נדרים 10 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Abaye said: Simeon the Just, R. Simeon, and R. Eleazar hakappar, are all of the same opinion, viz., that a nazir is a sinner. Simeon the Just and R. Simeon, as we have stated. R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Berabbi, as it was taught: And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against a soul. Against which 'soul' then has he sinned? But it is because he afflicted himself through abstention from wine. Now, does not this afford an argument from the minor to the major? If one, who afflicted himself only in respect of wine, is called a sinner: how much more so one who ascetically refrains from everything. Hence, one who fasts is called a sinner. But this verse refers to an unclean nazir? — That is because he doubly sinned. MISHNAH. ONE WHO SAYS, 'KONAM,' 'KONAH,' OR 'KONAS,' THESE ARE THE SUBSTITUTES FOR KORBAN. 'HEREK,' 'HEREK,' [OR] 'HEREF,' THESE ARE SUBSTITUTES FOR HEREM. 'NAZIK,' 'NAZIAH,' 'PAZIAH,' THESE ARE SUBSTITUTES FOR NEZIROTH; 'SHEBUTHAH,' 'SHEKUKAH,' OR ONE WHO VOWS BY MOHI, THESE ARE SUBSTITUTES FOR SHEBU'AH. GEMARA. It was stated: Substitutes: R. Johanan said: They are foreign equivalents [of the Hebrew]; R. Simeon b. Lakish said: They are forms devised by the Sages for the purpose of making vows; (and thus it is written, in the month which he had devised of his own heart). And why did the Rabbis institute substitutes? — That one should not say korban. Then let him say, korban? — Lest he say korban la-adonai [a sacrifice to the Lord]. And why not say korban la-adonai? — Lest one say la-adonai without korban, and thus utter the Divine Name in vain. And it was taught: R. Simeon said:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ

^ᵃnote:[Or, Berebi, designation by which Bar Kappara is known to distinguish him from his father who bore the same name, v. Nazir, (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 1.]
^ᵇnote:How then can one deduce that a nazir in general is a sinner?
^ᶜnote:The verse shews that a double sin is referred to, because 'for that he sinned' alone would have sufficed; 'against a soul' is superfluous, and teaches that he is a sinner in two respects: (i) by becoming a nazir at all; (ii) by defiling his neziroth (Ran). — The whole passage shows the Jewish opposition to asceticism, for Judaism rejects the doctrine of the wickedness of this life and the inherent corruption of the body, which is the basis of asceticism. Whilst the community as a whole fasted in times of trouble (cf. Esth. IV, 16; Ta'an. 10a, 15a), and certain Rabbis too were addicted to it (e.g. R. Ze'ira, B.M. 85a), yet individual fasting was discouraged, as here; v. Maim. Yad, De'oth, III, 1; VI, 1; Lazarus, Ethics of Judaism, ¤¤ 246-256.
^ᵈnote:[Its derivation is probably from kenum, 'self', 'person', and then the object in an elliptical sentence, 'I pledge (myself) my person with So-and-so (that I will not do this or that)', v. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, p. 34. This is a substitute for korban vow, in which he declares 'this may be forbidden to me as is a sacrifice'. No satisfactory explanation has been given so far for the other terms, which seem to be corruptions of konam.]
^ᵉnote:Heb. for sacrifice.
^ᶠnote:Ban.
^ᵍnote:The vow of a nazir: 'Behold, I will be a nazir'. These words may be substituted for nazir.
^ʰnote:This is explained in the Gemara. [The Mishnayoth text reads 'BY MOTHA', an abbreviation of Momatha, the Aramaic equivalent of Shebu'ah.]
^ⁱnote:Heb. for oath.
^ʲnote:I Kings XII, 33, referring to the unauthorised festival instituted by Jeroboam in the eighth instead of the seventh month. [The Heb. for 'devised', [H], is the same as used by R. Johanan in his definition. The bracketed words appear to be a copyist's gloss that has crept into the text. They do not occur in MS.M.]
^ᵏnote:This machinery for vows, regulating the manner in which they were to be made, points to the practice as being very prevalent. V. Weiss, Dor, I, 85.

