Chagigah

it was against her will,1 in the other it was with her consent. Or you may say: in both cases it was against her will but there is no contradiction: the one case concerns a priest's wife2 and the other an Israelite's wife. Neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in,3 Rab said: As soon as man goes forth from Halachic4 to Scripture study he no longer has peace.5 And Samuel said: It means one who leaves Talmud for Mishnah.6 And R. Johanan said: Even [if he goes] from Talmud to Talmud.7 MISHNAH. [THE LAWS CONCERNING] THE DISSOLUTION OF VOWS8 HOVER IN THE AIR AND HAVE NOUGHT TO REST ON.9 THE LAWS CONCERNING THE SABBATH, FESTAL-OFFERINGS, ACTS OF TRESPASS10 ARE AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR, FOR THEY HAVE SCANT SCRIPTURAL BASIS BUT MANY LAWS. [THE LAWS CONCERNING] CIVIL CASES AND [TEMPLE] SERVICES,11 LEVITICAL CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, AND THE FORBIDDEN RELATIONS12 HAVE WHAT TO REST ON,13 AND IT IS THEY THAT ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH. GEMARA. It is taught: R. Eliezer said: They14 have something to rest on, for it is said: When one shall clearly utter15 [a vow], when one shall clearly utter [a vow]:15 one [intimates] an utterance to bind, and the other an utterance to dissolve. R. Joshua said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: Wherefore I swore in My wrath.16 [It means,] I swore in My wrath,17 but I retracted.18 R. Isaac said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: Whosoever is of a willing heart.19 Hanania, son of the brother of R. Joshua, said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: I have sworn, and I have confirmed it, to observe Thy righteous ordinances.20 Rab Judah said that Samuel said: Had I been there I should have said to them: My [Scriptural proof] is better than yours, for it is said: He shall not break his word.21 ‘He’ may not break it, but others may dissolve it for him. Raba said: To all these [proofs] objection can be made except to that of Samuel, against which no objection can be raised. For against R. Eliezer [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse is to be explained] according to R. Judah , who said it in the name of R. Tarfon. For it is taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Tarfon: Indeed, neither of them becomes a Nazirite, because Naziriteship can be assumed only by clear utterance.22 Against R. Joshua [it may be objected]: Perhaps this is the meaning of the verse: I swore in My wrath and did not retract’. Against R. Isaac [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse comes to] exclude the view of Samuel. For Samuel said: Though he determined in his heart,23 he must still utter it with his lips.24 And [the verse]25 teaches us that even though he did not utter it with his lips [it is binding]. Against Hanania, the son of the brother of R. Joshua [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse is to be explained] according to R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab. For R. Giddal said that Rab said: Whence [is it to be deduced] that one may take an oath to fulfil a precept?26 For it is said: ‘I have sworn, and I have confirmed it, to observe Thy righteous ordinances’.27 But against Samuel's proof no objection can be raised. Raba, and some say, R. Nahman b. Isaac, said: This is the meaning of the popular saying: Better one grain of pungent pepper than a basketful of pumpkins.28 THE LAWS CONCERNING THE SABBATH. But they are written [in Scripture]!29 — No, it is necessary [to state this] for the teaching of R. Abba. For R. Abba said: He who digs a hole on the Sabbath and requires it only for the sake of its earth is not liable for it.30 According to which authority [will this be]? According to R. Simeon, who said: one is not liable for work [performed on the Sabbath] which is not required for itself.31 — You may even say that it is according to R. Judah:32 there33 one is improving.34 here35 one is spoiling.36 But why does it say: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR?37 and the lines in Longfellow's ‘Golden Legend’ beginning: The Kabbala and Talmud lore, etc. (quoted in Streane's Chagigah). cf. Sanh. 24a and B.M. 85b. But according to Tosaf., from either to the other before the first is properly understood. circumstances that now cause him to regret the vow; thus a vyrj j,p (‘a way of retraction’) is found whereby the vow can be annulled. V. Ned. 9a, 10b. inference is drawn from the anthropomorphism for ill-considered human vows. reference to Sanh. 110b where the view is expressed that they have a share in the world to come, i.e., they were not permitted to enter Canaan, their earthly possession, but it was granted them to enter their Heavenly heritage. 26b). that neither loser nor winner is a Nazir, because Naziriteship must be explicitly vowed and cannot be assumed conditionally. This he deduces from one of the two verses cited by R. Eliezer (cf. Nazir 32b Mishnah and 34a top). the Sabbath (v. Shab. 93a).