egypt went by? But we are dealing with one look. Was it not the case that when Emperor Julianus went there, 1,200,000 men went with him? But we must be dealing with one look.
Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rabbi Judah bar Pazi said, I saw a snake skin which filled the space between two columns. Rabbi Samuel bar Jacob said, I saw a snake skin which covered the genii of government. Samuel said, square. Could you say it was not square, why must it be large? Even if it was small! Rabbi Mattaniah said, it is the way of this Tanna to speak only about large things. You should know that it is so, for we have stated: “A flying camel.” Could he not have stated “a flying rat”?
It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rabbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Italian grit.” Rabbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are lice! They are full of knots. But there is the knee of a mountain goat! It is round below. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.
“Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Remember” and “keep” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover,” “her brother-in-law shall come to her,”Leviticus 18:16Deuteronomy 25:5 both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together. “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear shaʿṭnez,” both were said together. And so it says, “God spoke once, two I heard from this.”Psalms 62:12 And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”
A vain oath, if one swears to change what is known to men; a false oath if he swears and changes. What is vain and what is false? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If it is known to two persons, that is a false oath, to three, it is vain. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If it is known to two persons and another one at the end of the earth knows about it, that is a vain oath. What is the difference between them? If he was untrue before two persons, threw it into the sea, and they had warned him because of a vain oath, in the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan he is not whipped, in the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar he is whipped. If they had warned him because of a false oath, in the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan he is whipped, in the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar he is not whipped. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah: Even an egg and a pearl. What means even? But, for example an egg and a pearl.
It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. Rabbi Abba said, you may even say in either case if they insist or if they do not insist; here about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property should be forbidden to me.” Then his property is forbidden to him. But in the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property then his property is forbidden to him. But concerning the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped.
Ḥizqiah said, he who swears that two are two is whipped for a vain oath. Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: One who saw rain falling and said: “O Lord, inundate with much water,” is whipped for a vain oath. Rabbi Onias, Rabbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: “For the vain did I hit your sons.”Jeremiah 2:30
There, we have stated: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf.” Something which would be forbidden for vows and is permitted for oaths. Not on that it was said but on the following: “Whether it was for himself or for others.” Rabbi Abba said in Samuel’s name: An oath that X gave a mina to Y. If it turns out that he had not given a mina, since it is not in his hand for the future, it is not in his hand for the past.
It was found stated about both cases: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked before Rabbi..., does Rabbi Akiva add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there, “until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more! Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow.
Mishnah
3 Vows in connection with acts of God: His friend made him vow that he would eat with him but he or his child fell sick or a river prevented him; these are vows in connection with acts of God.
Halakhah
“Vows in connection with acts of God: His friend made him vow,” etc. because he fell ill. Therefore, if he did not fall ill, no. Rabbi Jeremiah said, this is Rabbi Meir’s, since Rabbi Meir said, “he is forbidden until he gives.” Rabbi Yose said, why do we not explain it according to everybody? As my teacher said, they disagree when it was indeterminate. Where do we hold? If each one of them said, because of my honor, everybody agrees that he is forbidden. If one of them said, because of my honor, and the other said, I said it in your honor, everybody agrees he is permitted. Rabbi Hila said, is it the way of people to say χαρίζεσθαι βίᾳ?
Mishnah
4 One makes a vow to tax assessors and to people who condemn property and to toll collectors that it is heave even though it is not heave, that it is king’s family’s property even though it is not theirs. The House of Shammai say, one vows anything except an oath, but the House of Hillel say, even an oath. The House of Shammai say, one may not offer a vow, but the House of Hillel say, one may offer. The House of Shammai say, only what he prescribes as vow, but the House of Hillel say, even what he does not prescribe. How is this? They said to him, say: a qonam that my wife cannot have any use from me, and he said: a qonam that my wife and my children cannot have any use from me; the House of Shammai say, his wife is permitted but his children are forbidden; but the House of Hillel say, both are permitted.
Halakhah
“One makes a vow to assessors and to people who condemn property,” etc. To assessors in time of indiction; to condemners in times of expropriations. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi stated in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If it was a dangerous situation, it is permitted. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If it was civilized, it is forbidden. It was stated: One hangs on Gentiles and government but not on Jews, because the strong-armed will fall and he should not risk that the prior obligations fall on him.
If he transgressed and offered a vow, how is that in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Let us hear from the following: “The House of Shammai say, his wife is permitted but his children are forbidden.” That means, if he transgressed and offered a vow, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he is permitted. They wanted to say, vows but not oaths. It was found stated: Rabbi Ishmael says, “do not swear falsely in My Name,” you may swear to assessors and to people who condemn property and to toll collectors.
Mishnah
5 These orchard trees shall be qorban if they are not cut, this garment be qorban if it is not burned; these have redemption. These orchard trees shall be qorban until they are cut, this garment be qorban until it is burned; these have no redemption.
Halakhah
“These orchard trees shall be qorban,” etc. If he saw the king’s cutting crew coming near, if he saw fire coming near, and he said: These orchard trees shall be qorban if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorban if it is not burned or torn. Were they sanctified retroactively or only for the future? What is the difference? If he used them. If you say that they are sanctified retroactively, he committed larceny. If you say for the future, he did not commit larceny.
Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption. Rabbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rabbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if another redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin of the first were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation?
Mishnah
6 One who makes a vow away from the seafaring men is permitted the dwellers on dry land; from the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men because the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. One speaks not of those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea.
Halakhah
“One who makes a vow away from the seafaring men,” etc. That you should not say, not from those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea. “From the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men,” not only those who go from Acco to Jaffa but even those who frequently take to the sea. But did he not make a vow regarding the dwellers on dry land? This implies that the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. If he made a vow away from the seafaring men after thirty days but a certain mariner became a land dweller, there is a dispute between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva. For Rabbi Ishmael says, after the vow, and Rabbi Akiva says, after the prohibition. And about children it is a problem.
Mishnah
7 One who makes a vow away from those who see the sun is also forbidden the blind since he intended only that seen by the sun. One who makes a vow away from those who see the sun is also forbidden the blind since he intended only that seen by the sun. One who makes a vow away from those who will be born is permitted those who are already born. From those who are born, Rabbi Meir permits even those who will be born, but the Sages say, he intended only those in whose nature it is to be born.
Halakhah
“One who makes a vow away from those who will be born,” etc. What is Rabbi Meir’s reason? “And now your two sons born to you,”Genesis 48:5 and they already were born. What is the Sages’ reason? “Look, a son is born to the House of David, Josiah his name,”1 Kings 13:2 and he was not yet born.
Mishnah
8 One who makes a vow away from those who keep the Sabbath is forbidden Jews and Samaritans, from garlic eaters is forbidden Jews and Samaritans, from those who make pilgrimage to Jerusalem is forbidden Jews but permitted Samaritans. A qonam that I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Noah; he is permitted Jews and forbidden Gentiles. That I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Abraham; he is forbidden Jews and permitted Gentiles. That I shall not enjoy from Jews; he buys higher and sells lower. That Jews shall not enjoy from me; he buys lower and sells higher, if they agree. That I shall not enjoy from them nor they from me; he should deal with Gentiles.
Halakhah
“A qonam that I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Noah; he is permitted Jews and forbidden Gentiles. That I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Abraham; he is forbidden Jews and permitted Gentiles,” etc. Is Ishmael not part of Abraham’s seed? “ For in Isaac will be called your seed.”Genesis 21:12 And is not Esau part of Isaac’s seed? Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom said, “in Isaac,” in part of Isaac. Rabbi Huna said, “ב” are two, the son who will be inheriting two worlds, this world and the world to come. Rabbi Gershom in the name of Rabbi Aḥa, “ a star did step out from Jacob,”Numbers 24:17 from whom did a star step out and will appear in the future? From Jacob! Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥuna: In the future world, evil Esau will put on his prayer shawl and sit with the Just in Paradise, but the Holy One, Praise to Him, draws him away. Why? “ If you climb as high as an eagle or if you would make your nest between stars, from there I would take you down, says the Lord.”Obadiah 1:4 But “stars” are only the Just. As you say, “those who justify the many are like stars, eternally.”Daniel 12:3
Mishnah
9 A qonam that I shall not enjoy from the uncircumcised, he is permitted uncircumcised Jews and forbidden circumcised peoples of the world. That I shall not enjoy from the circumcised, he is forbidden uncircumcised Jews and permitted circumcised peoples of the world, since the prepuce is simply a name for Gentiles as it was said: “For all Gentiles are uncircumcised and all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.”Jeremiah 9:25 Rabbi Ishmael says, circumcision is great, for its covenant was concluded thirteenfold. Rabbi Yose says, circumcision is great, for it pushes aside the stringencies of the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, circumcision is great, for it was not suspended even one hour for Moses the Just. Rabbi Neḥemiah says, Rabbi Yose says, circumcision is great, for it pushes aside skin disease. Rabbi says, circumcision is great, for with all the commandments which Abraham fulfilled he was not called whole until he circumcised himself as it is written: “Walk before me and be perfect.”Genesis 17:1 Another word: Circumcision is great, for without it the Holy One, praise to Him, would not have created his world as it is said: “So says the Eternal, if it were not for my covenant day and night, I would not have put in place the laws of heaven and earth.”Jeremiah 33:25 Another word: Circumcision is great, for it is weighty corresponding to all other commandments of the Torah, as it is said: “See the blood of the covenant which the Eternal concluded with you about all these words.”Exodus 24:8
Halakhah
Rabbi Yoḥanan bar Marya said, it is written: “On that day, the Eternal concluded a covenant with Abram as follows,” etc., up to “but my covenant I shall affirm with Isaac,” etc., thirteen covenants.
“On the eighth day one shall circumcise,”Leviticus 12:2 even on the Sabbath. How can I confirm “its desecrator shall certainly die?”Exodus 31:14 Even for circumcision? How can I confirm “on the eighth day one shall circumcise”? Even on the Sabbath? The verse says “But on the eighth day one shall circumcise,”Leviticus 12:2 even on the Sabbath. In Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs we find that the Sabbath is as weighty as all other commandments of the Torah taken together. In the Torah, “until when will you refuse to keep My Commandments and Teachings,” and it is written: “See that the Eternal gave you the Sabbath.” In Prophets, as is written: “But the sons rebelled against Me; My Laws they did not follow”Ezekiel 20:21 etc., and it is written: “My Sabbaths they much desecrated.”Ezekiel 20:13 In Hagiographs, as it is written: “On Mount Sinai You descended,”Nehemiah 9:13 and it is written: “And about Your holy Sabbath You informed them,”Nehemiah 9:14 etc. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Abuna said, commandment of Sabbath is written plene, to inform you that it is as weighty as all other commandments of the Torah. A parable of two ladies who meet and you do not know which one is of higher standing. If one makes room for the other, you know that the other is of higher standing.
Idolatry is worse than all others: “But if you should err and not fulfill all these commandments.”Numbers 15:22 Rabbi Judah bar Pazi said, the desecration of the Name is worse than all others. That is what is written: “But to you, the House of Israel, so says the Eternal, Israel’s God, go and worship everybody his abominations but My holy Name do not desecrate, etc.”Ezekiel 20:39
Because Moses was lazy for circumcision, the angel tried to kill kim. That is what is written: “The Eternal met him and wanted to kill him.”Exodus 4:24 Rabbi Yose said, far be the thought that Moses was lazy for circumcision but he argued on his own: To perform circumcision and leave would be dangerous. To wait, the Holy One, praise to Him, told him: “Go, return to Egypt.” But because he was lazy in preparing for the overnight stay before circumcision; that is what is written: “It was on the way, at the overnight stay.”Exodus 4:24 Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, far be the thought that the angel wanted to kill Moses; it was the baby. Come and see, who is called ḥatan? Moses or the baby? There are Tannaim who state that Moses is called ḥatan. There are Tannaim who state that the baby is called ḥatan. He who said that Moses is called ḥatan: Ḥatan, blood is required from you. And he said that the baby is called ḥatan: Ḥatan, in blood you are preserved for me. “Ṣippora took a flintstone and cut her son’s prepuce and touched his feet.”Exodus 4:25 Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Neḥemiah, and the rabbis. One said, Moses’s feet. Another said, the angel’s feet. Another said, the baby’s feet. He who said Moses’s feet: Here I cut your obligation for you. He who said, the angel’s feet: Here your mission was accomplished. He who said the baby’s feet, she touched the baby’s body. “He left off from him; then she said, a blood ḥatan for circumcisions.”Exodus 4:26 From here that there are two circumcisions; one for baring the gland and one for the fibers.
“The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcised.”Leviticus 12:3 Even if it has white skin disease. How can I confirm: “Beware of skin disease to watch it carefully and to do...”Deuteronomy 24:8? Also at a circumcision. Then how can I confirm: “The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcised”? If there is no white skin disease? The verse says, “the flesh,” even if it has white skin disease. This is simple in the opinion of Rabbi Jonah, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition even if they are not written together. But in the opinion of Rabbi Yose, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition only if they are written together? Since it is written “the flesh of his prepuce,” it is as if it were written together.
Mishnah
1 The only difference between one who is under a vow not to have usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use of food is passing through his real estate and vessels that cannot be used to prepare food. One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven. But he may borrow from him a robe or a stole, nose rings and finger rings, and anything that is not used to prepare food. At a place where one rents out any of these it is forbidden.
Halakhah
“The only difference between one who is under a vow not to have usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow not to have usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rabbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rabbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.
Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Because it is as if he gave him money to buy a loaf with. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Then is it forbidden to borrow money from him, for it is as if he gave him money to buy a loaf with? Rabbi Abina said, Rabbi Zeira asked: That jewelry on them, is it forbidden to lend to them?
Mishnah
2 If one is under a vow not to have usufruct from another, the other may give his šeqel, pay his debt and return what he has lost. At a place where one takes a fee for this, the gain should be given to the sacred fund.
Halakhah
“If one is under a vow not to have usufruct from another,” etc. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If somebody pays off somebody else’s debt without the latter’s knowledge, is that the disagreement of Ḥanan and the High Priests’ sons? Rabbi Yose said, there the reason of the High Priest’s sons is that nobody expects his wife to die from hunger. But here, the debtor could say: “I could negotiate with him and he would forgive some.” Think of it, if the loan was on a pledge! “I could negotiate with him and he would return my pledge.” So far about a creditor who does not push for repayment. Even for a creditor who pushes, we can hear from the following: “He may give his šeqel. If somebody does not pay his šeqel, does one not take a pledge from him?” This says, even for a creditor who pushes. You should know that this is so, as we have stated: “He can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges, nests for childbirth, purification and reparation offerings”Leviticus 4:27-5:26 since nothing of these comes to the other person’s hand. And here also, that nothing should come into his hand.