²Shall we say that this [conflict] is dependent on Tannaim? For it was taught: Beth Shammai maintain: Substitutes of substitutes are binding; whilst Beth Hillel Say: They are not. Surely, the ruling that secondary substitutes are valid is based on the view that substitutes are foreign equivalents; whilst he who says that they are invalid holds that they are forms devised by the Sages? — No. All agree that substitutes are foreign words; but Beth Shammai hold that Gentiles speak in these [terms] too, whilst Beth Hillel hold that they do not speak in these [terms]. Alternatively Beth Shammai hold: Secondary substitutes [are declared valid] as a precautionary measure on account of substitutes themselves; but Beth Hillel maintain: We do not enact a precautionary measure for secondary substitutes on account of the substitutes themselves. What forms do double modifications of vows take? — R. Joseph recited: Mekanamana, mekanehana, mekanesana. What are the secondary substitutes of herem? — Mafash'ah taught: harakim, harakim, harafim. Secondary substitutes of neziroth? — R. Joseph learnt: mehazakana, menazahana, mephana. The scholars inquired: What of mipahazna, mithhazana, mith'azana? Rabina asked R. Ashi: What of kinema: does it mean konam, or perhaps, kinemon besem [sweet cinnamon]? R. Aha, the son of R. Hiyya, asked R. Ashi: What of kinah: does it mean a fowl's sty, or konam? These remain questions. What are secondary substitutes of oaths? — Shebuel, shebuthiel, shekukeel. But shebuel may simply mean Shebhuel the son of Gershon? But say thus: Shebubiel, shebuthiel shekukeel. Samuel said: If one says ashbithah, he says nothing: ashkikah, he says nothing; karinsha, he says nothing. OR ONE WHO VOWS BY MOHI, THESE ARE SUBSTITUTES [FOR SHEBU'A]. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One who says 'by Mohi' [Moses] says nothing; 'by Momtha which Mohi said,' these are substitutes for an oath. MISHNAH. IF ONE SAYS [TO HIS NEIGHBOUR], 'THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE NOT HULLIN,' 'BE NOT KASHER,' 'BE NOT PURE,' 'BE CLEAN OR UNCLEAN,' 'BE NOTHAR,' OR PIGGUL, HE IS FORBIDDEN. AS THE LAMB,' AS THE TEMPLE SHEDS OF CATTLE OR WOOD,' 'AS THE WOOD' [ON THE ALTAR], AS THE FIRE [ON THE ALTAR],' 'AS THE ALTAR,' 'AS THE TEMPLE, AS JERUSALEM;' [OR] IF ONE VOWED BY REFERENCE TO THE ALTAR UTENSILS, THOUGH HE DID NOT MENTION KORBAN, IT IS AS THOUGH HE HAD VOWED BY KORBAN. R. JUDAH SAID: HE WHO SAYS JERUSALEM HAS SAID NOTHING. ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ˡnote:Lit., 'they are permitted'.
^ᵐnote:Hence, the first modifications are correct foreign words, the substitutes thereof are corrupt, but also used, and hence valid for oaths.
^ⁿnote:Hence secondary substitutes, not having been assigned by the Sages to that purpose, are invalid.
^ᵒnote:Sc. secondary substitutes; hence they are valid.
^ᵖnote:Which would otherwise be treated as invalid by the masses.
^ᵠnote:[Read Menazakna … mepazahna, each of which consists ofthe three consonantal letters of the substitutes with prefix and suffix; v. Strashun].
^ʳnote:[Strashun reads: Mepahazna, menahazna, menakazna, the last consonantal letters of the substitutes being transposed. This receives support from MS.M.]. Are they binding or not?
^ˢnote:Hence it is valid.
^ᵗnote:Ex. XXX, 23; i.e., it is not a vow-form at all.
^ᵘnote:I.e., the fem. of [H] (kin), a bird's nest.
^ᵛnote:In all these doubtful forms the question arises when they were actually used to express vows, the question being whether they imply vows or something else — notwithstanding the intention of their user.
^ʷnote:[H] 'What is the law' in cur. edd. is to be deleted; BaH.
^ˣnote:These forms are ineffective for expressing oaths.
^ʸnote:['By Moses', was one of the common forms of asseveration, cf. Bez. 38b; Shab. 101b. V. Chajes, Notes.]
^ᶻnote:By the oath which Moses uttered. [The allusion is to Ex. II, 21, where [H] is rendered, 'Moses swore'. (Ran).]
^ᵃᵃnote:The Hebrew is la-hullin, here regarded as meaning: not hullin. V. also p. 28, n. 8.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., 'fit', ritually permitted for consumption.
^ᵃᵈnote:So cur. edd. Asheri explains: be as sacrifices, to which the laws of cleanliness and uncleanness apply — i.e., forbidden. Rashi's text reads simply: be not clean, be unclean, etc.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., 'left over'. The flesh of an offering which remains over after the period in which it must be eaten, v. Ex. XXIX, 34, and Lev., VII, 17.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., 'abomination'. The flesh of an animal sacrificed with the deliberate intention of eating it after the permitted period; it is then forbidden even within the period, v. Lev. VII, 18.
^ᵃᵍnote:To eat aught of his neighbour.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., the lamb of the daily sacrifice.
^ᵃⁱnote:The alternative is implied by the use of the plural in the Mishnah (Tosaf.).
^ᵃʲnote:[So T.J. Others: Fire-offerings, cf. Lev. XXI. 6. (V. Asheri and Tosaf.)]
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., your food be as the altar utensils unto me, hence, forbidden.
^ᵃˡnote:V. Mishnah 20a.
^ᵃᵐnote:Without as i.e., 'Your food be Jerusalem to me'.