תלמוד על נדרים 5:3

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.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman was waiting for her levir,” etc. Following Rebbi Aqiba⁵⁸For whom the right of dissolution depends on his relationship with the woman defining adultery, can the husband dissolve in questionable cases? The answers, which are not given, are obviously “no”., who can dissolve? For example, what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a hundred qiddušin are valid for her⁵⁹Babli Qiddušin 60a; Yerushalmi Yebamot 3:4 (Notes 102–104), 5:1 (Note 35); Qiddušin 3:1, (63c 1. 71). A man gives something of value to a woman to serve as qiddušin money for a preliminary marriage in a month’s time. If other men also give her deferred qiddušin, they all might end up preliminarily married to her and none of them can marry her. In that case, she is not bound to any one by marriage in the sense of R. Aqiba., who dissolves? And what Rebbi Jacob⁶⁰In the source of this statement, Qiddus̄in 1:2, 59c 1. 8, one reads: “R. Joḥanan said.” Since there is no R. Jacob without father’s name among the students of R. Joḥanan (there are R. Jacob bar Aḥa and R. Jacob bar Idi), the name has to be considered a scribal error. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he can allot her to his underage son⁶¹This refers to the Hebrew slave girl (Ex. 21:7–11), about a situation intrinsically connected to the Jubilee year which became void with the exile of the Ten Tribes. The verse gives the master the right to marry the girl by considering the price he paid for her as qiddušin money, or to give her to his son as wife without additional expenditure. If the son is a minor, she becomes his wife by biblical decree, But the wife of a minor cannot be prosecuted for adultery [Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(11)]. Can the underage husband, biblically married to his underage wife, dissolve her vows?, who dissolves? And what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa sind in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, she does not even need a reparation offering for a possible sin⁶²The wife of a deaf-mute or of an insane person (at the time of marriage) is not married by biblical standards and cannot commit adultery. Yebamot, Babli 113a, Yerushalmi 14:1 Note 7. (The rules of reparation offerings for possible sins are in Lev. 5:17–19)., who dissolves?

MISHNAH: Two testify for him that he ate its yield for three years; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him^102*Since they intended to make the owner lose his property, they have to pay the current value of the property as a fine, Deut. 19:19.. Two for the first [year], two for the second, two for the third, pay together¹⁰³Each witness has to pay 1/6 of the fine.. Three brothers and another joins them; these are three testimonies¹⁰⁴Two relatives cannot testify together. If each brother testifies about a different year and the outsider testifies with each of them, there is valid testimony about three years of claim of undisturbed possession. which count as one testimony¹⁰⁵Since the owner of the land can lose his property only by the total of the testimonies, for the law of perjury the three testimonies are one and each person pays 1/6 of the fine for his testimony, which means that the single outsider pays 3/6 = 1/2 and each brother pays 1/6..