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says, nobody is held responsible for his neighbor except for annona and head-tax. Rav said, anything for which one is held responsible for one’s neighbor has to be repaid. The strength of Rav is from the following: “He who appropriated a field and oppressors took it.” He did not hear that Rabbi Joḥanan said, they exacted a fine from a robber. Rabbi Abin asked, who was the father of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, and Rabbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus both said in the name of Samuel; one said, it is like annona and head-tax; the other one said, it is not like annona and head-tax.
There, we have stated: “He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing.” Rabbi Judan and Rabbi Yose. One of them said, here if the vow refers to his body, there if the vow refers to his property. But the other one said, here if he has somebody else who can heal him, there if there is nobody else who can heal him. If he has somebody else who can heal him, he should not be able to heal him personally! Not by everybody is a person successfully healed.
Is not the property of the finder forbidden to the owner of the cow? Ulla bar Ishmael in the name of Rabbi Isaac: If each man’s property was forbidden to the other.
Who is the Tanna of “the gain should be given to the sacred fund”? Rabbi Meir! For Rabbi Meir said, one commits sacrilege with prohibitions. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If somebody made a vow to forbid a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands? Let us hear from the following: “If he said, this loaf shall be dedicated, if he or another person ate it, they committed sacrilege; therefore, it can be redeemed. But if he said, it is for me as if dedicated, if he ate it he committed sacrilege on goodwill but others would not commit sacrilege.” He said only, if he ate it. Therefore, to warm his hands is permitted. The students of Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: That is if he said I shall not eat it nor taste it; if he forbade only eating to himself. But the question was, if somebody made a vow to forbid a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands?
Mishnah
3 Also he can separate his heave and tithes with the other’s knowledge, and can bring for him nests for males or females suffering from genital discharges, nests for childbirth, purification and reparation offerings and teach him interpretations, religious rules, and sermons; but he may not teach him Bible; he may teach Bible to his sons and daughters. Also, he can feed his wife and children even though the other is obligated for their upkeep. But he cannot feed his animals, whether pure or impure; Rabbi Eliezer says, he may feed his impure animals but not the pure ones. They asked him, what is the difference between pure and impure animals? He said to them, the pure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his, but the impure’s soul and body is Heaven’s. They said to him, also the impure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his, since he could sell it to Gentiles or feed it to the dogs.
Halakhah
“Also he can separate his heave” etc. If somebody fixes the harvest of another person without the latter’s knowledge, who receives the goodwill from the tithes? Rabbi Abbahu says, the one who does the fixing. Rabbi Zeira says, the owner of the produce. Rabbi Zeira is consistent since Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, if somebody gave the sacrifice of a nazir or of a healed person afflicted with skin disease, the person purged makes substitution. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “Also he can separate his heave and tithes with his knowledge.” Explain it, that it was stipulated that the other should not get the goodwill.
It is written: “See, I taught you laws and rules.”Deuteronomy 4:5 Just as I did it for free, so you have to do it for free. One could think the same is true for Bible and translations? The verse says laws and rules. You have to teach laws and rules for free; you do not have to teach Bible and translations for free. But do we not see that the baraita teachers take their fees? Rabbi Yudan, the son of Rabbi Ishmael, said: They take payment for lost time.
Rabbi Zeira said, from their words we can deduce whether he may feed his slaves or may not feed his slave. They wanted to say that he who says “the pure animal’s soul is Heaven’s but its body is his,” and this one, because her body and soul is Heaven’s, he may feed his slave. And he who says, since he could sell it to Gentiles or feed it to the dogs, since this one’s body is his but he cannot sell her to Gentiles nor feed her to the dogs, he may feed his slave. It was found stated: He may feed his slave.
Mishnah
4 If somebody is forbidden by a vow any profit from another person and that one comes to make a visit, he may stand but not sit down. He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing, and may bathe with him in a large pool but not in a small one, and he may sleep with him on the same couch. Rabbi Judah says, in summer but not in the rainy season because he would profit. He can lie with him at a dinner on the same couch and eat with him at one table but not from the same pot. But he may eat with him from a returning pot.
Halakhah
“If somebody is forbidden by a vow any profit from another person,” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long.
The Mishnah deals with the case that the healer forbade his property on the sick person. But if the sick person forbade his property on the healer he sinned against himself.
“But not in a small pool,” for he heats it. It was stated: He bathes with him in a small bathhouse, for he takes away heat.
It was stated: From the returning pot. What is a returning pot? There, they say, portions. The rabbis here say, a pot which contains enough food to eat, to be full, and to leave leftovers. It was stated: From the returning cup. What is a returning cup? The rabbis there say, spiced wine. The rabbis here say, one fills a מיסורס, they draw, drink, and return.
Mishnah
5 He should not eat with him from the common pot set before the workers nor work with him in a profession, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, he can work at a distance from him.
Halakhah
“He should not eat,” etc. In the opinion of Rabbi Meir he is forbidden to teach him a trade. In the opinion of Rabbi Meir he is forbidden to act in his defense.
Mishnah
6 If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat from the overhang. In the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter his field but he can eat from the overhang. If he vowed not to eat from the other before the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field but he cannot eat of its fruits. During the Sabbatical year he enters and eats.
Halakhah
“If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year,” etc. Why can he not enter? As Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long.
Rabbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat from the overhang. In the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field and eat of the fruits. If he vowed during the Sabbatical year, he enters and eats. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish explains the Mishnah: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat of its fruits. If he made the vow in the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter his field but he can eat of the fruits. If he vowed not to eat from the other before the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field but he cannot eat of its fruits. If he made the vow during the Sabbatical year he enters and eats. That statement of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish follows Rabbi Yose, for Rabbi Yose said, for his vow preceded his abandoning, his abandoning his vow. Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Yose agrees that he is permitted in the case of biblical abandoning.
Mishnah
7 If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow, he should not borrow from him nor ask him for anything, should not give him a loan nor take a loan for him, should not sell to him nor buy from him. If he said, lend me your cow, he says: she is not available. If he said, a qonam that I shall never plow with her, if he usually plows, he is forbidden, the rest of the world is permitted. If he does not usually plow, he and the rest of the world are forbidden.
Halakhah
“If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow, he should not lend him,” etc. If somebody says, a qonam that I shall never plow, it is the same as if he said, a qonam that my field should never be plowed.
Mishnah
8 If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow and he has nothing to eat, the other person goes to the grocer and tells him, X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do. Then he pays him and X comes and takes from him.
Halakhah
“If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow and he has nothing to eat,” etc. For he cannot recover from him in a court of law.
Mishnah
9 If he had his house to build, his fence to repair, his field to harvest, the other person goes to the journeymen and tells them, X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do. They work with him and come and take their wages from the other person.
Halakhah
“If he had his house to build, his fence to repair,” etc. May he say, he who works will not lose? Let us hear from the following. In the days of Rabbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rabbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.” Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rabbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state, in any case of danger to life one does not say that the necessary work be done by Gentiles or minors, but it should be done even by important Jewish persons. It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Šiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud, there was rain which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander 50 denarii. Rabbi Ḥanina said, there was no need for him to do that A Samaritan was a neighbor of Rabbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rabbi Jonah’s neighborhood; he wanted to fight it but Rabbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rabbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.
Mishnah
10 If they were walking on the road and he had nothing to eat, the other gives something to a third person as a gift, and this one is permitted it. If nobody is with them, he puts it on a rock or a fence and says, this is ownerless for everyone to take and this one can come and eat, but Rabbi Yose forbids.
Halakhah
It was stated: Rabbi Meir says that as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, it is no longer in his possession. Rabbi Yose says, nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up by another person. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, both say, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The words of Rabbi Yose deal with the case that a person gave a gift to ten people and this one was one of them. If somebody abandoned his field, some Tannaim say, he can retract, but some Tannaim say, he cannot retract. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: The one who says that he can retract follows Rabbi Yose. But the one who says that he cannot retract follows Rabbi Meir. Does this mean that abandoned property in the sense of Rabbi Yose is subject to tithes? What did he say? Abandoned property, not gift! Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Abandoned property in the sense of Rabbi Yose is subject to tithes. There, they say that abandoned property in the sense of Rabbi Yose is not subject to tithes, since Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “The Levite shall come,”Deuteronomy 14:29 etc. You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.
So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during three days.” Rabbi Zeira said, it says only “three days.” Therefore, after three days he may not cancel his action. Rabbi Simeon Dayana stated before Rabbi Zeira: Even after three he may cancel his action. He said to him, since you say after three days, is it the same after three or after many? A baraita supports Rabbi Zeira: “About when is this said? If he abandoned in an unspecified way. But if he said: My field shall be abandoned one day, one week, one month, one year, a sabbatical period, as long as nobody took it over, either he or another person, he may cancel. But after somebody acquired it, either he or somebody else, he cannot cancel.” This means that short or long periods are the same. It also means that they were not worried about dishonesty. This means that a person may abandon and reacquire. That obviously answers Rabbi Zeira’s question, since Rabbi Zeira had said, are short and long times the same?
“This one can come and eat, but Rabbi Yose forbids.” What is Rabbi Yose’s reason? Because his vow preceded his abandonment. Therefore, not if his abandonment preceded his vow. They asked before Rabbi Yose: What is the difference if his vow preceded his abandonment? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rabbi Jonah said, so they asked before him: That means, not if it applies to a single person? But did we not state: “This one can come and eat, but Rabbi Yose forbids”? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq: If somebody abandons his field to ten persons he cannot retract. Rabbi Yose said, that follows Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Mana asked: When you said, “to three,” did you not mean “in the presence of three”? Instead of asking about Rabbi Meir, ask about Rabbi Yose! When you said, “to ten,” did you not mean “in the presence of ten”? He said to him, if he abandoned it before two persons, he can retract and it remains subject to tithes. If he abandoned it before three persons, he cannot retract and it is free from tithes.
Mishnah
1 Partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another are forbidden to enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, each one enters into what is his. Both are forbidden to put up there a grindstone or an oven, or to raise chickens there. If one of them made a vow not to have usufruct from the other, he cannot enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one can say to the other, I enter into my property, I do not enter into yours. One forces the one who made the vow to sell his part.
Halakhah
“Partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another,” etc. The rabbis say, every single square hand-breadth is common property of the partners. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, each one enters into what is his. If the courtyard was divided by pebbles, even the rabbis agree. If one of them went and sold his part, even Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees. If they contracted between themselves to concede, it is still in the hands of the partners. It is only needed if they did not contract between themselves to concede; what is the position of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And did we not state there, “he buys higher and sells lower”? What is the position of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And did we not state there, “he should not lend him nor ask him for anything,”? What is the position of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And what Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long?
“Both are forbidden to put a grindstone or an oven up there, or to raise chickens there.” This is needed for Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for what he states about “partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another.” Because they mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another, does this imply that if they had not made vows not to have usufruct from one another, they would be presumed to concede one to the other? Rabbi Jeremiah said, partners have the custom to concede one to the other in these matters. There, we have stated: “The following establish presumption of ownership.” Rabbi Eleazar said, if somebody raises chickens in a courtyard in which he does not dwell, this establishes presumption of ownership. Rabbi Yose said, this is correct. As you look at it, if he had the right to raise them, he raised them. If he had no right to raise them, he established a presumption of ownership. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Benaiah: Partners can veto any activity of the other party in a courtyard except for washing, for the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rabbi Mattaniah said, that is, at a place where women wash, but not at a place where men wash. And what you say except for washing in the courtyard applies to the entire courtyard except for the four cubits of that party where one cannot hinder anything. But if the place was at an incline, one can veto even within the four cubits of another party since one might say to him, you pour out and it flows down to my place. It was stated: The place of an oven or a hearth does not establish a presumption of ownership, but roofing of any size on top of them establishes a presumption of ownership. Rabbi Zeira said, only if the wall is useful for the oven.
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Partners can acquire one from the other and are responsible for damages inflicted by one on the other. Rabbi Abun bar Cahana said, if he said, collect and acquire. But if they were collected he does not acquire unless he moves.
“I enter my property, I do not enter yours.” And you say, one forces him? It was not said on this, but on: “I enter your partner’s property, I do not enter yours.” In that case one forces the maker of the vow to sell his part. If he says, you shall not have any usufruct from me. But not if he says, I shall not have any usufruct from you.
Mishnah
2 If anyone from outside was under a vow of no usufruct from one of the partners, he should not enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, he can say to him, I enter your partner’s property, I do not enter yours.
Halakhah
“If anyone from outside was,” etc. And we did not state “one forces”! Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “If he was a frequent maker of vows, one forces him,” because the other partner can say to him, one came to me and you did such and such to him; a second person and you did such and such to him; the third time he tells him either you undo your vow or sell your part.
Mishnah
3 If one was under a vow not to have usufruct from another and he owns a bathhouse or an olive press leased out in town; if he retains the grip of a hand on them, the other one is forbidden; if he retains no grip of a hand on them, the other one is permitted. If a person says to another, a qonam that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other one is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other one is forbidden.
Halakhah
What is the grip of a hand? One half, a third, or a quarter.
“This, your house,” because of what do you catch him? Because of “your house,” “this”? If it collapsed and he himself rebuilt it, is it not “this”? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody said to his heirs, give a wedding house to my son or a widow’s house to my daughter, if it collapsed, the heirs are required to rebuild it.” There, we have stated: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qonam that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits. ‘During my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, the son does not inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime,’ the son inherits; ‘after my death,’ the son inherits? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qonam that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade to him during his lifetime and after his death. Rabbi Yose said, we have stated in Nedarim what we did not state in Shevuot: “A qonam that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is forbidden.” Because he said “this.” Therefore, if he had not said “this,” he would have forbidden to him both during his lifetime and after his death.
Mishnah
4 “I am ḥerein for you,” the addressee is forbidden. “You are for me ḥerem,” the vower is forbidden. “I am for you and you are for me,” both are forbidden. Both are permitted the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia and forbidden the institutions of their own town.
