Talmud su Levitico 27:28

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written¹²Num. 30:3. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,¹³Lev. 27:28.” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir¹⁴Num. 6:2.”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. ¹⁵Cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 72, Babli Avodah zarah 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in Gen. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “¹²Num. 30:3. Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁶The second half of the verse is clearly written for emphasis. It implies (a) that a vow is valid only if pronounced, not if only thought of and (b) that any speech which can be interpreted as a vow is a vow.
The Babli, 3a/b, quotes both the argument in the style of R. Aqiba and that of R. Ismael without mentioning any names.. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”¹⁷This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule of gezerah šawah “equal cut”. If it was established in Num. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in Lev. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”¹⁸Again this is an application of gezerah šawah, but this time the reference quote is Num. 6:2, cf. Note 14.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁹This reference is odd since the argument is about vows, not oaths. One has to assume that the scribe left out the relevant portion of the sentence which should be identical to the one used in the preceding case., “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵²In the Babli (Bekhorot 32a) this is quoted in the names of R. Joḥanan and Rav and rejected. For Tannaїtic sources, cf. Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq 13(4), quoted Babli Bekhorot 31b, Temurah 5b, 40a.: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal⁵³Num. 18:17 refers only to unblemished animals. No restrictions are put on blemished firstlings other than that they have to be given to a Cohen.. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings”⁵⁶Any command introduced by the words “it shall be when you come into the Land” applies only after the distribution of the Land to the tribes which by rabbinic tradition was 14 years after the crossing of the Jordan, cf. Seder Olam Chap. 11 (in the author’s edition, Northvale NJ 1998, Notes 3–5). Cf. Ševi‘it 6, Note 10, Ḥallah 2:1, Note 12. The statement of R. Ismael is discussed at length in Babli Qiddušin 37a–38a; it is also quoted in Yerushalmi Soṭah 7:4 (fol. 21c), 9:1 (fol. 23c). said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18)⁵⁷This argument, directly attributed to R. Ismael in Sifry Šelaḥ #110, applies only to ḥallah where the usual form כבאכם is used. The rules for ‘orlah start: וכי תבאו אל הארץ but it does not say וירשתם וישבתם בה “after you inherited and settled there.” This kind of argument is applicable only to the Babylonian version which insists not on “coming” but on “settling”. In Sifra (loc. cit. N. 53), the immediate obligation of ‘orlah after the crossing of the Jordan, whether planting was done by Jew or Gentile, is deduced from Lev. 19:23: “When you come into the Land and plant any food-tree.” “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed⁵⁸This seems to imply that Sadducee interpretation was different. the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same⁵⁹In the chapter on dedications, Lev. 27:9 ff., the redemption of a house is described by והיה לו “it shall be his”, whereas the redemption of a field is וקם לו “it shall be confirmed for him”. The rules are identical even though the expressions are different. The corresponding baraitot in Sifra Beḥuqqotai Pereq 10 are anonymous., “breaking” and “smashing” is the same⁶⁰Two parallel synonymous expressions in Deut. 12:3. In this case, Sifry Deut. #61 disagrees and notes that “smashing” is more than “breaking”., “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same⁶¹Lev. 27:28,29; two parallel verses., and here he takes note of a change in expression!