7. If a man went beyond the sea and the path to his field was lost,6 Admon says: He may go to it by the shortest way. But the Sages say: He must buy another path even if it costs a hundred minus, or fly through the air.
8. If a man brought forth a bond of indebtedness against his fellow and his fellow brought forth [a deed of sale7 to prove] that the other had sold him a field, Admon says: He can say, ‘Had I been thy debtor thou couldst have received thy due when thou soldest me the field’. But the Sages say: The first man was prudent-minded in that he sold him the field, since he can take it in pledge.
9. If two men brought forth bonds of indebtedness the one against the other, Admon says: [The one8 can say], ‘Had I been thy debtor how earnest thou to borrow from me?’ But the Sages say: Each exacts payment of his bond.
10. Three countries [are to be distinguished] in what concerns marriage: Judea, beyond Jordan and Galilee. None may take forth [his wife against her will] from one town to another or from one city to another [in another country]; but within the same country he may take her forth with him from one town to another or from one city to another [even against her will], but not from a town to a city, and not from a city to a town. He may take her forth from a bad dwelling to a good one, but not from a good dwelling to a bad one. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Nor even from a bad dwell¬ ing to a good one, since the good one puts her to the proof.9 1 r. All may be compelled to go up to the Land of Israel but none may be compelled to leave it. All may be compelled to go up to Jerusalem but none maybe compelled to leave it, whether they be men or women.10 If a man married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in the Land of Israel, he must pay her [her Ketubah ] in the coinage of the Land of Israel. If he married a woman in the Land of Israel and divorced her in Cappadocia, he must pay her in the coinage of the Land of Israel. If he married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in the Land of Israel, he must pay her in 1 i.e. became bankrupt.
2 Urging to the new owner that the seller had stolen it from him, the complainant.
2 ‘I signed it on the assumption that it would be easier to recover my property from the new owner than from the fraudulent seller’.
* Who reclaims his field from a fraudulent possessor.
5 i.e. he signed a deed of sale in which the land transferred was defined as bounded by a field described as the property of the fraudulent owner, though it was in reality his own.
4 And it is not known which of the adjoining owners had annexed it within the area of his own field. 2 Dated later than the bond. 8 Whose bond was dated the later.
* Rashi: ‘Puts the body to the proof, causes illness’. 10 Variant: ‘or slaves’.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM the coinage of the Land of Israel. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: He may pay her in the coinage of Cappadocia. If he married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia he must pay her in the coinage of Cappadocia.
NEDARIM* (‘VOWS') 1. 1. Any substitute for [the form of words used to utter] a vow, ban, oath, or Nazirite-vow is as binding as the vow, ban, oath, or Nazirite-vow itself.2 If a man said to his fellow, ‘Be it forbidden me by vow’, [or] ‘May I be kept apart from thee’, [or] ‘May I be removed far from thee if I eat aught of thine’,3 [or] ‘if I taste aught of thine!’ — then it is forbidden to him. [If he said,] ‘May I be to thee as one cast out’, R. Akiba was here fain to apply the more stringent ruling.4 [If he said,] ‘As the vows of the ungodly..,’,s his vow is binding as touching the Nazirite-vow, the offering, and the oath. [If he said,] ‘As the vows of the pious...’, he has said naught; [but if he said,] ‘As their freewill-offerings.. his vow is binding as touch¬ ing the Nazirite-vow and the offering.
2. If a man said to his fellow, Konam or Konah or Konas, these are sub¬ stitutes for Korban, an Offering.6 [If he said,] Herek or Herekh or Here f, these are substitutes for Herem, a devoted thing.7 [If he said,] Nazik or Naziah or Paziah, these are substitutes for the Nazirite-vow.8 [If he said,] Shebutah or Shekukah, or if he vowed with the word Mota 0 these are sub¬ stitutes for Shebuah, an oath.