Halakhah
“I am ḥerem for you,” etc. ‘A qonam that I shall not have any usufruct from you and anyone I would ask about you,’ he has to ask about the first but not the second. Some Tannaim state: He has to ask both about the first and the second. Samuel the son of Rabbi Joseph ben Rabbi Abun said, that follows the one who said “after the prohibition.” But for the one who said “after the vow,” a vow which is partially invalid is totally invalid.
“A person who makes a vow ‘to forbid himself the people of the town,’ if another person came and dwelled there for thirty days, the vower is permitted to deal with him. ‘From the inhabitants of the town,’ if another person came and dwelled there for thirty days, the vower is prohibited from dealing with him.” ‘A qonam that the people of my town cannot have any usufruct from me,’ he cannot ask the local rabbi. ‘The usufruct of the people of my town is forbidden to me,’ he can ask the local rabbi. Some Tannaim state, even in the first case he can ask, for it does not mean that the rabbi would dissolve his own vow. A vow of the community cannot be dissolved. A vow made in public cannot be dissolved. “If somebody made a vow that another should not have usufruct from him, if the vow was made in the other’s presence, he can request the vow to be dissolved only in the other’s presence; if the vow was not made in the other’s presence, he can request the dissolution either in the other’s presence or in his absence.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, because of the shame; Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, because of the suspicion.
It turns out that one disagreement is like an other disagreement, as it was stated: On the Day of Atonement, one has to detail one’s deeds, the words of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. Rabbi Akiva says, one does not have to detail the sin. Some Tannaim state, one has to detail the vow; some Tannaim state, one does not have to detail the vow. A person made a vow not to earn money. He came before Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom. He asked him, what did you forswear to yourself? He said to him, not to earn money. Rabbi Yudan said to him, is there anyone doing that? He said to him, as a gambler. He said, praise to Him Who chose the Torah and the Sages who said, one has to detail the vow.
Mishnah
5 What are the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia? For example, the Temple Mount, the courtyards, and the cistern in the middle of the road. What are the institutions of that town? For example, the town square, the bathhouse, the synagogue with the ark and the scrolls. And he writes his part to the Patriarch. Rabbi Judah says, one of them writes to the Patriarch and the other to a private person. What is the difference between him who writes to the Patriarch and him who writes to a private person? The one who writes to the Patriarch does not have to perform an act of delivery, the one who writes to a private person has to perform an act of delivery. But the Sages say, in either case one has to perform an act of delivery. Rabbi Judah says, the people of Galilee do not have to write since their ancestors already wrote for them.
Halakhah
“What are the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A town square which is crossed by a public road is as if from the returnees from Babylonia. A man used a Torah scroll for his preliminary marriage to a woman. Rabbi Sabbatai and Rabbi Ḥasida brought the matter before Rabbi Yose who said, she is not married. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, you read the letter and there is written in it “not only.” Rabbi Mana said, I asked before Rabbi Ḥizqiah, what means “not only”? Did he marry with a Torah scroll which is private property? He said to us, she is not married. That comes to tell you, even if he used the public Torah scroll to marry, that is “not only.” But that means, even if he used a privately owned Torah scroll to marry, that is “she is not married.”
“Rabbi Judah says, even if only one signs over his part to the Patriarch,” etc. So is the Mishnah: One of them has to sign over his part to the Patriarch.
Mishnah
6 If a person who by a vow was forbidden usufruct from another has nothing to eat, the other donates food as a gift to a third party and the person is permitted it. It happened in Bet Ḥoron with a person whose father was by a vow forbidden usufruct from him; when he married off his son he said to a friend, here the courtyard and the meal are given to you as a gift and they shall be yours until my father has come and eaten with us at the wedding meal. He said to him, if they are mine, they are dedicated to Heaven. He said, I did not give you my property that you should dedicate it to Heaven. He said to him, you gave me your property only that you and your father should eat, drink, and be friendly with one another and let the sin hang on my head. When the case came before the Sages they said, any gift with the proviso that if the recipient dedicated, it was not sanctified, is no gift.
Halakhah
“If a person who by a vow was forbidden usufruct from another,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is obvious that this one was learned.
Hillel the Elder had eighty pairs of students. The greatest among them was Jonathan ben Uzziel, the least important Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. Once he fell sick and all came to visit him. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai waited in the courtyard. He said to them, where is the least important among you who is a head in wisdom and a head for generations? Unnecessary to speak of the greatest among you! They said, he is in the courtyard. He said to them, let him enter. When he entered, he said to them “to let my lovers inherit substance; their treasuries I shall fill.”Proverbs 8:21
“Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is obvious that this one was learned.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, that is what happened: Jonathan ben Uzziel’s father vowed not to let him have any usufruct from him and in his will gave his part to Shammai. What did Shammai do? He sold some, gave some to the sacred fund, gave him the remainder as a gift, and said: He who wants to attack this gift, let him first get back the merchandise from the buyers and from the sacred fund; after that he can get the remainder back from this one.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Does this mean that nobody can give a gift to a friend on condition that he not dedicate it to Heaven? So is the Mishnah: Any gift similar to that of Beth Ḥoron, which was dishonest in that if the recipient dedicated, it was not sanctified, is no gift.
Mishnah
1 One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food. If one said, a qonam that I will not taste a cooked dish, he is forbidden fine dishes and permitted thick ones. Also he is permitted a soft boiled egg and ash-gourd.
Halakhah
“One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food,” etc. A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse states that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ”2 Chronicles 35:13 etc. If you say, against the rules, Rabbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule.” A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rabbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rabbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qonam that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rabbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rabbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rabbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rabbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste food on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rabbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: “And ten female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food.”Genesis 45:23 Why does the verse say, “and food”? From here that everything is called food.
May one who made a vow not to have anything cooked be permitted smoked? May he be permitted fried? May he be permitted anything cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? The rabbis of Caesarea asked: Is anything smoked forbidden because of Gentile cooking? Is it forbidden because of cooking on the Sabbath? Is it forbidden because of meat and milk? Does it cause ṭevel for tithes? If somebody made a vow not to have anything smoked, is he permitted cooked? Rabbi Abba, Rav Judah in the name of the House of Rav Assi: Ḥabiṣ is unproblematic as Gentile cooking and is acceptable as eruv tavšilin. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: Anything which can be eaten raw is unproblematic as Gentile cooking and is acceptable as eruv tavšilin.
Reading of Rashba: Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.
It was stated: He is forbidden soft cakes, since the physician frequently eats his bread with them. Rav Ḥisda said, he is forbidden a roasted egg since a sick person frequently eats his bread with them.
“He is permitted a soft boiled egg,” a soft one’. “And ash-gourd,” Rabbi Ḥinenah said, it is a kind of bitter gourd and they sweeten it in hot ashes.
Mishnah
2 If somebody makes a vow to forbid himself anything made in a pot, he is forbidden only what is made in its heat. If he said, a qonam that I shall not taste anything going into the pot, he is forbidden anything that may be cooked in any pot. ‘From the pickled,’ he is forbidden only pickled vegetables. ‘That I shall not taste anything pickled,’ he is forbidden everything pickled. ‘From the scalded’ he is forbidden only scalded meat, the words of Rabbi Judah. ‘That I shall not taste anything scalded,’ he is forbidden everything scalded. ‘From the roast’ he is forbidden only roasted meat, the words of Rabbi Judah. ‘That I shall not taste anything roasted,’ he is forbidden everything roasted.
Halakhah
“If somebody makes a vow to forbid himself anything made in a pot,” etc. What is made in its heat? For example split spelt, porridge, barley gruel, farina, rice, groats and mashed cereal.
One who forbids himself “anything going into the pot, is forbidden what goes into the frying pan. From anything going into the frying pan is permitted what goes into the pot.” For there are things going into the frying pan which do not go into the pot. What do you have? For example, greasy fish. “One who makes a vow to forbid to himself what is baked in the oven, is forbidden only bread. From what is prepared in the oven, anything is forbidden that may be made in an oven.”
Mishnah
3 ‘From the salted’ he is forbidden only salted fish. ‘That I shall not taste anything salted,’ he is forbidden everything salted. ‘That I shall not taste fish, fishes,’ he is forbidden them either large or small, either salted or unsalted, either raw or cooked. But he is permitted fish cake and fish fluid. If somebody vows not to eat anchovy he is forbidden fish cake and permitted fish fluid and brine. If somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine.
Halakhah
“‘From the salted’ he is forbidden only salted fish,” etc. They wanted to say, salted for preservation, not short-term salted. Rabbi Yudan said, since we have stated: “this is for me like salted meat, like libation wine,” this implies that short-term salted is called “salted.” What is short-term salted? As it was stated: “He puts the limbs on the salt and turns them over.” Rabbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, for if he left them there, they would become salted meat. But which text says it? As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Zabda said, “one who takes olives from the vat dips each single one in salt and eats it.” This implies that short-term salted is called “salted.”
It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says: If he said, ‘a qonam that I shall not taste a fish,’ he is forbidden large ones and permitted small ones. ‘Fishes I shall not taste,’ he is forbidden large and small ones. ‘Fish I shall not taste,’ he is forbidden only sardines. What is small and what is large? This is as Rabbi Zeira said, from any fish less than a litra which I eat, I am tasting sardines. Here, it is the same.
“He is permitted fish cake”; therefore not if it is not ground. Rabbi Jeremiah said, Zeira asked: Does this not disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a fish, that he should sell him a sardine. Rabbi Abin understood it from the last clause, “if somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine,” therefore not if it is not ground? Rabbi Jeremiah said, Rabbi Zeira asked: Does this not disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a טְרִי, that he sells him a צַחְנָא. There, they call צַחְנָה טְרִית.
Mishnah
4 If somebody vows not to drink milk, he is permitted curd but Rabbi Yose forbids. But from curd, he is permitted milk. Abba Shaul says, if he vows not to have cheese, it is forbidden to him whether salted or unsalted.
Halakhah
“If somebody vows not to drink milk, he is permitted curd,” etc. What is curd? Curdled milk. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? The name of its father is called over it. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose, is one who vows not to taste wine permitted cooked wine? Cooked wine.
“This is the rule Rabbi Simeon declared in the name of Rabbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and “new grain,” the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, demaʿ, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated seeds and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. There is a restriction on growth, as Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.
Mishnah
5 If somebody vows not to eat meat, he is permitted clear bouillon and coagulated fibers, but Rabbi Judah forbids. Rabbi Judah said, it happened that Rabbi Tarphon forbade to me eggs that were cooked in it. They said to him, that is correct; when? If he would say, that piece of meat is forbidden to me. In truth, if somebody forbids himself something by a vow and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden If somebody vows not to drink wine he is permitted a dish prepared with wine. If he said, a qonam that I shall not taste this wine, if it fell into a dish and it can be tasted, that is forbidden.
Halakhah
“If somebody vows not to eat meat,” etc. Rabbi Hila said: The moment he said “this one,” he forbade for himself it and its usufruct.
Mishnah
6 If somebody vows not to eat grapes, he is permitted wine; not to eat olives, he is permitted oil. If he said, a qonam that I shall not taste these olives or grapes, he is forbidden them and anything coming from them.
Halakhah
“If somebody vows not to eat grapes,” etc. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a qonam for anything which usually is eaten and of which some derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E.g., grapes and olives. And anything which usually is eaten but no derivative of which is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E.g., mulberries. And anything which usually is not eaten and but a derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, he intended the derivative. What is an example? E.g., garden seeds that are not eaten.
Mishnah
7 If somebody vows not to eat dates, he is permitted date honey; from winter grapes, he is permitted winter grape vinegar. Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra says, if he vowed to forbid to himself anything which is called by the name of its derivative, he also is forbidden the derivative, but the Sages permit it.
Halakhah
“If somebody vows not to eat dates,” etc. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? The name of its father is called over it. What is the reason of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra? The name of its descendant is called over it. It is reasonable that Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra should agree with Rabbi Yose but Rabbi Yose would not agree with Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra should agree with Rabbi Yose: The name of its descendant, so certainly also the name of its father. Rabbi Yose would not agree with Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra: He says only, the name of its father. This implies: not the name of its descendant.
Mishnah
8 If somebody vows not to use wine, he is permitted apple wine. Not oil, he is permitted sesame oil. Not honey, he is permitted date honey. Not vinegar, he is permitted winter grape vinegar. Not leeks, he is permitted field leeks. Of vegetables, he is permitted field vegetables, because that is an accompanying name.
Halakhah
“If somebody vows not to use wine,” etc. The Mishnah speaks of a place where one does not call field leeks leeks. But not at a place where one calls field leeks leeks. Just in that case it is needed, even a place where one calls field leeks leeks: “Not leeks, he is permitted field leeks.”
“Not vegetables, he is permitted field vegetables because this is an accompanying name.” We have stated on that: “He who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables in the Sabbatical is also forbidden field vegetables.” Rabbi Crispus stated the reason in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: That means, as long as Rabbi did not permit to import vegetables into the Land. But since Rabbi permitted to import into the Land there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle. Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina says, endives are important enough to become impure as food in the Seventh year. That means, as long as Rabbi did not permit to import vegetables into the Land. But since Rabbi permitted to import vegetables into the Land there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle.
It was stated: “One intercalates for a year neither in a Sabbatical nor in the year after the Sabbatical; but if they intercalated it is intercalated.” Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Abbahu said: That means, as long as Rabbi did not permit to buy vegetables for importation into the Land. But since Rabbi permitted to buy vegetables for importation into the Land there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle.
“Rabbi Meir used to teach: It says, ‘A man came from Baal-Shalishah and brought to the man of God bread from first grain, etc.’2 Kings 4:42 At no place in the Land of Israel does produce ripen earlier than at Baal-Shalishah, and only that kind ripened early.” ‘He brought to the man of God,’ when did he bring it? After the ʿOmer ceremony, since it is said: ‘Give to the people to eat.’ “But since the year was in need of an intercalation, why did Elisha not intercalate? This teaches you that the year was one of famine and everybody was jumping to the threshing floors.”
It was stated: “One does not intercalate for a year because of impurity; Rabbi Judah says, one does, since we find that Hezekiah intercalated because of impurity, as it was said: ‘For most of the people, etc.’2 Chronicles 30:18 Rabbi Simeon said, even though they intercalated in Nisan, only Adar was intercalated. Rabbi Simeon ben Judah said in the name of Rabbi Simeon, Hezekiah forced the multitude to celebrate the Second Passover.” Some Tannaim state: One intercalates for the year because of impurity. Some Tannaim state: One does not intercalate. He who says, one does not intercalate, from the following: “For they ate the pesaḥ not as it was written.”2 Chronicles 30:18 How does the one who says one does intercalate, explain “for they ate the pesaḥ”? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar was intercalated. This follows what Rabbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite under the altar.
