Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 18a

R. Hamnuna objected: To vow a vow of a Nazirite, declaring themselves it Nazirite [into the Lord]:²  teaches hence [we learn] that neziruth falls upon neziruth.³  For I would think, does it [the reverse] not follow a fortiori: If an oath, which is [more] stringent, is not binding upon another oath; how much more so neziruth, which is less rigorous!⁴  Therefore it is stated, 'a nazirite, declaring himself a nazirite to the Lord'; from which [we learnt] that neziroth falls upon neziroth. Now how is this? Shall we say, that one said, 'Behold, I will be a nazir to-day; Behold, I will be a nazir to-morrow, — is a verse necessary? But presumably it applies to one who said, 'Behold, I will be a nazir to day, Behold, I will be a nazir to-day;' and it is stated that the second [vow of] neziruth is binding in addition to the first?⁵  — No. This refers to one who undertook two [periods of] neziruth simultaneously.

Now, wherein is an oath more rigorous than a vow? Shall we say in so far that it is applicable even to the abstract:⁶  but a vow too is more stringent, since it is as valid in respect to a precept as in respect to anything optional?⁷  — But it is because it is written in reference thereto, he shall not be held guiltless [that taketh my name in vain].⁸

BUT IF HE SAYS, 'I SWEAR THAT I WILL NOT EAT [THIS LOAF],' 'I SWEAR THAT I WILL NOT EAT [THIS LOAF],' AND THEN EATS IT, HE IS LIABLE [TO PUNISHMENT] FOR ONE [OATH] ONLY. Raba said: If he was absolved of the first, the second becomes binding. How is this deduced? Since it is not stated, It is only one [oath], but, HE IS LIABLE [TO PUNISHMENT] FOR ONE [OATH] ONLY: thus, there is no room for it;⁹  but if the first is revoked, the second becomes binding. A different version [of Raba's dictum] is this: There is no penalty [for the second], yet it is an oath. For what purpose is it so?¹⁰  — For Raba's dictum. For Raba said: If he was absolved of the first, the second takes its place. Shall we say that the following supports him: If one made two vows of neziruth, observed the first, set aside a sacrifice, and was then absolved thereof, the second [vow] is fulfilled in [the observance of] the first?¹¹  — [No.] This refers e.g., to one who vowed two periods of neziruth simultaneously.¹²

1. Declaring. 'I vow two periods of neziroth'.
2. Num. VI, 2.
3. I.e., a vow of neziruth is binding upon one who is already a nazir, translating thus: … of a nazirite, when he is already a nazirite to the Lord.
4. The greater stringency of oaths is explained below. To shew that the second is binding-surely it is obvious!
5. This contradicts R. Huna.
6. V. supra 13b, a.l.
7. V. Mishnah on 16a.
8. Ex. XX, 7.
9. I.e., for the second to impose a penalty, since that is incurred on account of the first.
10. Since he is not punished for violating the second, whilst he is already bound by the first, what does it matter whether we regard the second as an oath or not?
11. This proves that the second is actually valid.
12. Hence the second is binding; but if one declares, 'I swear not to eat this loaf, I swear not to eat this loaf', it may be that his second statement has no validity at all. For further notes on this passage v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 150ff.

MISHNAH. UNSPECIFIED VOWS ARE INTERPRETED STRICTLY, BUT IF SPECIFIED,¹  LENIENTLY. E.G., IF ONE VOWS, BEHOLD! THIS BE TO ME AS SALTED MEAT,' OR, 'AS WINE OF LIBATION': NOW, IF HE VOWED BY ALLUSION TO A PEACEOFFERING,²  HE IS FORBIDDEN;³  IF BY AN IDOLATROUS SACRIFICE, HE IS PERMITTED, BUT IF IT WAS UNSPECIFIED, HE IS FORBIDDEN. [IF ONE DECLARES], 'BEHOLD! THIS BE TO ME AS HEREM': IF AS A HEREM TO THE LORD,⁴  HE IS FORBIDDEN; IF AS A HEREM TO THE PRIESTS, HE IS PERMITTED.⁵  IF IT IS UNSPECIFIED, HE IS FORBIDDEN. 'BEHOLD! THIS BE TO ME AS TITHE': IF HE VOWED, AS CATTLE TITHES, HE IS FORBIDDEN; IF AS CORN TITHES, HE IS PERMITTED; IF UNSPECIFIED, HE IS FORBIDDEN.⁶  'BEHOLD! THIS BE TO ME AS TERUMAH';⁷  IF HE VOWED, AS THE TERUMAH OF THE TEMPLE-CHAMBER,⁸  HE IS FORBIDDEN; IF AS THE TERUMAH OF THE THRESHING-FLOOR [I.E., OF CORN]. HE IS PERMITTED;⁹  IF UNSPECIFIED, HE IS FORBIDDEN: THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR. R. JUDAH SAID; AN UNSPECIFIED REFERENCE TO TERUMAH IN JUDEA¹⁰  IS BINDING, BUT NOT IN GALILEE, BECAUSE THE GALILEANS ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE TERUMAH OF THE TEMPLE-CHAMBER.¹¹  UNQUALIFIED ALLUSIONS TO HARAMIM IN JUDEA ARE NOT BINDING. BUT IN GALILEE THEY ARE, BECAUSE THE GALILEANS ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH PRIESTLY HARAMIM.¹²

