Talmud su Numeri 30:3

MISHNAH: The following vows are permitted¹Even though they sound like vows, they are not vows.: Profane I would eat with you²Since he vows to eat what is permitted, there is nothing to it.; like pork³As the Halakhah explains, a vow must refer to something which can be a sacrifice. Since swine cannot be sacrificial animals, if he says “what I would eat from you is like pork”, there is no vow and no legal consequence. If he would say, a qônām that what I would eat from you is like pork, he would be forbidden since he referred to the sacrifice., like idolatry, like carcasses⁴Forbidden food, Deut. 14:21., like meat from a torn animal⁵Forbidden food, Ex. 22:30., like abominations⁶Forbidden food, Lev. 11:29 ff., like crawling things⁷Forbidden food, anything not on the list of permitted animals. These are explicitly permitted to Gentiles, Gen. 9:3., like Aaron’s ḥallah and his heave⁸Heave and ḥallah, the heave from dough, are holy. Sacrifices can only be brought from sources that are profane before dedication. Therefore, heave and ḥallah cannot become sacrifices. As long as the person making the vow does not mention qorbān or any of its substitutes, there is no vow., are permitted. One who says to his wife, you are for me like my mother⁹He says that sexual relations with his wife should be forbidden as they are with his mother. Since his mother cannot be a sacrifice, there is no vow but the rabbi is not permitted to tell him this but must find another reason (e. g., do you realize how much money a divorce would cost you?) to find a cause to annul the vow because people should be made uncomfortable vowing. If the vow is not dissolved within one week, the wife can ask the court to force a divorce; the husband being the guilty party (Mishnah Ketubot 5:6). (Cf. Qor‘an 58:2.), one finds for him an opening from another place that he should not be flippant about this. A qônām that I shall not sleep, that I shall not speak, that I shall not walk, or one who says to his wife, a qônām that I shall not sleep with you, he is under the obligation¹⁰Num. 30:3. As long as qorbān or one of its substitutes is not mentioned, sleeping, speaking, and walking are all immaterial and there really is no vow. But since there was intent to make a vow, the verse may be applied (at least by rabbinic standards). “he shall not profanate his word.” An oath that I shall not sleep, that I shall not speak, that I shall not walk, he is forbidden¹¹Since an oath does not depend on any material substrate (Chapter 1, Note 4)..

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.

HALAKHAH: “The following vows are permitted,” etc. “To the Eternal¹²Num. 30.3.”, nobody can forbid anything on himself unless it could be given to the Eternal¹³The comparison used in a vow must refer either to a sacrifice or to something that could be a sacrifice or a ḥerem. In the language of the Babli, 14a, “there is no vow unless it relates to something that can be vowed.” A lenghty paraphrase in Sifry Num. 153.. What is stated in the House of Rav disagrees: “From where that one may not make and dissolve vows which are dissolved for you from Heaven but people consider them as binding? The verse says¹²Num. 30.3., ‘he shall not profanate his word.’ He should not make his words profane.” They wanted to say, for example using “qorbān” or “oath”; but in all other respects it would be permitted. It comes to tell you, also all other respects¹⁴The opinion of R.Yose, Chapter 1, Notes 64 ff.. “To prohibit a prohibition on himself¹²Num. 30.3.”. There are Tannaїm who state: on himself, not on others. There are Tannaїm who state: even on others. They wanted to say that he who says on himself, not on others, to forbid others’ property¹⁵This sentence has been badly distorted by editors and commentators of recent editions of the Yerushalmi. The original scribe of the ms. wrote in both cases על אחדים. The corrector changed the first occurence into של אחרים. It seems that the correct version is על של אחרים “[to forbid his own property] to others.” It is clear that in both opinions, a person may forbid his own property (permanently) on another (in the Babli, 47a, compared to the power of a father to disinherit a son), but only according to the second opinion one may not forbid the property of others, over which he has no control, to himself. The second opinion has no parallel in either Talmud.
In Sifry Num. 153 one reads: “‘To prohibit a prohibition on himself’, he prohibits for himself but not for others.” This is opposed to both Talmudim., but he who says even on others, to forbid his own property for others, but not the property of others for himself.