It is written: “With all his heart he prepared himself to seek God, his fathers’ God, etc.”2 Chronicles 30:19 Rabbi Simon bar Zavdi and Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman. One of them said, with all he did to purity the Temple, he did not fully establish the purity of the Temple. The other said, with all the good works he did, he did not fully do his duty for the purity of the Temple. It is written: “They started on the first of the first month.”2 Chronicles 29:17 And it is written: “On the sixteenth of the month they finished.”2 Chronicles 29:18 Could they not have eliminated all idolatry from there in one day? Rabbi Idi said, because of Chaldean idols which were engraved.
Six things did Hezekiah, the king of Judea, do. With three they agreed, with three they did not agree. He dragged his father’s bones and they agreed. He smashed the bronze snake and they agreed. He hid the table of medicines and they agreed. With three they disagreed. He closed the upper Giḥon spring and they disagreed. He cut down the Temple doors and they disagreed. He intercalated Nisan in Nisan and they disagreed.
One does not intercalate for a year before New Year’s Day; if they did intercalate it would be invalid. But for an urgent need one may intercalate immediately after New Year’s Day. Nevertheless, only Adar is intercalated. Rabbi says, Nisan never was lengthened. But did we not state: “If the New Moon appeared in time”? If it would appear, it did not appear. Rav said, Tishre was never lengthened. But did we not state: “If the month was long”? If it would be, it never was.
“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rabbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?
If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened? The verse says “them,”Leviticus 23:2 “them,” “these are My holidays.” Before its time is not “My holidays.” Before its time, the 29th day, after its lengthening, the 32nd day. From where that one intercalates for the year because of the men of the diaspora who set out but did not yet arrive? The verse says, “Moses spoke about the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel.”Leviticus 23:44 Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.
“One intercalates for a year only in Judea, but if a month was intercalated in Galilee it is validly intercalated. Rabbi Ḥanania from Ono testified that, if it cannot be intercalated in Judea, one intercalates in Galilee.” One does not intercalate a year in Galilee, but if it was intercalated in Galilee it is validly intercalated. One does not intercalate a year outside the Land; if it was intercalated outside the Land it is not validly intercalated if it was possible to intercalate in the Land of Israel; but if one cannot intercalate in the Land of Israel, one intercalates outside the Land.
Jeremiah intercalated outside the Land. Ezechiel intercalated outside the Land. Baruch intercalated outside the Land. Ḥanania the nephew of Rabbi Joshua intercalated outside the Land. Rabbi sent him three letters through Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Nathan. In one he wrote, to His holiness Ḥanania. And in one he wrote, the kid goats you left behind became rams. And in one he wrote, if you do not accept, go to the thistle desert, do slaughter and let Onias sprinkle. After the first letter, he honored them. After the second, he honored them. After the third, he wanted to disgrace them. They said to him, you cannot do that since you already did honor us. Rabbi Isaac rose and quoted, it is written in the Torah: These are the holidays of Ḥanania the nephew of Rabbi Joshua. They said to him, “the holidays of the Eternal.”Leviticus 23:4 He said to them, that is with us. Rabbi Nathan rose and finished: “For from Babylonia will go Torah forth and the Eternal’s word from Nahar-Peqod.” They said to him, “for from Zion will Torah go forth and the Eternal’s word from Jerusalem.”Isaiah 2:3 He said to them, that is with us. He went to complain about them to Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra at Nisibis. He said to him, follow them, follow them. He said to him, I do not know whom I left there. Who would tell me that they are wise to the computations as I am? If he had said, they are not wise, they should listen to him. Since they are wise to the computations as he is, he has to listen to them. He got up and rode on a horse. Where he reached, he reached. Where he did not reach, they continued following the corrupt calendar.
It is written, “to the outstanding Elders of the diaspora.”Jeremiah 29:1 The Holy One, praise to Him, said: The Elders of the diaspora are very dear to me. More beloved by me is a small group in the Land of Israel than a great Synhedrion outside the Land. It is written: “The craftsmen and the smiths one thousand,”2 Kings 24:16 and you say so? Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥelbo and the rabbis. Rabbi Berekhiah said, one thousand craftsmen and one thousand smiths. But the rabbis say, together one thousand. Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥelbo said, these are the fellows; but the rabbis say, these are the councilmen.
Rabbi Hoshaia, when he received witnesses at Kallirhoë, used to say to them: You should know the importance of the testimony that comes from your mouth, how much rent money depends on your mouths. Rabbi Abuna said, if it is so, it is even a matter of criminal law. If somebody sleeps with a girl three years and one day old, he is stoned. The Court decided to lengthen, if he sleeps with her he is not stoned. Rabbi Abun said: “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides with me.”Psalms 57:3 If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise it does not repair itself.
Mishnah
9 One who makes a vow to abstain from cabbage is forbidden cabbage shoot, from cabbage shoot he is permitted cabbage. From groats, he is forbidden groat soup but Rabbi Yose permits it; from groat soup he is permitted groats. From soup he is forbidden garlic but Rabbi Yose permits it; from garlic he is permitted soup.
Halakhah
: What is Rabbi Yose’s reason? Is its father’s name called upon it? In the opinion of Rabbi Yose, if somebody makes a vow to abstain from wine, he is permitted spiced wine.
“From cabbage, he is forbidden cabbage shoot,” etc. “From groats, he is forbidden groat soup,” only if most of it is groats. “From soup he is forbidden garlic,” only if most of it is garlic? In that case, you go after the taste, in the other after the main ingredient.
Mishnah
10 From lentils, he is forbidden ašišim, but Rabbi Yose permits. From ašišim he is permitted lentils.
Halakhah
Rabbi Yasa went to Rabbi Yose who brought roasted lentils out for him, ground them, formed them into a dough with honey, and fried them. He said to him, these are the ašišim mentioned by the Sages.
Mishnah
11 ‘That I shall not taste wheat or wheats: he is forbidden both flour and bread. ‘That I shall not taste groat or groats: he is forbidden both raw and cooked. Rabbi Judah says, ‘a qonam that I shall not taste groat or wheat,’ he is permitted to chew them raw.
Halakhah
‘That I shall not taste groat or groats, etc. It was stated: “Rabbi Judah says, ‘a qonam that I shall not taste a groat kernel,’ he is forbidden to chew and permitted soup. ‘That I shall not taste groats,’ he is forbidden soup and permitted to chew. ‘That I shall not taste a wheat kernel,’ he is forbidden to chew and permitted bread. ‘That I shall not taste wheats,’ he is forbidden bread and permitted to chew.”
“Wheat” and you say so? Rabbi Yose said, so is the way of people, if they see white bread they say, blessed Who created this wheat.
Mishnah
1 One who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables is permitted squash, but Rabbi Akiva forbids it. They said to Rabbi Akiva, does it not happen that a person says to his agent, buy vegetables for us, and he says, I found only squash? He said to them, that is true. Would he ever say, I found only legumes? But squash is contained in the notion of “vegetable.” He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans and permitted dried ones.
Halakhah
Does Rabbi Akiva think “I found, I did not find”? Then one who forbids meat to himself should be forbidden fish and grasshopper meat since, if a man says to another, buy meat for us, he will return and say, I found only fish! But Rabbi Akiva must think that squash are vegetables, but the rabbis think that squash are not vegetables. That applies to legal situations. “The vegetables of this garden are sold”; if squash were there, they would be sold in the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, not sold in the opinion of the rabbis. The same applies to declarations of abandonment or dedications.
Rabbi Jacob bar Idi, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the minority opinion here is the majority opinion there and vice-versa. As it was stated: “One who makes a vow to abstain from meat is forbidden all kinds of meat, is forbidden head, feet, neck, heart, and liver. But he is permitted fish meat and grasshoppers. In this vein, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, intestines are not meat and those who eat them are not humans.”
Everybody agrees that a person who vows to forbid gourd to himself is permitted vegetables, as it was stated: A person who makes a vow to abstain from a main object is forbidden the peripherals; if he vows from the peripherals, he is permitted the main object. One who vows to abstain from meat is forbidden sinews, he who vows to abstain from sinews is permitted meat. Where do they disagree? About Egyptian gourd. But everybody agrees that Greek gourds are vegetables. Rabbi Crispus in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: All sorts of gourd and cabbage which we eat are Greek gourds. Rabbi Judah bar Ṣeradia says, qarmals are vegetables. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose asked, are qarmals subject to tithes? Bar Qappara stated, qarmals are free from tithes. That is, as long as they did not form gourds; but when they formed gourds they are like vegetables. Rabbi Yose instructed that it is forbidden to sip water from colocasia leaves because they are food for deer.
Is one who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables permitted kinds of ‘pvmlyy,’ as, for example, nbʿh, msrvlh, plvlyh, and taro. Rabbi Isaac ben Ḥaqolah and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi both say taro is like a vegetable for tithes, the sabbatical year, peah, and kilaim. For vows it is problematic.
If somebody makes a vow to abstain from vegetables, would he be permitted dried ones? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans and permitted dried ones.” He mentioned only Egyptian beans, a kind which has a threshing floor. Therefore, anything which has no threshing floor is forbidden even if dried. If somebody makes a vow to abstain from bulbous plants he is forbidden green melon, squash, water melon, sweet melon and all tree fruits. If somebody makes a vow to abstain from sheep meat, he is permitted lambs, pigeon chicks, and milk. But if he said, which grew this year, he is forbidden all of these. If somebody makes a vow to abstain from cider, he is forbidden everything sweet and permitted wine. That is, following those who say that vows are interpreted in the vernacular. But following those who say, vows are interpreted in biblical Hebrew, the Torah used “cider” as an expression for wine; “your cider,”Deuteronomy 12:17 that is wine.
Mishnah
2 One who makes a vow to abstain from flour is forbidden dry Egyptian beans, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, he is forbidden only the Five Kinds. Rabbi Meir says, one who makes a vow to abstain from produce is forbidden only the Five Kinds but he who makes a vow to abstain from flour is forbidden everything, but permitted tree fruits and vegetables.
Halakhah
“One who makes a vow,” etc. What is Rabbi Meir’s reason? What the rain produces from the earth. What is the reason of the rabbis? Flour is עבור.
He who makes a vow not to use bread or produce is forbidden them, the words of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything according to the rabbis? Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” How do we hold? If he uses “bread” in the biblical sense, then also if he says “produce” it is meant in the biblical sense. He should be forbidden everything since it is written: “The produce of the vineyard.”Deuteronomy 22:9 If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread.” Rabbi Yose said, I confirmed it, at a place where one eats bread from all kinds, only from the five kinds it is simply called “bread.”
Mishnah
3 One who made a vow to abstain from garments is permitted sack-cloth, carpets, and goat’s hair cloth. If he said, a qonam that wool shall not come onto me, he is permitted to cover himself with shorn wool; that linen should not come upon me, he is permitted to cover himself with linen fibers. Rabbi Judah says, everything refers to the vow. If he was carrying and sweating and smelling badly, when he said, a qonam that no wool or flax should be on me, he is permitted to wear but forbidden to carry on his back.
Halakhah
“One who made a vow to abstain from garments,” etc. One who made a vow to abstain from clothing is permitted sack-cloth, carpet, and goat’s hair cloth, leather apron, and bandages. He is forbidden fascia and belt. One who vows to abstain from clothing is forbidden all kinds of clothing but permitted these. Rabbi Jeremiah said, Rabbi Zeira asked: If one said, a qonam, that I shall not wear a garment, that I shall not cover myself with clothing? Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if he said, a qonam for anything that is generally used to cover oneself and a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; generally he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is permitted the material itself. What is an example? For example, sheepskin. For anything that is generally used to cover oneself but no derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is forbidden the material itself. What is an example? For example, goatskin. And anything that is generally not used to cover oneself but a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he intended only the derivative. What is an example? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, for example raw cotton.
So is the Mishnah: If he was carrying and sweating; when he said, a qonam that no wool or flax should be on me, he is forbidden to wear them but permitted to carry them on his back.
Mishnah
4 One who vows not to use the house is permitted the upper floor, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say that the upper floor is part of the house. One who vows not to use the upper floor is permitted the house.
Halakhah
“One who vows not to use the house,” etc. The opinion of Rabbi Meir is reasonable for a city dweller.
Mishnah
5 One who vows not to use the bed is permitted the couch, the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say, a couch is included in the notion of bed. One who vows not to use the couch is permitted the bed.
Halakhah
“One who vows not to use the bed,” etc. It was stated: “A dargesh is put upright and is not turned over. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he removes its qlwnṭryn and that is enough.” Rabbi Yosa in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yose, if a couch has posts which are upright and removed together with it, he takes them off and that is enough.
What is a couch and what is a dargesh? Rabbi Jeremiah said, one that one plaits on its body is a couch and one that one does not plait on its body is a dargesh. But have we not stated: “Bed and crib after he rubs them with fish skin.” If it is plaited on its body, why does he rub? Rabbi Eleazar said, explain it with those Caesarean cribs that have holes.
Mishnah
6 One who vows not to use a town is permitted to enter its domain but forbidden to enter its suburbs. But one who vows not to use a house is forbidden inwards from the doorpost.
Halakhah
“One who vows not to use a town,” etc. From where that the suburbs of a town are like the town? It is written, “it happened when Joshua was in Jericho.”Joshua 5:13 How could he have been in Jericho? Is it not written that “Jericho was closed and besieged,”Joshua 6:1 and you say so? Rabbi Judan bar Shalom said, he was in a suburb. Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: It happened in Jericho.
Rabbi Mana asked, does this not disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan, since Rabbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows they follow the vernacular? Is it not the way of a person who sees another one outside the gate to say, I saw him in Tiberias?
Mishnah
7 ‘These fruits shall be qonam for me, a qonam they shall be for my mouth,’ he is forbidden what is exchanged for them or what grows from them. ‘That I shall not eat, that I shall not taste,’ he is permitted what is exchanged for them, or what grows from them if the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear, even second generation growth is forbidden.
Halakhah
‘These fruits shall be qonam for me,’ etc. How far? It comes, as Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is forbidden for three harvests, but the fourth is permitted. Here, it is the same.
