Talmud sobre Nedarim 2:3

יֵשׁ נֶדֶר בְּתוֹךְ נֶדֶר, וְאֵין שְׁבוּעָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם אֹכַל, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם אֹכַל, וְאָכַל, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת:

Hay un voto dentro de un voto, pero no hay juramento dentro de un juramento. ¿Cómo es eso? Si él dijo: "Seré un nazareo si como; seré un nazareo si como", es responsable de cada voto. (Si él dijo :) "Juro que no comeré; juro que no comeré", y él comió, es responsable solo de uno. [Se convierte en nazareo durante treinta días si dice: "Seré nazareo", sin reservas. Y él trae la ofrenda nazarea, y nuevamente se convierte en nazareo según la cantidad de veces que prometió. Y con un juramento, él es responsable solo por uno, recibiendo rayas solo una vez. Pero si gana la absolución para el primer juramento, el segundo se mantiene. Y, de manera similar, si gana la absolución para el segundo juramento, el tercero se mantiene; y no se le permite comer hasta que sea absuelto de todo. Porque no aprendimos: "Es un juramento", sino: "Él es responsable solo de uno".

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

“I did not vow as a nazir,” he is permitted⁴⁸If somebody used one of the languages classified as referring to nazir but immediately puts in a disclaimer, he is free from all rules of nazir.. “I already had been a nazir,” he is forbidden⁴⁹This is not a disclaimer since a person who had been a nazir might want to be a nazir for a second time.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Avina, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am like ‘orlah juice⁵⁰Juice from the fruits of a tree less than three full years old. All parts of the fruit, including the juice, are forbidden for any usufruct; cf. Introduction to Tractate ‘Orlah., he did not say anything⁵¹Even though הֲרֵינִי was declared “a handle for nezirut,” if somebody declares that ‘orlah juice is forbidden to him he is not a nazir since ‘orlah juice is forbidden to any Jew.. The colleagues say, that follows Rebbi Simeon in a disagreement. As we have stated there⁵²Mishnah Šebuot 3:5.: “If somebody said, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling things, he is guilty. But Rebbi Simeon declares him free from prosecution⁵³For transgressing his oath, but naturally he can be prosecuted for eating prohibited food..” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if it is an inclusive statement⁵⁴If somebody makes an oath which prohibits to him both things originally permitted and those prohibited by biblical law, the rabbis hold that an oath partially valid is valid and any infringement can be prosecuted. But R. Simeon holds that the oath exists only as far as things originally permitted are concerned; for the rest it is non-existent since “he already was sworn to it at Mount Sinai”.. But if it is a detailed statement⁵⁵If the oath only contains a list of items prohibited anyway. In Šebuot (3:3; Babli 22b, 23b) this is a matter of dispute and is asserted only by R. Joḥanan (supported in the Babli by Rav and Samuel) but denied by R. Simeon ben Laqish., everybody agrees that no oath can be applied to prohibitions. And here, we consider an inclusive statement. Rebbi Yudan said, one is about vows, the other about oaths. Vows can be applied to prohibitions but no oaths can be applied to prohibitions⁵⁶Cf. Nedarim 2:2, Note 30..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Versículo anterior Capítulo completo Versículo siguiente