3. If he said, ‘May what I eat of thine be “not hullin''10 [or] “not valid as food”, [or] “not clean”, [or] “unclean”, [or] “Remnant and Refuse”,’11 it is forbidden to him. [If he said, ‘May it be to me] “as the lamb”,12 [or] “as the [Temple-]sheds”,13 [or] “as the wood [for burning on the Altar]”, [or] “as the Fire-offerings”,14 [or] “as the Altar”, [or] “as Jerusalem” ’; or if he vowed by any of the utensils15 of the Altar, although he did not utter [the word] Korban, an offering, it is a vow as binding as if he had uttered the word Korban. R. Judah says: If he said, [‘May it be] Jerusalem!’16 he has said naught.
4. If a man said, ‘May what I eat of thine be a Whole-offering’, or 1 The vow is distinct front the oath, in that a vow forbids a certain thing to be used (‘Let such-a-thing be forbidden to me, or to you! ’), while an oath forbids the swearer to do a certain thing although it is not a thing forbidden in itself (‘I swear that 1 will not eat such- a-thing!’). Vows are of two kinds: vows of dedication, which render a thing forbidden in future for common use; and vows of abstention, which render forbidden things or acts ordinarily permissible.
1 According to Gem. 2b there should follow here: 'And all “handles” of vows (i.e. abbreviations of vows) are as binding as the vows themselves’. The formulae in the rest of this paragraph are ‘handles’ and not substituted words.
J Variant: ‘for I will eat naught of thine'.
4 He doubted whether it was a binding vow, but was impelled to rule that it deprived a man of the benefit of his fellow.
s The vow, of which this is the 'handle', is (according to Gem. pa) that of a man with a loaf of bread before him, and, a Nazirite passing by, he intends to say, ‘May it (the loaf) be to me as the vows of the ungodly (i.e. of this Nazirite) if I eat of it!’ If then he eats the loaf he must fulfil the thirty days of the Nazirite-vow (see Naz. i’), he is guilty of Sacrilege (Lev. 5U) and must make the prescribed offering, and he is also guilty of ‘a rash oath’ (Shebu. 37) and must offer (Lev. 54"1*) a ‘rising and falling’ offering (i.e. one that varies according to his means).
6 A thing as forbidden to him for common use as a Temple offering.
7 ‘Most holy to the Lord’; Lev. 27“; Arak. 8‘. 8 See Naz. ilfr.
9 For Momatha, the Aramaic equivalent of Shebuah, an oath.
n See Zeb. 2*; 3*. The Daily Whole-offering, Num. 28'"*.
,J Cf. Midd. 26. 14 Lev. 2t‘. >s F.x. 27s. 16 Without the particle of comparison.
‘a Meal-offering’, or ‘a Sin-offering’, or ‘a Thank-offering’, or ‘a Peace¬ offering’, it is forbidden to him. But R. Judah permits it. If a man said, ‘May what I eat of thine be the Korban', or ‘as a Korban ’, or 'a Korban', it is forbidden to him. [If he said,] ‘For1 Korban'. I will not eat of thine", R. Meir declares it forbidden. If a man said to his fellow, ‘May my mouth that speaks with thee’ or ‘my hand that works with thee’ or ‘my foot that walks with thee, be Konam’, [such an act] is forbidden to him.
