Levítico 27:2 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim, Jerusalem Talmud Nazir, Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim & Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah

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.

There¹²Mishnah ‘Arakhin 1:2., we have stated: “The Non-Jew, Rebbi Meїr says, is evaluated but does not evaluate¹³This refers to Lev. 27:1–8, where “evaluation” amounts are specified to be offered to the Sanctuary for persons of specified age and sex. According to R. Meïr, a Jew may vow to pay a Gentile’s evaluation but a Gentile cannot make such a vow. According to R. Jehudah, a Gentile may vow to pay a Jew’s valuation but a Jew cannot offer to pay the Gentile’s evaluation.; Rebbi Jehudah says, he evaluates but is not evaluated. Both agree that they make vows and are objects of vows¹⁴Both Jew and Gentile may make a vow to pay to the Sanctuary the amount another person would fetch were he to be sold on the slave market..” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: For him who says there that he evaluates, here can he declare a nazir? For him who says there that he is evaluated, here can he be declared a nazir¹⁵The texts used to introduce a vow of evaluation (Lev. 27:2) and a vow of nazir (Num. 6:2) are completely parallel. It is to be assumed that the rules derived from the texts are also parallel; if a Gentile can cause an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can cause an obligation of nazir; if a Gentile can be the object of an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can be the object of an obligation of nazir.? How would it be possible for him to [be declared a nazir]¹⁶The context requires to read ניזור for מזיר and vice-versa.? A Israelite can declare a Gentile to be a nazir¹⁷Tentative answer.. Would he listen to him¹⁸Rejection of the tentative answer.? But the Israelite said, “I am a nazir,” the Gentile heard it and said, “I am responsible for what this one said.” It is only as if he paid a debt¹⁹The Gentile may well vow to the Jew’s obligatory sacrifices since by biblical law, Gentiles’ sacrifices are accepted. But this does not make the Gentile a nazir.. How would it be possible for him to [declare a nazir]¹⁶The context requires to read ניזור for מזיר and vice-versa.? A Gentile can declare an Israelite to be nazir¹⁷Tentative answer.. Since an Israelite cannot declare [another] Israelite to be a nazir, a Gentile cannot declare an Israelite to be a nazir¹⁸Rejection of the tentative answer.. But it must be that the Gentile said, “I am a nazir”, the Israelite heard it and said, “I am taking upon me what this one said.²⁰Since the Gentile’s vow is invalid, so is the Jew’s.” What did you exclude from him²¹This now is R. Jeremiah’s real question. Since it was shown that the power to evaluate is not related to the power to vow for nazir, the question arises whether in general the power of Gentiles to make vows is equal to that of Jews or not.? An Israelite is subject to “not to desecrate”²²Num. 30:3; Sifry zuṭa 30:2. Since a Gentile is not subject to biblical laws other than those given to Adam and Noah, he cannot be held responsible if he “desecrates his word,” i. e., does not keep his vow., a Gentile is not subject to “not to desecrate”. Rebbi Jonah said, Israelites can be relieved by a Sage²³An Elder can annul the vow; cf. Tractate Nedarim, Introduction and Chapter 9., Gentiles cannot be relieved by a Sage²⁴Since Gentiles are not subject to the Law, they cannot profit from the Law. He will hold that Gentiles, whose informal marriages have biblical sanction, never can be divorced; cf. Qiddušin 1:2, Notes 33 ff.. Rebbi Yose said, Israelites need a Sage to be relieved, Gentiles do not need a Sage to be relieved²⁵Since Gentiles are not subject to the Law, they do not need the Law. He will hold that since Gentiles are not under the biblical obligation of formal marriage, they never need a divorce but can validly terminate a companionship through unilateral action by either one of the parties.. It follows that Rebbi (Jonah) [Yose] follows Rebbi Abbahu. A Gentile woman came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said to Abime bar Tobi: Go and find her an opening by unforeseen circumstances²⁶Which is forbidden to Jews, Mishnah Nedarim 9:2. He ordered the lady’s vow to be dissolved to give her peace of mind, not because it would have been necessary.. And Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Aḥa, who said that Laban was Kushan-Riš‘ataim. Why was he called “Kushan the doubly bad”? Because he committed two evils. One that he desecrated his oath, the other that he subjugated Israel for eight years²⁷Babli Sanhedrin 105b, as tannaïtic text. The story would make Laban live more than 300 years..

“My mouth [shall be nazir] from wine²¹This refers to the Mishnah, where one person says “my mouth shall be like his mouth.” Somewhere it must have been mentioned that the mouth is the organ to which wine is forbidden. Similarly, if head or foot are mentioned, reference must be to the corresponding taboo imposed on the nazir. Then it is a valid vow of nazir by Mishnah 1:2., my head from shaving, my hand from impurity, my foot from impurity; my head shall be nazir; my liver shall be nezirah,²²This is a separate set of rules. If somebody says, my x shall be nazir, he is a nazir as long as x is a body part necessary for survival (Babli 21b, Tosephta 3:3).” he is a nazir. “My walking shall be nazir; my talking shall be nazir”; he did not say anything. Why? Because he referred the vow to something on which life depends. “Vow, vow²³One invokes the rule of gezerah šawah, “equal cut” (cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 70; Nedarim 1:1, Note 18, 1:4, Note 159.) The nazir starts his obligation with a vow, mentioned “here” (Num. 6:2). Another personal obligation accepted by a vow is that of paying “the valuation of living persons”, mentioned “there”, (Lev. 27:2). In a different formulation, the argument is in Sifra Beḥuqqotay Parašah 3(6)..” Just as “vow” mentioned there refers to something on which life depends, so “vow” mentioned here refers to something on which life depends.