Mishnah
8 If one says to his wife, a qonam shall be anything you work for, a qonam shall it be for my mouth, a qonam shall it be to my mouth; he is forbidden what is exchanged for it or what grows from it. ‘That I shall not eat, that I shall not taste,’ he is permitted what is exchanged for them, or what grows from them if the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear, even second generation growth is forbidden. ‘What you prepare I would eat until Passover, what you make I would wear until Passover,’ if she made before Passover, he may eat or wear after Passover.
Halakhah
“If one says to his wife,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “What you prepare until Passover I shall not eat, what you make until Passover I shall not wear.”
Mishnah
9 ‘What you prepare until Passover I would eat what you make until Passover I would wear if she made before Passover, he is forbidden to eat or wear after Passover.
Halakhah
“What you prepare,” etc. So is the Mishnah: ‘What you make until Passover I shall wear.’
Mishnah
10 ‘That you provide me with usufruct until Passover if you would go to your father’s house until Tabernacles.’ If she went before Passover, she is forbidden to deliver usufruct to him until Passover, after Passover “he should not profane his word.”Numbers 30:3
Halakhah
“That you would have usufruct from me,” etc. He is forbidden to have usufruct from her immediately, for maybe she would go after Passover and it would turn out that his having usufruct would be retroactively forbidden.
Mishnah
11 ‘That you provide me with usufruct from you until Tabernacles if you would go to your father’s house until Passover.’ If she went before Passover, she is forbidden to deliver usufruct to him until Tabernacles; but she is permitted to go after Passover.
Halakhah
“That you would have usufruct from me until Tabernacles,” etc. He is forbidden to have usufruct from her immediately, for maybe she would go after Passover and it would turn out that his having usufruct would be retroactively forbidden.
Mishnah
1 ‘A qonam that I shall not taste wine today,’ he is forbidden only until nightfall. ‘This week,’ he is forbidden the entire week; the Sabbath belongs to the past. ‘This month,’ he is forbidden the entire month; the day of the New Moon belongs to the future. ‘This year,’ he is forbidden the entire year; New Year’s Day belongs to the future. ‘This Sabbatical period,’ he is forbidden the entire Sabbatical period; the Sabbatical year belongs to the past. But if he said, one day, one week, one month, one year, he is forbidden from day.
Halakhah
“‘A qonam that I shall not taste wine today,’” etc. This implies that he is permitted at nightfall. Does this not disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan, since Rabbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage? It is not usual that a man should say to another in the evening, I did not eat until evening. Would he say, yesterday? Refer to the following and it does disagree: It is not usual that a man should say to another in the morning, I did not eat in the evening. Would he say, the same day? Does the following not disagree? This day from this week, or this week from this day? What is the difference between “this day” and “today”? That is, following the opinion that in matters of vows one follows common usage. But here, one follows the opinion that in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. Rabbi Jonah from Bostra said, it is the way of people to say to another, bear with me this day.
There, we have stated: “Until the beginning of Adar, until the beginning of the First Adar. Until the end of Adar, until the end of the First Adar.” Does this imply that Nisan is the beginning of the year as far as vows are concerned? Tishre is the beginning of the year as far as vows are concerned. That you should not say, the beginning of Adar should compensate for Elul and he would be permitted in Elul; therefore, it was necessary to say that “he is forbidden it and its intercalary month.”
“If he said, one day, one week, one month, one year, one Sabbatical period, he is forbidden from day to day.” From hour to hour. It was stated, from hour to hour.
Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Abbahu, in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: On the Sabbath, a person is forbidden to fast until the sixth hour. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah states this: “If they fasted when it started to rain, before noon they should not finish,” because until then it is morning; “after noon they should finish,” since most of the day already was spent in holiness.
The words of Rabbi Joḥanan imply that one may fast for hours, for Rabbi Joḥanan said, I shall fast until I finish studying this chapter, until I finish studying this text. The words of Rabbi Jonah imply that one may fast for hours, for Rabbi Jonah was in Tyre when he heard that Rabbi Yose’s son had died. Even though he had eaten cheese and drunk water, he finished that day fasting. The words of Rav imply that one may fast for hours, for Rav said, one may borrow his fast day and pay back. Samuel said to him, is that a vow? If he had vowed to fast but forgot and ate the volume of an olive, he lost his fast day. Rabbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: That is, if he said simply “a day.” But if he said “this day,” he has to continue fasting until the end. He spoke only of eating; that excludes tasting. Rabbi Abba Ḥasida in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Tasting does not create obligations of benediction, robbery, nor of demay, nor of the interruption of a fast day.
A private person who committed himself for a fast day, eats and drinks after nightfall. But if he said a public fast day, he eats and drinks only during daytime. If he made a vow to fast and it turned out to fall on Sabbath days or holidays, he is whipped but does not need permission from a Sage. If he made a vow to fast and it turned out to fall on days written in the Scroll of Fasts, Rabbi Ḥizqiah and Rabbi Yudan in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: One said, he fasts but does not finish, but the other one said, he is whipped but does not need permission from a Sage. That is, you say that before the scroll of fasts was abolished. But when the Scroll of Fasts was abolished, all this was abolished. Rabbi Ḥanania and Rabbi Joḥanan both say that the Scroll of Fasts was abolished. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Scroll of Fasts was abolished. Rabbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and stating: “It happened that they decreed a fast day at Lod during Ḥanukka. Rabbi Eliezer went and had a haircut, Rabbi Joshua went and took a hot bath. Rabbi Joshua said to them, go and fast for what you fasted.” And you say, the Scroll of Fasts was abolished? Rabbi Abba said, even though you say that the Scroll of Fasts was abolished, Ḥanukka and Purim were not abolished. The acts of the rabbis imply that the Scroll of Fasts was abolished: Rabbi Jonathan fasted on the day before New Year’s Day. Rabbi Abin fasted on the day before Tabernacles. Rabbi Zeira fasted 300 fast days, and some say 900 fast days and did not care about the Scroll of Fasts. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa told the scribes: If a woman comes to ask you, tell her that one may fast any day except Sabbaths, holidays, New Moons, the intermediary days of holidays, Ḥanukka, and Purim.
Mishnah
2 ‘Until Passover,’ he is forbidden until it comes, ‘until it be,’ he is forbidden until it is passed. ‘Until before Passover,’ Rabbi Meir says, until it comes, Rabbi Yose says, until it passed.
Halakhah
“‘Until Passover,’ he is forbidden,” etc. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: The opinion of Rabbi Yose seems to be inverted. There, he says “until all the elder possibilities are exhausted, until all the younger possibilities are exhausted,” and here, he says so? He said to him: Since Ben Azai and Ben Zoma died, the perseverers disappeared; no perseverer was there until Jeremiah appeared. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, why does he needle him? Did not Rabbi Eleazar already ask before Rabbi Joḥanan, the opinion of Rabbi Yose seems to be inverted? He said to him, it is not inverted, the Mishnah is inverted, for in the House of Rabbi they stated: “‘Until before Passover,’ Rabbi Meir says, until it passed, Rabbi Yose says, until it comes.” We ask “until before,” and you say so? He said to him, this is a Nabatean expression, “much before Passover.” Rabbi Abin said, everybody agrees that he is permitted on Passover. Where do they disagree? The day before Passover. One of them says, until it comes, the other until it passed.
Mishnah
3 ‘Until the grain harvest, the grape harvest, the olive harvest,’ he is forbidden only until their time arrives. That is the principle: Everything that has a fixed time, if he said ‘until it arrives,’ he is forbidden until it arrives; if he said ‘until it shall be,’ he is forbidden until it passed. But everything that does not have a fixed time, whether he said ‘until it arrives’ or ‘until it shall be,’ he is forbidden only until it arrives.
Halakhah
If one fixed the time for his son’s wedding and said, a qonam that I shall not taste wine until the wedding, is that as if the time was fixed? Or, since he could move the time to a later date, is it as if the time was not fixed?
Mishnah
4 ‘Until the fig harvest, until there be fig harvest,’ until people start to bring in baskets. ‘Until the fig harvest is over,’ until people fold their knives. ‘Until the grain harvest,’ until people start to cut wheat but not barley; everything follows the place of the vow, if made on the hills, on the hills, if made in the plain, in the plain.
Halakhah
‘Until the fig harvest, until there be fig harvest,’ etc. “baskets.” Baskets of figs or baskets of raisins? Let us hear from this: “Until they fold the knives.” You have to say, knives for figs, not knives for raisins. Let us hear from the following: A load of raisins came up to Tiberias. Gamliel the twin asked Rabbi Abba bar Zavda. He said to him: All of the Land of Israel does not produce a load of raisins. But so he said to him: No single place in the land of Israel produces a load of raisins.
“Until the grain harvest.” It is written, “until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest.”Ruth 2:23 That verse speaks of the South, the Mishnah of Galilee.
If he made a vow “until the fig harvest” in Galilee and descended into the valleys. Even though the fig harvest did start in the valleys, he is forbidden until it starts in Galilee.
Mishnah
5 ‘Until the rains, until there be rain,’ until the second rainy spell; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, until the time of the second rainy spell. ‘Until the rains stop,’ until the end of the Month of Nisan, the words of Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Judah says, until after Passover.
Halakhah
“‘Until the rains,’” etc. Rabbi Zeira asked: If one said ‘until the rain,’ is he forbidden until another rainfall came down? There, we have stated: “One who said, I take upon me the obligation to bring wood, should not bring less that two cut logs.” Rabbi Yose the important said that Rabbi Abba bar Mamai asked, if he said, I take upon me the obligation to bring to bring wood, does he bring one cut log? Rabbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah explains that each one is a separate sacrifice, as we have stated there: “Two in whose hands are two cut logs.” In order to increase the number of logs.
It was stated: “Rabbi Yose said, anything depending on the fertilizing rain, until the second fertilizing rain comes. And anything not depending on the fertilizing rain, until the time of the second fertilizing rain. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if rain came down for seven days without interruption, that includes the second fertilizing rain.” Why is it called fertilizing? Because it fertilizes the land.
“A qonam wine,” etc. Rabbi Meir follows his opinion and Rabbi Judah follows his opinion, as we have stated there: “Until when does one pray for rain? Rabbi Judah says, until after Passover; Rabbi Meir says until the end of the Month of Nisan.”
Mishnah
6 ‘A qonam that I shall not taste wine this year,’ if the year became intercalary he is forbidden it and its intercalary month. ‘Until the start of Adar,’ until the first of First Adar; ‘until the end of Adar,’ until the end of First Adar.
Halakhah
Does this imply that Nisan is the beginning of the year as far as vows are concerned? Tishre is the beginning of the year as far as vows are concerned. That you should not say, the beginning of Adar should compensate for Elul and he would be permitted in Elul; therefore, it was necessary to say that “he is forbidden it and its intercalary month.”
Rabbi Abin in the name of Rabbi Hila: That is only if he vowed before they intercalated. But if they intercalated and then he vowed, that is not so. Is it no different for rent of houses? If one said, the First Adar, and the other one says, the Second Adar, they should split the intercalary month. Come and see, for vows you have no problem but for money matters you have a problem? Rabbi Hila said, that is, if they intercalated and after that he leased. But if he leased and after that they intercalated, that is not so. And in matters of documents one writes First Adar, Second Adar, only that for Second Adar one writes תניין. Rabbi Judah says, for Second Adar one writes ת̇ and that is enough.
Mishnah
7 Rabbi Judah says, if one said ‘a qonam that I shall not taste wine until Passover has come,’ he is forbidden only until the night of Passover since he intended only until the time everybody drinks wine. If one said, ‘a qonam that I shall not taste meat until the fast,’ he is forbidden only until the evening before the fast since he intended only until the time everybody eats meat. His son Rabbi Yose said, if one said ‘a qonam that I shall not taste garlic until the Sabbath,’ he is forbidden only until Friday evening, since he intended only until the time everybody eats garlic. If one says to his friend: A qonam that I shall not have any usufruct from you if you do not come and take for your children a kor of wheat and two amphoras of wine, he can undo his vow without referring to a Sage by saying, you did that only to honor me, that is my honor. Similarly, if one says to his friend: A qonam that you shall not have any usufruct from me if you do not come and give to my child a kor of wheat and two amphoras of wine. Rabbi Meir says, he is forbidden until he gives, but the Sages say, this one also can undo his vow without referring to a Sage by saying, it is as if I received it.
Halakhah
Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The first case also is in dispute. Rabbi Zeira said, they disagree when it was undetermined. Where do we hold? If each one of them said, because of my honor, everybody agrees that he is forbidden. If one of them said, because of my honor, and the other said, I said it in your honor, everybody agrees he is permitted. But we hold if it is undetermined. Rabbi says, undetermined is as if every one said, because of my honor. But the Sages say, undetermined is as if one said, because of my honor, and the other said, I said it in your honor.
Rabbi Yasa asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: Is our Mishnah from Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any obstacle that is not from her side does not invalidate the bill of divorce? He said to him, here it is different because of opening the vow. Rabbi Yose said, but do we not deal with vows which do not need dissolution by a Sage? Rabbi Jonah said, we deal not only with one who made his vow dependent on something. So far it is if he wants to give him something. But in the case that he does not want to give to him, he can say, I wanted only to examine you; but since I saw that it gives you pain, it is as if I had received.
Mishnah
8 If they were importuning him to marry his sister’s daughter and he said, a qonam if she ever has any usufruct from me, and similarly, a man who was about to divorce his wife and said, a qonam if my wife ever has any usufruct from me, they may have usufruct from him since he intended only about matters of marriage.
Halakhah
“If they were importuning him to marry his sister’s daughter,” etc. Rabbi Yose said, this is Rabbi Judah’s, since Rabbi Judah said, “everything refers to the vow.” “And similarly, a man who was about to divorce his wife.” Rabbi Yose said, this is Rabbi Judah’s, since Rabbi Judah said, “everything refers to the vow.”
Mishnah
9 If somebody was importuning his neighbor that he should eat at his place and that one said, a qonam that I shall not enter your house nor taste a drop of cold water from you, he is permitted to enter his house and to drink cold water there since he intended only about eating and drinking.
Halakhah
“If somebody was importuning his neighbor that he should eat at his place,” etc. Rabbi Yose said, this implies that if one brings his neighbor to swear that he will not eat, this one may eat of that neighbor.