2. 1. These [vows] are not binding: ‘May what I eat of thine be hullin',2 [or] ‘as swine’s flesh’,3 [or] ‘as an idol’,4 [or] ‘as hides pierced at the heart’, s [or] ‘as carrion’,6 [or] ‘as flesh tom of beasts’,7 [or] ‘as forbidden beasts’,8 [or] ‘as creeping things’,9 [or] ‘as Aaron’s Dough-offering10 or as his Heave-offering’;n such a vow is not binding. If he said to his wife, ‘Be thou to me as my mother!’ they open for him a door [to repentance] from another side,12 that he behave not lightly in such a matter. [If he said,] lKonam\ if I sleep!’ [or] ‘if I speak!’ [or] ‘if I walk!’, or if he said to his wife, 'Konam'. if I have intercourse with thee!’ to such applies [the law]. He shall not profane his word.'3 [But if he said,] ‘I swear on oath that I will not sleep!' [or] ‘that I will not speak!’ [or] ‘that I will not walk!’ he is thereby bound.14 2. [if he said,] 'Korban'. if I eat of thine’, or ‘ Korban! if I eat not of thine’, or ‘No Korban! if I eat of thine’, he is not thereby bound. [But if he said,] ‘By my oath! I will not eat of thine’, or ‘By my oath! if I eat of thine’, ‘By no oath! I will not eat of thine’, he is thereby bound. Herein greater stringency applies to oaths than to vows. But greater stringency may apply to vows to than oaths. Thus if he said, 'Konam be the SukkahXi I build!’ [or] ‘the Lulab'6 I carry!’ [or] ‘the phylacteries17 I put on!’ with vows this is binding, but with oaths it is not binding, since none may swear on oath to transgress religious duties.
3. There may be a vow within a vow but not an oath within an oath. Thus if a man said, ‘May I be a Nazirite if I eat! may I be a Nazirite if I eat!’ and he ate, he must fulfil each one of the two vows. [But if he had said,] ‘By my oath I will not eat! by my oath I will not eat!’ and he ate, he is culpable on one count only.
4. To vows not expressly defined the more stringent ruling applies, but to vows expressly defined the more lenient ruling applies. Thus [if a man said,] ‘May it be to me as salted flesh!’ [or] ‘as wine of the Drink-offering!’ and his vow was of the things offered to Heaven,18 it is binding; and if his vow was of the things offered to idols it is not binding; but if neither was expressly defined, it is binding. [If he said,] ‘May it be to me as a devoted thing!’ and meant ‘as a thing devoted to Heaven’,19 it is binding; and if he meant ‘as a thing devoted to the priests’, it is not binding; but if neither was expressly defined, it is binding. [If he said,] ‘May it be to me as Tithe!'
• Some texts read 'not’ instead of ‘for’. See below, a*. 2 See above, p. 264, n. 10.
II Num. 18*. All these objects are already forbidden by the Law, and it is not within a man's choice to abstain from them or not.
tz i.e. he may not have his vow revoked because of his regret at making it, but another cause must be forthcoming, justifying its revocation by a Sage; e.g. in this case the honour due to his mother. See below, 91. u Num. 30*. See Shebu. 3*.
14 If the oath was for a defined and possible duration. Otherwise it is a ‘vain oath’, and Shebu. 3’ applies. ** App. I. 42. 14 App. I. 20. 17 See p. 104, n. 16.
18 i.e. offered in the Temple; Lev. 2U; Num. 15*. '* Lev. 27**.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM and meant ‘as Tithe of Cattle’,1 the vow is binding, and if he meant ‘as Tithe of the threshing-floor’,2 it is not binding; but if neither was expressly defined, it is binding. [If he said,] ‘May it be to me as T erumah! ’ and meant ‘as the Terumah of the Temple-chamber’,3 it is binding; and if he meant ‘as that of the threshing-floor’, it is not binding; but if neither was ex¬ pressly defined, it is binding. So R. Meir. But R. Judah says: If the vow was of undefined Terumah, in Judea the vow is binding; but in Galilee it is not binding, since the men of Galilee know' naught of the Terumah of the Temple-chamber. [And if the vow was of] undefined devoted things, in Judea it is not binding, but in Galilee it is binding, since the people of Galilee know naught of things devoted to [the use of] the priests.
5. If a man vowed and used the word herem,4 but said, ‘In my vow I meant only a herem (net) of the sea’, or if he vowed and used the word Korban, but said, ‘In my vow I meant only the Korbans (gifts) of kings’; or if he vowed, ‘May my etzem% be Korban'.’ but said, ‘In my vow I meant only the etzem (bone) which I laid before me to vow by it’; or ‘Konam be any benefit I have of my wife!’ but said, ‘I vowed only [to abstain] from my first wife whom I divorced’ — touching all such vows they need not seek [release from the Sages]; but if they seek it they should punish them and apply the more stringent ruling. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: They open for them a door [to repentance] from another side, and instruct them so that they shall not behave themselves lightly in what concerns vows.