GEMARA. But we learnt: A doubt in neziruth is treated leniently?¹³  — R. Zera answered; There is no difficulty; This [our Mishnah] agrees with the Rabbis; the other, with R. Eliezer. For it was taught: If one consecrates [all] his beasts and his cattle,¹⁴  the koy¹⁵  is included. R. Eliezer said: He has not consecrated the koy.¹⁶  He who maintains that one permits doubt to extend to his chattels,¹⁷  maintains likewise that he permits it to extend to himself too.¹⁸  But he who holds that one does not permit doubt to extend to his chattels, will maintain this all the more of one's own person.

1. After the vow is made in general terms (Ran).
2. [Var. lec. 'TO HEAVEN', v. next note.]
3. To benefit from the object of his vow — i.e., his vow is valid.
4. Lit., 'of Heaven'. For 'Heaven' as a synonym of god cf. I Macc. III, 18 (though some ancient authorities read there 'the God of heaven'); Matt. XXI. 25; v. A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic doctrine of God, I, pp. 14 and 105-106.
5. That which was devoted (herem) to the Lord, i.e., to be utilized in or sold for Temple purposes, could not be redeemed, and hence was definitely forbidden for secular use (Lev. XXVII, 28); but if devoted to the priests. it might be so used once they had taken possession of it (Num. XVIII, 14); it is therefore regarded as permitted, and a reference to it in a vow has no validity.
6. The cattle tithe had to be formally designated, hence it is regarded as humanly forbidden, and a reference to it is valid; but the corn tithe belonged automatically to the Levite, even if not formally designated; therefore it is regarded as Divinely forbidden; v. supra 13b.
7. V. Glos.
8. For congregational sacrifices; v. Shek. III. 2; IV. 1.
9. V. p. 50. n. 8. The terumah of the Temple fund had to be formally designated, but that of corn was regarded as Divinely and automatically forbidden.
10. I.e., the southern portion of Palestine.
11. The Galileans, living at some distance from the Temple, did not think much about the Temple fund, consequently, when they spoke of terumah without any further qualification, they meant terumah if corn.
12. As the priests lived mainly in Judea, priestly haramim were unusual in Galilee; hence a Divine Herem must have been meant.
13. Toho. IV, 12. E.g., if one vows, 'Behold! I will be a nazir if the man who is just passing is one', and that person disappeared before it could be ascertained whether he was or not, the vow is not binding. This contradicts the Mishnah that an unspecified vow, the meaning of which is doubtful, is rigorously interpreted.
14. So Rashi and Asheri. Ran: his beasts or his cattle; Tosaf. maintains that it refers to both cases The term 'cattle' (behemah) refers to domesticated animals; 'beasts' (hayyah) to wild or semi-wild animals.
15. Probably a kind of bearded deer or antelope. It is doubtful whether this belongs to the genus of cattle or of beasts. This view is that the koy must be included in the one or the other. Or, according to the interpretation of the Ran, we are strict because of our doubt.
16. Because his vow embraced animals of certain, but not of uncertain genus.
17. I.e., in consecrating his cattle or his beasts, he meant it to include the lot, though aware that it is of doubtful genus.
18. Thus, having subjected himself to an unspecified vow, his intention is that the most rigorous interpretation of his words shall apply.