Mishnah
1 Rabbi Eliezer says, one opens for a man by the honor of his father and mother, but the Sages forbid it. Rabbi Ṣadoq said, before one opens by the honor of his father and mother one should open by the honor of the Omnipresent; then there are no vows. The Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer that if was a matter between a man and his father and mother, that one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Eliezer says, one opens for a man,” etc. The rabbis say, a man resists the honor of his father and mother. Rabbi Eliezer says, sometimes he resists, sometimes he does not resist. Rabbi Eliezer agrees that after their death he does not resist. Everybody agrees that nobody resists the honor of his teacher, as we stated: “And the fear of your teacher shall be like the fear of Heaven.”
“Then there are no vows.” Let there be no vows! But is it not written: “Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.”Numbers 30:2 He hung the chapter on the heads of the tribes, that they could dissolve their vows. If you say so, it turns out that you uproot the chapter of vows from the Torah.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Since you say, one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; in things between him and the Omnipresent, one does not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent. But since in matters between him and his father and mother one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; similarly, in things between him and the Omnipresent should one not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent? What is the honor of the Omnipresent? For example, that I shall not make a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab, that I shall not put on phylacteries. One understands that he does it for his own benefit. As in the following: “If you are just, what are you giving Him?”Job 35:7 “If you sinned, what would you do to Him?”Job 35:6 Rabbi Yannai said, one who listens to his urges is as if he worshipped idols. What is the reason? “In yourself there shall be no alien force; do not bow down to a foreign god.”Psalms 81:10
Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is as if he put a neck-iron on his neck, would you have made the vow? It is as if a gang of prisoners was passing by, he saw that there was one unused neck-iron and put his head into it! “To bind a prohibition onto himself,”Numbers 30:3 as you say, “he was bound with chains.”Jeremiah 40:1 Rabbi Jonathan provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is like one who builds an idolatrous altar and one who continues in it is like one who sacrifices there, would you have made the vow? That is difficult to understand. Idolatry is a capital crime but vows are a simple prohibition; how can you say that? You have only what Rabbi Yannai said, one who listens to his urges is as if he worshipped idols. Rabbi Isaac provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is like one who takes a sword and sticks it in his heart, would you have made the vow? “Some talk bluntly like sword piercings.”Proverbs 12:18 Rabbi Ḥanina from Sepphoris in the name of Rabbi Phineas: It does not say “piercing” but “sword piercings.” For example, one who made a vow not to eat a loaf. Woe if he eats, woe if he does not eat. If he eats he transgresses his vow. If he does not eat he sins against himself. What can he do? He goes to a Sage who will dissolve his vow, “but the speech of Sages is healing.”Proverbs 12:18 Rabbi Eudaimon in the name of Rabbi Isaac: Is it not enough what the Torah forbade you that you want to forbid other things for yourself? “To forbid a prohibition.”Numbers 30:3
Rabbi Joḥanan provided an opening by having second thoughts: “If it were not for that, would he have come?” Are second thoughts not something new? Rabbi Hila said, second thoughts are a common occurrence. In this kind, Rabbi Simeon did not find an opening for his own vow until one of the Galilean Elders came; some say, that one was Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar. He took him from here and put him there; he took him from here and put him there, until finally he put him into the sun and told him to check his garments for fleas. They said to him, if you had known that this old man would treat you in such a way, would you have made the vow? He said, No. He permitted him. They asked, from where do you have this? He said to them, I was Meir’s servant both times when he fled, but some say, Rabbi Meir’s walking stick was in my hand and it teaches me knowledge.
Rabbi Jeremiah had his vow dissolved but kept it. Whether it was because he did not trust him who dissolved it, we do not know. Whether it was because one has urges only for things forbidden to oneself, we do not know. When Rabbi Jeremiah was not in the mood to judge, he said, my eyes are weak. “Following their pronouncements shall be all quarrels and all disfiguration.”Deuteronomy 21:5 This compares quarrels to disfigurations. Since disfigurations are “for all the priest sees,” so also quarrels are “for all the priest sees.”
Rabbi Mana made a vow away from his father’s wine. His father came to him and said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that I am hurt by it? He said, no. He dissolved for him. Where do we hold? If he said, my benefit is forbidden to my father; is that not what Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: One forces the son to support his father. But we must hold that he said, my father’s benefit is forbidden to me. Rabbi Mana made a vow and came to Rabbi Shammai, who said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that people do not want to deal with you since you are a vower? He said, no, and he dissolved for him.
Mishnah
2 In addition, Rabbi Eliezer said, one finds an opening in changed circumstances, but the Sages forbid it. How is this? If he said, a qonam that I shall not benefit from Mr. X, who then becomes a public scribe or who marries off his son to one of the vower’s relatives, and he said, if I had known that he will become a public scribe or marry off his son to a relative, I would not have vowed; or if he said, a qonam that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue and he said, if I had known that it would become a synagogue, I would not have vowed; Rabbi Eliezer permits but the Sages prohibit.
Halakhah
“In addition, Rabbi Eliezer said, one finds an opening in changed circumstances,” etc. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Rabbi Eliezer learned from Moses, to whom the Holy One, praise to Him, provided an opening by changed circumstances. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to him: If you had known that “all the men who want to kill you have died,” would you have vowed? But did they really die? Were they not Dathan and Abiram? Only, they became poor.
Rabbi Jeremiah said, what you say is only that there are changed circumstances before the matter is discussed. The force of Rabbi Yose is from the following: “That was the error of Naḥum the Mede.” What was his error? That he found them an opening by changed circumstances. “Naḥum the Mede said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’” Rabbi Zeira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the earlier prophets had prophesied while the Temple was standing that eventually it would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rabbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the far future: “The vision he sees is for many years; for faraway times he prophesies.”Ezekiel 12:27 It turns out that Rabbi Jeremiah parallels Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yose parallels Rabbi Hila.
As we have stated there: “One sells a synagogue only conditionally.” So far if it was built as a synagogue. How is the situation if the building was first built for profane use and then dedicated? Let us hear from the following: “A qonam that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue.” That implies that if it was built as a courtyard and afterwards was dedicated that it becomes holy. How? When does it become holy, immediately or when it is used? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody makes a chest for a Torah scroll, or wrappings for a Torah scroll, before they were used for a Torah scroll they may be used for private use; after they were used for a Torah scroll they may not be used for private use.” Since these were made for holy use but became holy only when used, that which was built as a courtyard not so much more? What is the status of those if they were made for profane use and then dedicated? They become holy.
Mishnah
3 Rabbi Meir says, there are things like changed circumstances which are not really changed circumstances, and the Sages agree with him. How is this? He said, a qonam that I shall not marry this woman for her father is evil, and they told him that he died or that he repented; a qonam that I shall not enter this house because it has a bad dog inside, or a snake; they said to him the dog died, the snake was killed; these there are things like changed circumstances which are not changed circumstances, and the Sages agree with him.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Meir says, there are things like changed circumstances.” Samuel says, because of an erroneous vow; the dog was already dead, the snake had already been killed. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, because he is like someone who makes his vow dependent on something: A qonam that I shall have no benefit from this man as long as he wears black garments. If he wore white, he would be permitted to him. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: That one does not need the permission of a Sage.
Mishnah
4 In addition, Rabbi Meir said, one opens for him with what is written in the Torah. One says to him, if you had realized that you sin against “you shall not take revenge,” “you shall not nurse hatred,”Leviticus 19:18 “you shall not hate your brother in your heart,”Leviticus 19:18 “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,”Leviticus 19:17 “let your brother live with you,”Leviticus 19:18Leviticus 25:36 maybe he would become poor and you cannot provide for him! If he said, if I had realized this, I would not have vowed, he is permitted.
Halakhah
It is written: “You should not take revenge or nurse hatred against your fellow countrymen.” How is that? He was cutting meat and the knife fell down on his hand. Should he go and hit his hand?
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”Leviticus 19:18 Rabbi Akiva says, that is a great principle in the Torah. Ben Azzai says, “this is the book of the descent of man”Genesis 5:1 is a more important principle.
“Maybe he would become poor.” Are these not changed circumstances? Rabbi Zeira said, poverty is frequent. As the following: A man had a lawsuit against a rich man. He wanted to be judged before Rav; Rav sent for the rich man, who said: For this one I should come to court? If all the camels of Arabia came they could not carry all the leather sacks containing my mortgages! Rav heard this and said, what does this one pride himself with what is not his! There should be depreciation of it! Immediately there came a royal decree that he and his property should belong to the treasury. He the rich man came before Rav and said to him, pray for me that my personality could be restored. He prayed, and it was restored to him.
Mishnah
5 One creates an opening for a man with his wife’s ketubah. It happened that one vowed usufruct from his wife whose ketubah was 400 denar. She came before Rabbi Akiva who obliged him to give her her ketubah. He said, Rabbi, my father left 800 denar. My brother took 400 and I 400, would it not be enough if she take 200 and I 200? Rabbi Akiva told him, even if you have to sell the hair on your head, you will pay her ketubah. He said to him, if I had known that, I would not have vowed. Rabbi Akiva freed him.
Halakhah
“One creates an opening for a man with his wife’s ketubah” etc. Does one collect from movables? Rabbi Abba said, even if one could say, one collects from movables, one tells him to pay. Rabbi Manisha asked, could one tell the heirs to collect from pledged property? Rabbi Abba Mari said, the Mishnah says that one does not say so, as we have stated there: “It should be given to the heirs since everybody has to swear but the heirs do not have to swear.” What does one make her swear? There, they say, from straw I did not collect, from his person I did collect.
Mishnah
6 One opens about festive days and Sabbaths. In earlier times, they said that these days are permitted but the rest forbidden, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that a vow which was partially voided is totally voided. How is this? ‘A qonam that I shall not benefit any one of you,’ if one was permitted, all are permitted. ‘That I shall not benefit this one and this one and this one,’ if the first one becomes permitted, all are permitted; if the last one becomes permitted, he is permitted and the others are prohibited. ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorban for this one, a qorban for that one’; each single one needs a separate opening. ‘A qonam that I shall not taste wine, for wine is bad for the intestines.’ If they told him, but old wine is good for the intestines, old wine was permitted; not only old wine is permitted but all wines. ‘A qonam that I shall not taste onion, for onion is bad for the heart.’ If they told him, but the rural kind is good for the heart, rural onion was permitted; not only rural is permitted but all onions. It happened that Rabbi Meir permitted all onions to him.
Halakhah
“One opens about festive days and Sabbaths,” etc. It was stated: “If one was permitted, all subsequent ones are permitted, all preceding ones are forbidden.” It was stated in the name of Rabbi Nathan: “There exists a type of vow which may be partly voided and the rest confirmed. How is this? One made a vow not to eat from a fig basket which contained benot sheva figs. If he said, if I had known that it contained benot sheva figs, I would not have made the vow, he is permitted the benot sheva figs and not only these but all figs. But if he said, if I had known that it contained benot sheva figs, I would not have extended my vow to benot sheva figs, only benot sheva figs are permitted to him.”
Mishnah
7 One finds an opening for a man with his own honor and that of his children. One tells him, if you had known that tomorrow one will say of you, it is the habit of this man to divorce his wife, and about your daughters one will say, they are daughters of a divorcee, what did the mother of these do to get herself divorced? If he said, if I had known that it is so I would not have made the vow, then it is dissolved.
Halakhah
“One finds an opening for a man about his own honor,” etc. It was stated: Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, one finds an opening for a man exclusively about his own honor. As the following? A woman vowed not to have benefit from her daughter. She came to Rabbi Joḥanan who said to her, if you had known that your daughter gets a bad reputation, would you have made the vow? She said, no, and he permitted her. Is that not the Mishnah: “One finds an opening for a man about his own honor and that of his children”? That you should not think one follows Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra.
Mishnah
8 ‘A qonam that I shall not marry the ugly Miss X, and she is beautiful, black and she is white, short and she is tall, he is permitted. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful, black and she became white, short and she became tall, but because the vow was erroneous. It happened that one made a vow renouncing benefit from his sister’s daughter. They brought her to Rabbi Ishmael’s house and gave her a beauty treatment. Rabbi Ishmael asked him, did you make your vow about this one? He said no, and Rabbi Ishmael dissolved it. At that moment, Rabbi Ishmael cried and said, the daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty disfigures them.
Halakhah
“‘A qonam that I shall not marry the ugly Miss X,’” etc. He made her a golden eye, a golden tooth. So he said to him, acquire what is on her.
Mishnah
9 And when Rabbi Ishmael died the daughters of Israel did sing a dirge and say, ‘Daughters of Israel, cry about Rabbi Ishmael,’ as it is said about Saul: ‘Daughters of Israel, cry about Saul, etc.’
Halakhah
“And when Rabbi Ishmael died,” etc. It is written, “Daughters of Israel, cry about Saul, etc.” Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Neḥemiah. One said, really daughters of Israel. For their husbands went to war and he provided them with food. Why does the verse say “who puts a golden jewel on your garments”? Jewelry looks good only on a supple body. The other one said, “the daughters of Israel” means the builders of Israel, the councils of Israel. When he saw a group of fellows, he gave them to eat and drink. What does the verse mean by “who puts a golden jewel on your garments”? That he heard the reason for a practice from a Sage and praised him.
Mishnah
1 Father and husband jointly dissolve the vows of a preliminarily married adolescent girl. If the father dissolved but not the husband, or the husband but not the father, it is not dissolved; one does not have to mention whether one of them confirmed it.
Halakhah
“An adolescent girl,” etc. It is written, “if she should be a man’s.”Numbers 30:7 What are we speaking about? If a married one, it already is written “if she vowed in her husband’s house.”Numbers 30:11 If about an unmarried one, it already is written “if she vows a vow to the Eternal.”Numbers 30:4 Why does the verse say, “if she should be a man’s with her vows on her”Numbers 30:7? That refers to the preliminarily married adolescent girl whose vows are dissolved by father and husband. So far for vows which she vowed after she was preliminarily married. Vows which she vowed before she was preliminarily married? “With her vows on her,”Numbers 30:7 to include the vows which come with her from her father’s house.