3. 1. Four kinds of vow the Sages have declared not to be binding: vows of incitement, vows of exaggeration, vows made in error, and vows [that cannot be fulfilled by reason] of constraint. Which are accounted ‘vows of incitement’? If, to wit,a man would sell a thing and said, 'Konam'.6 if I take of thee less than a selal’7 and the other said, ‘ Konam'. if I give thee more than a shekel!’7 and both agree on three denars.7 R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: Also [as] when a man would put his fellow under a vow that he will eat with him. A man may say, ‘Let no vow that I vow hereafter be bind¬ ing’, provided that he is mindful of this in the moment of his vow.
2. [Which are accounted] ‘vows of exaggeration’? If, to wit, a man said, 'Konam'. if I saw not in this road as many as came up out of Egypt!’ [or] ‘if I saw not a serpent as big as the beam of an olive-press!’ [Which are accounted] ‘vows made in error’? If, [to wit, a man said, 'Konam'] if I have eaten or if I have drunken!’ and he remembered that he had eaten or drunken; [or if he said, ‘ Konaml ] if I eat or if I drink!’ and he forgot and ate and drank; [or if he said,] ‘ Konam be any benefit my wife has of me, for she has stolen my purse!’ or, ‘for she has beaten my son!’ and it became known that she had not beaten him, or that she had not stolen it. If a man saw others eating [his] figs and said, ‘May they be Korban to you!’ and they were found to be his father and brothers and others with them, the School of Shammai say: For them the vow is not binding, but for the others with them it is binding. And the School of Hillel say: The vow is binding for neither of them.8 3. [Which are accounted] ‘vows [that cannot be fulfilled by reason] of 5 May have the sense, 'May I myself be as forbidden to thee as Korban!’
6 i.e, ‘let such or such a thing be Korban, if...’ 1 App. II, A.
3 On the principle that a vow which is invalid in part is wholly invalid. See below, 9*.
constraint’? if, to wit, his fellow made him vow to come and eat with him and he fell sick, or his son fell sick, or a river-flood hindered him, such would be a vow [that cannot be fulfilled by reason] of constraint.
4. Men may vow to murderers, robbers, or tax-gatherers that what they have is Heave-offering even though it is not Heave-offering; or that they belong to the king’s household even though they do not belong to the king’s household. The School of Shammai say: They may so vow in any form of words save in the form of an oath. And the School of Hillel say: Even in the form of an oath. The School of Shammai say: A man should not be first with a vow [but he should vow only under constraint]. And the School of Hillel say: He may even be first with a vow. The School of Shammai say: Only in a matter over which a vow is imposed. And the School of Hillel say: Even in a matter over which no vow is imposed. Thus, if they had said to him, ‘Say, Konambt any benefit my wife has of me!’ and he said, ‘Konam be any benefit my wife and my children have of me!’ the School of Shammai say: His wife is permitted to him and his children are forbidden. And the School of Hillel say: Both are forbidden.
5. [If a man said,] ‘Let these plants be Korban if they are not broken!’ [or] ‘Let this cloak be Korban if it does not get burnt!’ he may redeem them.1 [But if he said,] ‘Let these plants be Korban so long as they are not broken!’ [or] ‘Let this cloak be Korban so long as it is not burnt!* he may not redeem them.
6. If a man vowed to have no benefit ‘from any sea-farers’, he is per¬ mitted to have benefit from land-dwellers; but if ‘from any land-dwellers’, he is forbidden to have benefit from sea-farers, since ‘sea-farers’ are in¬ cluded in the term ‘land-dwellers’. [By ‘sea-farers’ is meant] not such as go only from Acre to Jaffa, but such as sail afar off.
