Mishnah.org Logo

Mishnayos Nedarim Perek 2 Mishnah 4

נדרים פרק ב׳ משנה ד׳

4

Unspecified vows are treated stringently, but their specification, if specification is necessary, is treated leniently. How so? If one said: This item is prohibited to me like salted meat, or: This item is prohibited to me like the wine used for libations, if he vowed in reference to meat or libations of a peace-offering, i.e., if he claimed that his intention was that the item will be forbidden to him like the salted meat of an offering, or like wine that is used for libations on the altar, it is forbidden, as he associated the item of the vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., the offering. If he claims that he vowed in reference to meat or libations of idol worship, i.e., that the item will be like the salted meat of an offering for an idol, or like wine that is used for libations as idol worship, it is permitted, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by the Torah. By enabling the one who took the vow to later clarify his intent, the vow is treated leniently. And if the vow was without specification, i.e., the one who took the vow did not specify whether his intention was to associate the item with an offering for Heaven or to associate the item with idol worship, it is forbidden. Similarly, if one said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to Heaven, which is a form of consecration, it is forbidden. And if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to priests, whereby one pledges his asset as a gift to priests, it is permitted, as this type of gift is not forbidden at all. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden. Likewise, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like tithes, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the animal tithe, it is forbidden, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it will be like the tithe of the granary, i.e., grain that is given to the Levites and has no sanctity, it is permitted. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden. Similarly, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like teruma, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber [terumat halishka], which is a tax for the communal offerings, it is forbidden, his vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it would be like teruma of the granary that is given to the priests, it is permitted, as teruma is not an item forbidden by a vow. And if the vow was taken without specification, it is forbidden. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. However, in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the chamber. When they say teruma they are referring to the teruma allotted to the priests, which is familiar to them. Conversely, unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests, so when they say dedication they are referring to dedication to Heaven.

סְתָם נְדָרִים לְהַחְמִיר, וּפֵרוּשָׁם לְהָקֵל. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּבָשָׂר מָלִיחַ, כְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ, אִם שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם נָדַר, אָסוּר. אִם שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָדַר, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּחֵרֶם, אִם כְּחֵרֶם שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם, אָסוּר. וְאִם כְּחֵרֶם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּמַעֲשֵׂר, אִם כְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נָדַר, אָסוּר. וְאִם שֶׁל גֹּרֶן, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כִּתְרוּמָה, אִם כִּתְרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה נָדַר, אָסוּר. וְאִם שֶׁל גֹּרֶן, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, סְתָם תְּרוּמָה בִּיהוּדָה אֲסוּרָה, בַּגָּלִיל מֻתֶּרֶת, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. סְתָם חֲרָמִים, בִּיהוּדָה מֻתָּרִין, וּבַגָּלִיל אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת חֶרְמֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים:

ד׳
Bartenura

ופירושם להקל – even though that when he explained his words, we follow after his explanation, for when it is undefined and he didn’t explain, we go to the most stringent [opinion], for a person who makes an undefined vow, his intention is to forbid.

כבשר מליח – which is a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 2:13): “[You shall season your every offering of grain with salt; you shall not omit from your grain offering the salt of your covenant with God;] with all your offerings you must offer salt.”

כחרם של כהנים מותר (assigned to the private use of priests) – even though that which belongs to the priests, people commit religious sacrilege with them until they come into the hands of the Kohanim, and they are a thing that is vowed, nevertheless, undefined property of the priests implies that they have already come into the hand of a Kohen (see also Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 6)..

אם כמעשר בהמה אסור – for this is something that was vowed, that one must sanctify it, but the tithe of cattle does not prohibit the stable/shed like the tithing of grain prohibits the granary/threshing floor.

שאין אנשי גליל מכירין תרומת הלשכה – becase they were far from Jerusalem.

שין אנשי גליל מכירין חרמי כהנים – for everything that they would dedicate for priestly use, they would set aside for the repair of the Temple. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

ופירושם להקל. אע״ג דכשפירש דבריו אזלינן בתר פירושו, כי סתם ולא פירש אזלינן להחמיר, דסתם נודר דעתו לאסור:

כבשר מליח. היינו קרבן, דכתיב (ויקרא ב׳:י״ג) על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח:

כחרם של כהנים מותר. אע״ג דחרמי כהנים מועלים בהם עד שיבואו לידי כהנים והוי דבר הנדור, מ״מ סתם חרמי כהנים משמע שכבר באו ליד כהן:

אם כמעשר בהמה אסור. דהוי דבר הנדור, שצריך להקדישו, ואין מעשר בהמה אוסר הדיר כמו שמעשר דגן אוסר הגורן:

שאין אנשי גליל מכירין תרומת הלשכה. לפי שהיו רחוקים מירושלים:

שאין אנשי גליל מכירין חרמי כהנים. וכל מה שהיו מחרימין היו מפרישין לבדק הבית. והלכה כרבי יהודה: