Талмуд к Недарим 2:7

“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..

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared⁷³The ashes produced from the firewood in the stove are qualified as dust to cover the blood of birds. Therefore they are useful for activities permitted on the holiday and cannot be muqṣeh. In this context, “prepared” means “available for the preparation of food on the holiday.”.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday¹¹⁶Since the wood has been turned into ashes on the holiday, this is non-food material in a state different from what it was at the start of the holiday and therefore is muqṣeh., if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover¹¹⁷Since muqṣeh is a rabbinic prohibition but digging a biblical violation, it is better to disregard the rabbinic prohibition even though there is biblical permission to disregard the biblical prohibition. (For muqṣeh as rabbinic institution cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and `Eruvin, p. 3, Note 4.). The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition<sup>118</sup>And therefore one may dig to obtain dust to cover the blood.. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side<sup>119</sup>The dispute between RR. Jonah and Yose is also in Ḥallah2:1, Note 10. It is not mentioned in the Babli (which nevertheless holds that the principle does not apply to holidays since the rules of holidays are both positive commandments and prohibitions.). Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up<sup>120</sup>He must agree that if slaughter is biblically permitted on a holiday, with the consumption of meat a positive commandment, there can be no biblical prohibition to deal with all consequences of the slaughter.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what¹²¹The monkey formed a bowl out of clay on the holiday. If a human made the bowl it clearly would have been muqṣeh, and also forbidden as the result of biblically forbidden work. But the monkey is not a human.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira<sup>122</sup>In one of the Genizah sources this is a purely Babylonian dispute involving a Rav Ze`ura. and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge⁵While muqṣeh is the technical term for anything which is not available to be moved on the holiday or Sabbath, the original meaning is “cut-up”, viz., a heap of cut-up figs lying on the flat roof to ferment and to be made into fig cakes. During the fermentation process the mass is inedible; therefore it has become the paradigm of anything not currently available for use. Here the original meaning is intended. If the owner had inspected his roof on the eve of the holiday he would have realized that the figs were ready food for the holiday and therefore falling under the category of “prepared food” permitted on Sabbath and holiday. But since at sundown of the holiday he had no knowledge of the situation, the figs were not available to him at the start of the holiday and therefore remain forbidden for the rest of the holiday. Similarly, since the owner of the chicken does not know that the egg (which is completely formed with its hard shell) will be laid on the holiday, since it was not available at the start it cannot become available later.. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously¹²³“Putting in order” means separating heave and tithes, to make the harvest totally profane and generally usable. This is a mental act not dependent of material action, rabbinically prohibited on a holiday but valid.. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place¹²⁴The hole created by the monkey could be considered as not-existent before the holiday. But the prohibition of newly created things cannot apply to soil.? Would we say that soil may not be used?

MISHNAH: If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse, the House of Shammai say two weeks, the House of Hillel say one week¹⁶⁵If he does not have his vow dissolved by that time, the wife can go to court and force a divorce with full payment of the ketubah.. Students can go to study Torah for thirty days without permission¹⁶⁶Without asking his wife’s permission if she married him knowing he was a student.; journeymen one week¹⁶⁷They can hire themselves out to work at another place where they cannot return to their homes every night.. The period mentioned in the Torah¹⁶⁸Ex. 21:10, where it is spelled out that a man can take a second wife only if he does not reduce the amount of sexual activity with his first wife.: People who do not have to work every day¹⁶⁹If a man marries a woman telling her that he is rich enough not to have to work, he is obligated to sleep with her every night and cannot later reduce this amount without the wife’s consent. Similarly, a donkey driver engaged in local traffic, who is home every week, cannot change his profession to camel driver engaged in long distance caravan traffic without his wife’s consent., journeymen twice a week, donkey drivers once a week, camel drivers once in thirty days, sailors once in three months, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.