7. If a man vowed to have no benefit ‘from them that see the sun’, he is forbidden to have benefit from blind folk, since the words mean only ‘any that the sun sees’.
8. If a man vowed to have no benefit from ‘the black-haired’, he is forbidden to have benefit from the bald and the grey-haired, but not from women and children, since only men are called ‘the black-haired’.
9. If a man vowed to have no benefit from ‘creatures that are born’ ( yiUodim ), he is not forbidden to have benefit from ‘creatures that may be born’ ( noladim ); but if [he vowed to have no benefit] from ‘creatures that may be born’ {noladim), he2 is forbidden [to have benefit] from ‘creatures that are born’ ( yiUodim ).3 R. Meir says that he is not forbidden [to have benefit] from ‘creatures that are bom’ {yiUodim)] and the Sages say: This word {yillodim) means only creatures that bring forth [living young].
xo. If a man vowed [to have no benefit] from ‘them that keep Sabbath’, he is forbidden to have benefit from Israelites and from Samaritans; if from ‘them that eat garlic’, he is forbidden to have benefit from Israelites and from Samaritans;4 but if ‘from them that go up to Jerusalem’, he is forbidden [to have benefit] from Israelites, but not from Samaritans.
11. [If he said], ‘ Konam\ if I have any benefit from the children of 1 Lev. 271S. * Some texts omit ‘he is forbidden...(yillodim)’.
3 This distinction between yiUodim and noladim, though apparently recognized in the Hebrew of Mishnaic times, is not apparent in biblical Hebrew; thus yiUodim is used (Josh. s‘) of those already bom and (Ex. x ■*) of those not yet born, and noladim is used also of those already bom (Gen. 48*) and of those yet to be born (1 Kings 13’).
♦ Some texts read: ‘but not Samaritans’.
268 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM Noah!’ he is permitted [to have benefit] from Israelites, but not from other nations; [but if he said, ‘ Konam!] if I have any benefit from the seed of Abraham!’ he is forbidden to have benefit from Israelites but not from other nations. [If he said, ' Konam\] if I have any benefit from Israelites’, he must buy things for more than their worth and sell them for less; [and if he said, ‘ Konaml ] if Israelites have any benefit from me’, he must buy things for less than their worth and sell them for more, if others have regard to his vow. [If he said, k Konaml] if I have any benefit from them or they from me’, he may have benefit from other nations. [If he said,] ‘Konaml if I have any benefit from the uncircumcised’, he is permitted to have benefit from the uncircumcised of Israel, but not from the circum¬ cised of other nations. [If he said,] ‘Konaml If I have any benefit from the the circumcised!’ he is forbidden to have benefit [even] from the uncircum¬ cised in Israel but he is permitted to have benefit from the circumcised among the nations of the world, since ‘uncircumcised’ is but used as a name for the gentiles, as it is written, For all the [other] nations are uncir¬ cumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.' Again it says, This uncircumcised Philistine.- Again it says, Lest the daughters of thi Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: Hateful is the uncircumcision, whereby the wicked are held up to shame, as it is written, For all the nations are uncircumcised. R. Ishmaei says: Great is circumcision, whereby the covenant was made thirteen times.4 R. Jose says: Great is circumcision which overrides even the rigour of the Sabbath. s R. Joshua b. Karha says: Great is circumcision which even for the sake of Moses, the righteous, was not suspended so much as an hour.6 R. Nehemiah says: Great is circumcision which overrides the laws of leprosy-signs.7 Rabbi says: Great is circumcision, for despite all the religious duties which Abraham our father fulfilled, he was not called ‘perfect’ until he was circumcised, as it is written. Walk before me and be thou perfect,8 After another fashion [it is said], Great is circumcision: but for it the Holy One, blessed is he, had not created his world, as it is written, Thus saith the Lord, but for my covenant day and night, I had not set forth the ordinances of heaven and earths 4. i. He that is forbidden by vow to have any benefit from his fellow differs from him that is forbidden by vow to take any food from him only in respect of the treading of his foot [in the other’s domain] and the use of vessels in which necessary food is not prepared. If a man is forbidden by vow to take any food from his fellow, the other may not lend him a sifter or a sieve or a mill-stone or an oven, but he may lend him a shirt or a ring or a cloak or nose-rings, or aught that is not used to prepare necessary food; yet where such things can be hired out [in exchange for money or food] it is forbidden [to lend them].
