Nedarim 12 – This to me is like that!

One does not have to say the words "I vow." He can instead say, "This, to me, is like that." For example, if he says, "This bread to me is like the meat of a disqualified offering," – he is then forbidden to eat this bread.

Rami bar Chama asked a question: if one says, "This bread to me is like the meat of a peace offering," – what happens then? For most of the lifetime of the peace offering, it is prohibited to eat, so maybe his vow takes effect. But in the end, after its blood has been thrown on the Altar, the meat is eaten by people and guests, so maybe he meant this permitted state, and therefore the vow effects no prohibition?

The Talmud tries to compare this case to various others, where the answer is known but still does not come with a resolution.

Art: Entertaining the Guests by Pieter Gerardus Sjamaar

Nedarim 11 – You are not kosher to me!

One can use the language of “not kosher” to create a vow. For example, if one says, “It is not kosher what I eat of yours!” – he has, in fact, forbidden himself the food coming from his fellow, and it would be counted as if he violated the Torah if he did eat it.

He can also say, “It is not regular (chulin) food,” “not clean,” or “like the remainder of a sacrifice” (which can not be eaten).

However, watch for provisos and caveats: if one says, “It is not kosher what I do not eat of yours,” then he means that what he does NOT eat will be not kosher, but what he DOES eat will be kosher, and thus he created no vow and no prohibition.

Art: Girl Eating an Apple by Godfried Schalcken

Nedarim 10 – Should one ever vow?

In general, one should avoid making vows simply because he may transgress them. Better do something good without a promise, or at least promise right before the deed. For this reason, a Nazir is called “a transgressor” - because he abstains from wine, which is wrong. Now, if just for not drinking wine one is called a sinner, how much more so is one who afflicts himself with unnecessary deprivations and fasts.

If one does decide to make a vow, he has a choice of many words to use, “konam,” “konach,” “konas.” These were created by the Sages so that one should not use the word “korban” (sacrifice). But why not use the word “korban?” – Because he may say, “Korban to God.” But let him say that! – Because he may say just “To God,” thus using the name of God for no purpose. This all is the view of Resh Lakish.

However, Rabbi Yochanan says these terms translate the word “korban” into foreign languages. These words are adequate only if the user or those around him understand this language.

Art: A Domestic Affliction by Benjamin West

Nedarim 9 – Careless people

If one says, “Like the vows of the careless people,” - with this statement, he has effected a vow and must now abide by its conditions. Careless people were swift to make vows or swear, in anger or just to convince, and this man, disapproving of them, still followed their example. This is an incomplete vow, which nevertheless takes effect.

But this vow is too incomplete, he in fact said nothing binding! – Really, he then added, “on me.” But what precisely is his vow? What limitation did he put upon himself! – A Nazir was passing in front of him, or he added, “Of this, I will not eat.”

If he has specified so much, what new information has the teacher told us? Of course, the vow should work! – Well, although he did not enunciate, “I hereby take a vow,” his declaration of “Like the vows of the careless” still took effect.

If he said, “Like the vows of the righteous,” it is as if he has not said anything because the righteous don't make vows. However, if he said, “Like their free-will offerings,” he should follow a good example of the righteous and do what he promised.

King Solomon said, “Better not vow at all than vow and not pay.” What about one who vows and does pay? Some say that it is still better not to vow at all, but some – say that vowing and fulfilling the vow is better than anything.

Art: Rienzi Vowing to Obtain Justice by William Holman Hunt

Nedarim 8 – Good advice from Rav Gidel

The last piece of advice we learned on the previous page came from Rav Gidel (in the name of Rav). Let us see some more of Rav Gidel's advice.

It is commendable to take an oath to do a mitzvah. Even though one is already under oath to do mitzvot, since the Jewish people have accepted this oath as a whole, it is still OK to do more. We learn it from King David, who said, “I swore, and I will perform Your righteous mitzvot.”

He also said that one who saw in a dream himself being excommunicated should find ten scholars to lift the ban from him. These should be people able to reason, not just retell the laws. But if one can't find such scholars, those who know the law will also do. And if one cannot find even these, he should sit on the crossroad and greet every person with “Peace be unto you.” After ten passersby return his greeting with “Peace unto you,” his ban is lifted.

Art: King David by Gustave Moreau

Nedarim 7 – I am excommunicated from you!

Having discussed vague declarations of vows for charity (corner of the field) and an equally vague designation of a lavatory – and left without an answer to both – the Talmud comes to another rule, about a man to told his fellow, “I am excommunicated from you!”

Rabbi Akiva struggled with this case, and even though he might rule stringently and maintain that this creates a vow, he still remained in doubt. This meant that there would be no punishment for violating such vow. Most of the time, when people use the word “excommunicate,” they mean a religious disciplinary measure, not a vow to abstain from dealing with one's fellow.

Incidentally, a Sage who hears bad words from his fellow should excommunicate him. But it is not appropriate for a Sage to excommunicate anybody, so what is he to do? – He should then annul his excommunication. Or, he can be like Mar Zutra, who would first excommunicate himself and then the student when he needed to excommunicate one of his students. On coming home, he would annul excommunication for himself and then for the student.

Art: Before vows by Vasily Perov

Nedarim 6 – Never mind what I said

Rava said that one needs to spell everything in a contract or statement, while Abaye says we understand what is meant. But this is the same as Rabbi Yehudah and his opponents argued about Get, where Rabbi Yehudah required a complete formula of "this is for you the document of removal, etc."

Why would Rava and Abaye, who lived later, argue about the same question? They could just take sides! Rava would be on the side of Rabbi Yehudah and Abaye – his opponents. No! Abaye will say that even Rabbi Yehudah agrees with him, like so: Rabbi Yehudah required the complete formula only for Get, which should be a complete separation between the husband and wife, but in other cases, he too would say that we understand what is meant, precisely as Abaye!

However, later on, we find a refutation for Abaye: in another teaching, even in general, someone required all the details spelled out, and Abaye had to admit it was Rabbi Yehudah. So how could he previously say that everybody agrees with him, and now – that some disagree!? – Abaye changed his mind and admitted that Rabbi Yehudah was always strict and never agreed with Abaye's point that we understand things from the context.

Here is an interesting question: can one do a vague Kiddushin? Can he say to one woman, "You are hereby consecrated to me," and to another one - "And you..." Does he mean "And you too," or "You should consider the possibility"? This was left unresolved.

Art: Portrait of a Gentleman and his Wife in a Park by John Downman