It was stated in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “If she should be a man’s,”Numbers 30:7 the verse speaks about a preliminarily married adult girl. The colleagues say, Rabbi Eleazar says it correctly. Is it not difficult for Rabbi Eleazar: Did she not leave her father’s power the moment she became an adult? Who may dissolve the vows of an orphan whose father had died? The husband dissolves. It is difficult for the rabbis: If he may dissolve before she entered his power, is it not obvious that he may dissolve after she entered? How do the rabbis explain “with her vows on her”? What are we talking about? If about vows which she made before she was preliminarily married and she became preliminarily married, already the father and the husband had the power to dissolve. But we must talk about a vow which she made before her father died, then the father died and she became an adult. From where does Rabbi Eleazar obtain: “The father and the husband dissolve the vows of a preliminarily married adolescent girl.” “Between a man and his wife.”Numbers 30:17 That deals with the husband. The father? “Between a father and his daughter.”Numbers 30:17 How do the rabbis interpret “between a man and his wife”? Not what is between her and others. “Between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others. Does Rabbi Eleazar not agree with this? He agrees; he understands everything from there: “Between a man and his wife,” not what is between her and others; “between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others.
“One does not have to mention if one of them confirmed it.” Come and see; if the father dissolved, it is not dissolved, and you say so? Not on that it was said, but on the following: If the father dissolved his part but the husband did not have time to dissolve before he died, the father dissolves the husband’s part. Rabbi Nathan said, those are the words of the House of Shammai. But the statement of the Sages is that he does not need to dissolve if the husband did not confirm it. But if the husband confirmed, the father cannot void.
You say that the father dissolves the husband’s part. If he wanted to confirm, he says, it is confirmed for you, without details,...; the husband’s part is dissolved for you. The following is obvious: If the father did not dissolve his part and she violated her vow, she is whipped. If the father dissolved but the husband did not, would she be whipped? Or since if the husband died and his part became void in favor of the father, would she not be whipped? This follows him who said, death does not force dissolution. But following him who said, death does force dissolution, and here since he did not dissolve for her and she violated her vow, she is whipped. It was stated: If the father dissolved his part but the husband died before he could dissolve, the last husband dissolves the part of the first one. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Her father and her last husband dissolve her vows.”
Mishnah
2 If the father died, his power is not voided in favor of the husband. If the husband died, his power is voided in favor of the father. In this, He strengthened the father’s power over the husband. In another matter, He strengthened the husband’s power over the father since the husband dissolves in adulthood but the father does not dissolve in adulthood.
Halakhah
“If the father died, his power is not voided in favor of the husband,” etc. They wanted to say that if the father had dissolved his part and died, his power is not voided in favor of the husband. Let us hear from the following: “The way of learned people is that, before his daughter left his house, he told her: ‘Any vows which you had vowed in my house are dissolved.’” This implies that if the father had dissolved his part and died, his power is not voided in favor of the husband.
“If the husband died, his power is voided in favor of the husband.” They wanted to say, after the husband had dissolved his part. But if the husband had not dissolved his part when he died, the power is not voided in favor of the father. Let us hear from the following: “If she made a vow while being preliminarily married. If she was divorced on the same day, preliminarily married on the same day, even a hundred times, her father and her last husband dissolve her vows.” That means, even if the husband had not dissolved his part and died, his power is voided in favor of the father.
“If the father died, his power is not voided in favor of the husband.” Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose. So far for vows she made after she was preliminarily married. Vows she made before she was preliminarily married; if the father died, was his power not voided in favor of the husband? He said to him, is it not true that vows she made before she was preliminarily married already could be dissolved by father and husband? Why do you have to say, if the father died, his power is not voided in favor of the husband? That means, even vows she made after she was preliminarily married. Vows she made before she was preliminarily married, if the father died, was his power voided in favor of the husband? He said to him, is it not true that vows she made before she was preliminarily married already could be dissolved by father and husband? You say, “if the husband died, his power is voided in favor of the father”! That means, even vows she made after she was preliminarily married, if the husband died, his power is voided in favor of the father!
“Since the husband dissolves in adulthood.” The Mishnah follows Rabbi Eleazar, since it was stated in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “If she should be a man’s,”Numbers 30:7 the verse speaks about a preliminarily married adult girl.
Mishnah
3 If she made a vow while preliminarily married, was divorced on the same day, preliminarily married on the same day, even to a hundred men, her father and her last husband dissolve her vows. That is the principle: as long as she did not leave her father’s power for one moment, her father and her last husband dissolve her vows.
Halakhah
“If she made a vow while preliminarily married,” etc. Rabbi Hila said, “being she will be,”Numbers 30:7 even for a hundred beings, her father and her last husband dissolve her vows. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Her father and her last husband dissolve her vows.”
Mishnah
4 “The way of learned people is that, before his daughter left his house, he told her: ‘Any vows which you had vowed in my house are dissolved.’ Similarly, the husband tells her before she enters his domain: ‘Any vows which you had vowed before you enter my domain are dissolved,’ for after she enters his domain he cannot dissolve. An adult girl and one who had waited twelve months and a widow 30 days, Rabbi Eliezer says, since her husband is responsible for her upkeep he may dissolve but the Sages say that the husband dissolves only after she enters his domain.”
Halakhah
“An adult girl and one who had waited twelve months,” etc. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the matter depends on the support. If he preliminarily married a woman on condition to support her, the husband dissolves for her. If he completely married a woman on condition that he support her, the father dissolves for her. The words of the Sages? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The husband never dissolves before she enters his domain.
Mishnah
5 If a woman was waiting for her levir, whether it be one or two, Rabbi Eliezer says, he shall dissolve. Rabbi Joshua says, for one but not for two. Rabbi Akiva says, neither for one nor for two.
Halakhah
“If a woman was waiting for her levir,” etc. Following Rabbi Akiva, who can dissolve? For example, what Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even a hundred qiddušin are valid for her, who dissolves? And what Rabbi Jacob said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, he can allot her to his underage son, who dissolves? And what Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, she does not even need a reparation offering for a possible sin, who dissolves?
Mishnah
6 Rabbi Eliezer said, if he can dissolve vows for a wife which he himself acquired, so much more that he should be able to dissolve for a wife which Heaven acquired for him. Rabbi Akiva answered him: No. What you say is about a wife which he himself acquired, where nobody else has any authority over her; what can you say about the wife which Heaven acquired for him, where others have authority over her? Rabbi Joshua said to him, Akiva, your words apply to two levirs. What can you reply about one levir? He said to him, the sister-in-law does not belong completely to her man as the wife belongs completely to her husband.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Eliezer said,” etc. “Rabbi Eliezer said, since a woman on whom I had no claim before she entered into my domain, becomes absolutely mine after she entered my domain, is it not logical that a woman on whom I had some claim before she entered my domain, shall become absolutely mine when she enters my domain?” Rabbi Akiva told him, no. If you speak about a woman on whom you had no claim before she entered into your domain, but after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, then just as you had no part in her so no other man had any part in her. What can you conclude about a woman on whom you had some claim before she entered your domain, and after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, but just as you had some rights to her so others had the same rights to her! Rabbi Joshua told him, Akiva, your argument holds for two levirs. What do you respond in the case of a single levir? He said to him, just as you make no difference in the rules of one waiting for one levir or for two levirs, whether he ‘bespoke’ her or did not ‘bespeak’ her, can it not be the same for vows and oaths? He said to him, that is true. He said to him, if you had lived in the times of Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh, he would have said that ‘bespeaking’ does not acquire completely since he would agree that he cannot dissolve until she enters his domain.
Mishnah
7 If somebody says to his wife, all vows that you might vow from now until I shall return from place X shall be confirmed, he did not say anything; if he says they shall be dissolved, Rabbi Eliezer says, they are dissolved, but the Sages say, they are not dissolved. Rabbi Eliezer said, if he can dissolve vows that came under the category of prohibition, should he not be able to dissolve vows that did not yet come under the category of prohibition? They said to him, it says ‘her husband may confirm them and her husband may dissolve them.’Numbers 30:14 What can be confirmed can be dissolved; what cannot be confirmed cannot be dissolved.
Halakhah
“He answered to the words of Rabbi Eliezer: Let the miqweh prove it! It frees the impure from their impurities but it cannot save pure ones. Rabbi Eliezer argued another track: Since in a situation where he cannot dissolve his own vows before he made them, he dissolves his wife’s vows before she made them, in a situation where he can dissolve his own vows after he made them, would it not be logical that he could dissolve his wife’s vows before she made them? No! Why can he not dissolve his own vows before he made them? For if he wants to confirm them, he confirms them. Could he dissolve his wife’s vows after she made them, when if he wanted to confirm them, he could not confirm them?” “But it says, ‘her husband may confirm them and her husband may dissolve them.’Numbers 30:14 What can be confirmed can be dissolved,; what cannot be confirmed cannot be dissolved.”
Mishnah
8 The dissolution of vows may take place the entire day; this can imply a lenient or a stringent implementation. How is that? If she made the vow Friday night, he may dissolve during the night and the next day until the next nightfall. If she made the vow shortly before nightfall, he dissolves until it becomes dark; for after dark he cannot dissolve.
Halakhah
“The dissolution of vows may take place the entire day,” etc. It was stated: “Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon say, the dissolution of vows may take place from time to time.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “From day to day.”Numbers 30:15 What is the reason of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah? “On the day of his hearing.”Numbers 30:6 How do the rabbis explain Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah’s reason, “on the day of his hearing”? Explain it that she made the vow on the start of the night. How does Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah explain the rabbis’ reason, “from day to day”? Explain it that she made the vow at the start of Friday night, he became paralyzed, and then his power of speech returned. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah one gives him 24 hours. In the opinion of the rabbis he has only that day. If he became paralyzed, and later his power of speech returned, in the opinion of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah one adds up to a total of 24 hours. In the opinion of the rabbis he always can dissolve when his speech returns. But if it happened one hour before sundown, he can no longer dissolve.
“It shall be dissolved at the time of the afternoon prayer,” it is permanently dissolved. “It shall be confirmed at the time of the afternoon prayer,” it is permanently confirmed. “It shall be dissolved until the time of the afternoon prayer,” it is as if he said, “it shall be dissolved starting with the time of the afternoon prayer.”
There, we have stated: “One dissolves vows on the Sabbath.” It was stated: Both vows that intrude on the Sabbath and vows that do not intrude on the Sabbath. “And one asks about vows that intrude on the Sabbath,” therefore not if there is no need for the Sabbath. The Elder can dissolve the next day. Then for Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon who say that the dissolution of vows is from time to time, he should not dissolve even vows that intrude on the Sabbath! Explain it according to everybody, if she made the vow at the start of Friday night.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The husband who said “there is no vow, there is no oath,” did not say anything. Also the Elder who said “it is dissolved for you, it is voided for you,” did not say anything. But everybody has to follow his own rules. The husband says “it is dissolved for you, it is voided for you,” and the Elder says, “there is no vow, there is no oath.”
Rabbi Joḥanan said, earlier generations were asking, may a man ask about his confirmation? How is that? If his wife made a vow, her husband heard it and did not dissolve for her. It is obvious that he cannot dissolve as a husband. May he dissolve as an Elder? What are we talking about? If it is about vows between him and her, these are vows of himself. But we must talk about vows between her and others. Is that not a Mishnah? “Not his wife’s vows between her and others!” Is that not Rabbi Judah’s? It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah; Rabbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of the Sages.
May one permit vows in the night? Since vows under the husband’s jurisdiction, about which “on the day” is written, he may dissolve in the night, vows under the jurisdiction of the Elder, where “on the day” is not written, not so much more? Can one permit through an interpreter? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Abba bar Ẓutra was made an interpreter for Rabbi Joḥanan in the case of a woman who did not know Syriac.
It was stated: One is asked about vows only while sitting and wrapped. The one who is asked must be sitting and the one who is asking is standing; from the following: “And the two people who have the dispute shall stand.”Deuteronomy 19:17 “Standing” means only “being judged.” That is for asking legal rules. Asking about sermons from where? The verse says “shall stand, and shall stand.” Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappus went to permit the vow of Rabbi Immi. He remained standing to say “there is no vow.” Rabbi Mana went to permit the vow of the older Gamliel. He remained standing to say “there is no vow, there is no oath.” Rabbi Mana went to permit the vow of Gamliel the grandson. He said to him, do not treat me as you treated my grandfather, but sit down and I shall remain standing.
Rabbi Zeira, Rav Judah, Jeremiah bar Abba, in the name of Rabbi Samuel: Three who know how to find an opening may permit like an Elder. They thought, at a place where no Elder was available. The rabbis of Caesarea: Even at a place of an Elder. They said before Rabbi Yasa: Rav Huna is “head of tribes.” Who are the heads of tribes? Rav Huna is head of the heads of tribes.
May one appoint Elders for selected topics? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi appointed Rav to invalidate vows and to see stains. After his death, Rav asked his son for permission to see defects of firstlings. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he gave him everything: To sit in judgment alone, to invalidate vows, to see stains, and to see outside blemishes. After his death, Rav asked his son for permission to see hidden defects. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Even though you say, one appoints Elders for selected topics, only if he is competent for everything. As the following: Rabbi Joshua ben Levi ordained all his students, but he was sorry about one who had a defect in his eye and he could not ordain him; so he ordained him for selected topics. That implies that one who is competent in one thing has to be competent in everything, and one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.
May one appoint Elders for a fixed time? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Rabbi Eleazar and asked him to intervene with the Patriarch Rabbi Judah, that the latter should write him a letter of recommendation for seeking a livelihood in a foreign country. He intervened, and the Patriarch wrote for him: Here we are sending you as our representative a great personality with all our powers until he shall return to us. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Dositheus, Rabbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of the old Rabbi Dositheus: He wrote him the following. Here we are sending you a great personality who will not be ashamed to say “1 did not learn this.”
May one permit wearing a coat? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One permits wearing a coat. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi permitted wearing a coat. Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: At a place where one does not wear a toga. Rabbi Yose ben Abun said, for easy vows.
Mishnah
1 These are the vows which he may dissolve: Matters connected with self-affliction. E.g., “if I wash, if I do not wash; if I wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels.” Rabbi Yose said, these are not vows of self-affliction.