2. If a man is forbidden by vow to have any benefit from his fellow, the one may still pay the other’s Shekel-dues" for him, or pay him his debt, or restore to him his lost property; but where a reward is taken for it, the benefit falls to the Temple.
4 'Covenant’ is repeated thirteen times in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis.
i° Meg. ie. These two points are forbidden to the former and permitted to the latter.
“ Ex. 3oua. Cf. Shek. i‘.
3. The other may set apart for him his Heave-offering and Tithes with his consent, he may offer on the other’s behalf the Bird-offerings of a man or woman that has a flux1 11 or of a woman after childbirth,2 and Sin-offerings and Guilt-offerings, and he may teach him Midrash,3 Halakoth,4 and Haggadoth,5 but he may not teach him Scripture, though he may teach Scripture to his sons and to his daughters.6 He may maintain the other’s wife and children even though the other is answerable for their mainte¬ nance. But he may not feed the other’s cattle, whether the clean or the unclean. R. Eliezer says: He may feed the unclean cattle but not the clean. They said to him: How do the clean differ from the unclean? He answered: The life of the clean cattle belongs to Heaven and only their body belongs to the owner, while both the life and the body of the unclean cattle belong to Heaven. They said to him: The life of the unclean cattle also belongs to God, but the body belongs to the owner, because if he will he may sell it to the gentiles or feed the dogs with it.
4. If a man is forbidden by vow to have any benefit from his fellow and his fellow came in to visit him, he may stand but not sit down.7 He may heal him, himself, but not what belongs to him;8 he may bathe with him in a large tub but not in a small one;9 and he may sleep with him in one bed. R. Judah says: In hot weather, but not in the rainy season, since then he would benefit him.10 He may sit at meat with him on the same couch and eat at the same table but not out of the same dish, but he may eat from the same dish if this passes around the table." He may not eat with him from the same feeding-bowl that is set before labourers. He may not work with him in the same furrow. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: He may work in the same furrow a far distance from him.
5. If a man is forbidden by vow to have any benefit from his fellow, and it was before the Seventh Year, he may not go down to his fellow’s field or eat from the produce that hangs over [from the other’s property]; if it was during the Seventh Year12 he may not go down into his field, but he may eat of what hangs over. If he is forbidden by vow to take any food from him, and it was before the Seventh Year, he may go down into his field but he may not eat of the produce; in the Seventh Year, he may go down and also eat.
6. If a man is forbidden by vow to have any benefit from his fellow, he may not lend to him or borrow from him, or give or take a loan, or sell to him or buy from him. If one said to another, ‘Lend me your cow’, and the other answered, ‘It is not at liberty’, and he said, ‘Konaml if I ever again plough my field with it’, if he himself was wont to plough, the vow is binding on him but not on others; but if he himself was not wont to plough, the vow is binding on himself and on all others.13 7. If a man is forbidden by vow to have any benefit from his fellow, and he had naught to eat, his fellow may go to the shopkeeper and say, 4 Some texts omit ‘and to his daughters’. Cf. Sot. 3*.
7 If his fellow visits him in sickness he may not stay long with him. The case dealt with turns on the custom of paying those who remain with the sick. Therefore by his staying with him he relieves him of the expense of hiring watchers.
8 Cf. A. Zar. 2*. * The other would increase the depth of water.
*® Provide warmth in the cold weather.
11 The other might eat but little, thereby affording him an added share.
11 When there is no private ownership of the fruits of the earth. He is still, however, for¬ bidden to benefit from entry into his fellow’s domain. Who plough for him.
THIRD DIVISION: NASH1M