Halakhah
“These are the vows which he can dissolve,” etc. It is written: “Any vow and any oath of prohibition to afflict.”Numbers 30:14 That covers only vows which contain self-affliction. Vows regarding the relations between him and her, from where? “Between a man and his wife.”Numbers 30:17 So far the husband; the father from where? Since the husband can dissolve only vows of self-affliction and matters between him and her, so the father can dissolve only vows of self-affliction and matters between him and her.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagree. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the husband dissolves both vows and oaths. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, he dissolves vows but not oaths. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish also disagree about the vows submitted to the Elder. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Elder permits both vows and oaths. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, the Elder permits vows, the Elder does not permit oaths. That of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish parallels that of Issi. A person came before Rabbi Yasa to have his vow permitted. He asked him, what did you swear? He answered, ὢ πόποι Israel, that she should not enter my house. He said to him, ὢ πόποι Israel, she shall not enter your house!
Rabbi Zeira explained the Mishnah: “These are the vows which he can dissolve: Matters connected with self-affliction. E.g., ‘if I wash, if I do not wash; if I shall wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels.’ Rabbi Yose said, these are not vows of self-affliction” but vows between him and her. “The following are vows of self-affliction” following Rabbi Yose. For example, “she said, all produce of the world is qonam for me, he may dissolve.” The rabbis say, if he dissolves vows of self-affliction, they are permanently dissolved. Vows between him and her are only dissolved as long as she is married to him. Rabbi Yose says, both vows of self-affliction and vows between him and her, if he dissolved them they are permanently dissolved. That means, the rabbis say, if he dissolves vows of self-affliction, they are permanently dissolved. Rabbi Yose says, if he dissolves vows between him and her, they are permanently dissolved. What is the difference between them? If she said, any benefit from me shall be qonam for you when I leave your domain. Why can he not dissolve that? Because she did not say, any benefit from my body shall be qonam for you when I leave your domain. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Hila, both of them say: That is the essence of vows between him and her. In the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing since we stated there: “Rabbi Joḥanan said, he shall dissolve it since maybe he would divorce her, then she would be forbidden to return to him.”
Rabbi Hila explained the Mishnah: “These are the vows which he can dissolve: Matters connected with self-affliction. E.g., ‘if I wash, if I do not wash; if I wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels.’” What means “Rabbi Yose said, these vows are not vows of self-affliction”? They are vows between him and her. “The following are vows of self-affliction” is everybody’s opinion.
“If I wash, if I do not wash.” It was stated: “If I wash, if I do not wash; if I wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels,” these are vows of self-affliction. Both according to Rabbi Zeira or according to Rabbi Hila, Rabbi Yose seems to contradict his own opinion, as it was stated: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence over their animals. Their washing and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who said that washing is a necessity for survival? Rabbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rabbi Yose permits it for washing.” The opinions of Rabbi Yose are contradictory. There he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life! Rabbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes.
Judah from Ḥusa hid himself in a cave for three days because he wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He came to Rabbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta and said, I was hiding in a cave for three days because I wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He called his son Rabbi Abba and asked him about the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He said to him: “These six cities shall be,”Numbers 35:15 each town shall be, and only afterwards their surroundings around them. He Rabbi Yose said to him Judah from Huṣa, what did cause you this embarrassment? That you did not study with your companions!
We understand “if I wash.” “If I do not wash”? Let her wash! Rabbi Mana said, if she said: “Any benefit from me shall be qonam for you after I shall have washed myself, if I ever wash myself.” Why should he not dissolve for her? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, only when she said, “any benefit from my body shall be qonam for you after I shall have washed myself.” Why can he not force? Did not Rabbi Huna say, if she vowed any benefit from me shall be forbidden to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you shall be forbidden to me, he has to dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. Rabbi Abba Mari said, If I wash today, I shall not wash forever. If I wear jewelry today, I shall not wear jewelry forever. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Nasa: If I wash I shall not wear jewelry; if I wear jewelry I shall not wash.
Mishnah
2 The following are vows of self-affliction. If she said, all produce of the world is qonam for me, he may dissolve. The produce of this province is qonam for me, he can buy for her from another province. The produce of this grocery store is qonam for me, he cannot dissolve. If he can get the necessities of life only from that grocery, he may dissolve, the words of Rabbi Yose.
Halakhah
Samuel said, if she said, all produce of the world is qonam for me; if there was grain heaped in the grain container, he may buy for her from that. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, “the produce of the people of this province is qonam for me,” if there were strangers selling there, he can buy from them.
It is written: “Every vow and every oath of prohibition to afflict a person.”Numbers 30:14 For example, a qonam if I would taste peppers, if I would taste rolls. Not only if that kind is available now; even if that kind is not available now, perhaps he might bring her some later on. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If there were two pieces before them, one nice and one not nice. If she desired the nice one and made a vow to forbid herself the less nice one, he may dissolve that. Why can he dissolve? The colleagues say, because of her affliction. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Hila both say, because of his affliction. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Samuel: A man can dissolve all vows except if she says, any benefit from me shall be qonam for X. That means he can dissolve: Any benefit from X shall be qonam for me. But did we not state: “The produce of this grocery store is qonam for me, he cannot dissolve.” Explain that following Rabbi Yose and they disagree with him, for we did state there: “If he can get the necessities of life only from that grocer, he may dissolve.” Rabbi Yose said, because he gives him credit, he delivers to him. Rabbi Mana said, because he gives him good quality produce.
Mishnah
3 ‘A qonam that I shall not have benefit from people’ he cannot dissolve, and she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. ‘A qonam that priests and Levites can have no benefit from me’; they may take forcibly. ‘These priests and these Levites can have no benefit from me’; others may take.
Halakhah
“‘A qonam that I shall not have benefit from people,’” etc. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: “And she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah.” It was stated: “And the tithe of the poor.” The tithe of the poor is not listed here. The tithe of the poor is given as acquisition; these by abandoning.
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rabbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina? “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.”Numbers 5:10 Rabbi Joḥanan said “it shall not be his.” May he give them to whomever he likes?
A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no priests or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These priests and Levites should not have any advantage from me, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this firstling to my daughter’s son, a priest.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two priests and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give it whole to my daughter’s son, a priest.
They asked before Rabbi Zeira: a priest to an Israel, Rabbi forbids. What does Rabbi Yose say? Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Aḥa said, so he responded to them: In the opinion of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina, why is a priest to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rabbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “priests and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said: ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’Leviticus 22:15 but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says: ‘Their heads judge for bribes, their priests are for hire.’Micah 3:11 The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophes; that is what is written: ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be plowed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’Micah 3:12”
A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If somebody marries preliminarily giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts,’ water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer, she is married, even if the groom is an Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a priest.
Mishnah
4 ‘A qonam that I shall not work according to the wishes of my father, or your father, or my brother, or your brother,’ he cannot dissolve. ‘According to your wish,’ he does not have to dissolve. Rabbi Akiva says, he has to dissolve, maybe she works more than the required minimum. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he shall dissolve since maybe he would divorce her, then she would be forbidden to return to him.
Halakhah
“‘A qonam that I shall not work according to the wishes of my father,’” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s work, she works and eats. The excess? Rabbi Meir says, it is dedicated; Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, it is profane.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs, as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after the husband’s death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated. And here, he cannot dissolve! Rabbi Meir says. he does not have to dissolve. Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, hers. Rabbi Akiva said, hers. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, his.
“Rabbi Akiva said, he has to dissolve.” Rabbi Abba said, if she forbids the yields of her work, vowing not to work, he can force her up to the weight of five tetradrachmas. More than that he cannot force, for he has to be afraid that she may work more and it turns out that she profits from what is forbidden. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva says, he has to dissolve his part. Rabbi Hila said, it is impossible for her to make exactly the weight of five tetradrachmas. He could force her up to the weight of five tetradrachmas; more than that he cannot force. He has to be afraid that she might be over the limit by a minute amount; then he would profit from what is forbidden. Therefore....
“Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he should dissolve.” Rabbi Hila said, the reason of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri is that even if he knows that if he divorces her she would be forbidden to return to him, she needles him until he divorces her.
Mishnah
5 If his wife made a vow and he was under the impression that it was his daughter, or his daughter made a vow and he was under this impression that it was his wife. If she vowed to be a nazir and he was under the impression that she vowed a sacrifice, or if she vowed a sacrifice and he was under the impression that she vowed to be a nazir. If she vowed to abstain from figs and he was under the impression that it was from grapes, or if from grapes and he was under the impression that it was from figs, he shall dissolve a second time.
Halakhah
“If she said, a qonam that I shall not taste these figs and grapes,” etc. Even if he heard and remained silent, even if he heard and confirmed.
Mishnah
6 If she said, a qonam that I shall not taste these figs and grapes, if he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes. If she said, a qonam that I shall not taste these figs, that I shall not taste these grapes; these are two vows.
Halakhah
Some Tannaim state: “He shall confirm it,”Numbers 30:14 even partially, “he shall dissolve it,” even partially. Some Tannaim state: “He shall confirm it,” totally, “he shall dissolve it,” totally. Some Tannaim state: “He shall confirm it,” even partially, “he shall dissolve it,” totally. Some Tannaim state: “He shall confirm it,” totally, “he shall dissolve it,” even partially. The Mishnah follows him who said, “he shall confirm it,” even partially, “he shall dissolve it,” totally. As we have stated: “If he confirmed for the figs he confirmed everything. If he dissolved for figs it is not dissolved unless he also dissolves for grapes.” If she said, a qonam that I shall not taste a fig nor a grape berry, that is a matter of difference between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva since Rabbi Ishmael says, the vow decides, and Rabbi Akiva says, the prohibition decides.
Mishnah
7 ‘I knew that there are vows but I did not know that they can be dissolved.’ ‘I knew that one can dissolve but I did not realize that this was a vow.’ Rabbi Meir says, he cannot dissolve, but the Sages say, he can dissolve.
Halakhah
“‘I knew that there are vows,” etc. Rabbi Zeira said, the reason of Rabbi Meir: It is a subterfuge. He wants her to make vows so he can divorce her. That is not so, he could have divorced her on the first occasion.
Mishnah
8 If a person is by a vow prevented to benefit his son-in-law but wants to give money to his daughter, he says to her: These coins are given to you as a gift on condition that your husband shall have no claim to them, except what you trade for your needs.
Halakhah
“If a person is by a vow prevented to benefit his son-in-law,” etc. It was stated: “Neither do you.” Rabbi said, who stated “neither do you”? Rabbi Meir, for Rabbi Meir makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. Because he said “neither do you.” If he had not said “neither do you,” if the wife acquired, the husband would have acquired.
Mishnah
9 “The vow of a widow or a divorcee, anything she forbids to herself shall be confirmed.” How is that? If she said, I shall be a nazir after thirty days, even if she married within these thirty days he cannot dissolve. If she made the vow under her husband’s authority and he dissolved it, if she had said, I shall be a nazir after thirty days, even if she should become a widow or a divorcee within the next 30 days, it remains dissolved. If she made a vow, was on the same day divorced, and taken back, he cannot dissolve. This is the principle: He cannot dissolve for any one who was on her own for one moment.
Halakhah
“The vow of a widow or a divorcee,” etc. This refers to what Rabbi Ishmael says, the vow decides; Rabbi Akiva says, prohibition decides. If vow and prohibition came together? How is that? She said, I shall be a nazir in 30 days. Her husband heard it and did not dissolve. He divorced her and remarried her within the 30 days. Is that when vow and prohibition come together?
Mishnah
10 The vows of nine young women are confirmed: An adult who is an orphan, an adolescent who became an adult and is an orphan, an adolescent who did not become an adult but is an orphan. An adult whose father died, an adolescent who became an adult and her father died, an adolescent who did not become an adult and her father died. An adolescent whose father died and afterwards she became an adult, an adult whose father lives, an adolescent girl whose father lives. Rabbi Judah says, also if somebody marries off his underage daughter and she becomes widowed or divorced and returns to him, she still is an adolescent.
Halakhah
“The vows of nine young women are confirmed,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there are two. But why did we state “two”? To train the students. And according to Rabbi Judah, there are three.
Mishnah
11 ‘A qonam that I shall not take any benefit from my father, or your father, if I shall do anything for you.’ ‘A qonam that I shall not have any benefit from you if I shall do anything for my father, or for your father.’ These he can dissolve.
Halakhah
“‘A qonam that I shall not take any benefit from my father, or your father,” etc. It was stated: Rabbi Nathan says, he cannot dissolve, but the Sages say, he can dissolve. Why can he dissolve? The colleagues say, because of his affliction. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Hila say, because of her affliction.
Mishnah
12 Earlier they said, three categories of women have to be divorced and collect their ketubah: The one who says, I am impure for you, or Heaven is between you and me, or I am separated from the Jews. They changed to say that a woman should not be encouraged to want another man and cause trouble to her husband. If she says, I am impure for you, she should bring proof. Heaven is between you and me, they should try to mediate. I am separated from the Jews, he shall dissolve his part, she shall live with him and be separated from the Jews.
Halakhah
“Earlier they said,” etc. That is, if she cannot bring proof for her assertion, it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. Rabbi Hila said, would it not be reasonable that a fellow should be apprehensive, and if he was a priest that she should be forbidden to eat heave? There came a case before Rabbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, and he permitted her to eat heave. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, my father knew the first and the last case. Soldiers entered the town. A woman came and said, a soldier embraced me and ejaculated semen between my knees. He permitted her to eat heave. There came a case before Rabbi Isaac bar Tevele of a woman who said, my cowhand seduced me. He said to her, is the cowhand not forbidden? And he forbade her. Here, you say that he forbade her. There, you say that he permitted her. There, she came to forbid herself and he permitted her. But here, she came to permit herself and he forbade her.
“Heaven is between you and me”: as Heaven is far from earth, so this woman should be far from that man. “They should try to mediate.” Rav Huna said, they should make a dinner and they will get used to be with one another by the dinner.
It was stated: “I am jailed away from you, I am separated away from you.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked, why did one not state “taken away from”? Rabbi Yose said, that was stated at the end: “I am taken away from the Jews.”
If she was divorced, let her go and cling to the Arabs, for she loves them.
“If a woman made a vow to be a nazir; her husband heard and did not dissolve it: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say, he put his finger between her teeth, for if he wants to confirm, he can confirm. If he said, I cannot stand her being a nazir, he should divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon say, she put her finger between her teeth, for if he wants to confirm, he can confirm. If she said, I can stand it to be a nazir, he may divorce her without paying the ketubah.” Remove this, how can Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say so in the Mishnah? Even in the later Mishnah, why did he not dissolve? Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon follow the later Mishnah. But you might say, the earlier Mishnah. Why did she make the vow?
Intertextual Commentary on Jerusalem Nedarim
0 commentaries
No commentary on this book yet.