תלמוד על נדרים 9:1

The people of Bet Shean asked Rebbi Immi, may one take stones from one synagogue to build another synagogue¹³In a different place or neighborhood. If the synagogue was destroyed and has to be rebuilt on its plot or nearby, the old stones have to be re-used if at all possible.? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Immi forbade it only to make them feel bad¹⁴The ruling is not invariable religious law, but an ad hoc ruling at a time when the Christian government of the Roman Empire tried to eliminate Jewish settlement in the Holy Land.. Rebbi Gorion said, the people from Magdala asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: May one take stones from one village to build in another village? He said to them, it is forbidden¹⁴The ruling is not invariable religious law, but an ad hoc ruling at a time when the Christian government of the Roman Empire tried to eliminate Jewish settlement in the Holy Land.. Rebbi Immi instructed, even from East to West is forbidden because of the destruction of that place. May one sell a synagogue to buy a school? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s word implies that it is permitted. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he burned the Eternal’s House¹⁵2K. 25:9., that is the Temple, and the king’s house, that is Sedecias’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem, these are the 480 synagogues which were in Jerusalem¹⁶While this refers to Jerusalem in post-Herodian times (Babli Ketubot105a) and the verse describes the destruction of the first Temple, this should not be considered an anachronism. Since the verse is formulated as part of Scripture, it is meaningful outside of time and space.. As Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a school and a Talmud study; [the school] for Bible and the Talmud study for Mishnah. Against all of them came Vespasian. And every large house he burned in fire, that is the study of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai where one was telling the great deeds of the Holy One, praise to Him, in the sense of tell please of the great deeds which Elisha accomplished¹⁷2K. 8:4.. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: That you are saying about a private synagogue. But with a public synagogue it is forbidden; I am saying that one at the end of the world has part in it¹⁸He would have to be asked to vote on the sale of the property. Babli 26a/b,27a.. But did we not state, “it happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq bought the synagogue of the Alexandrians and used it for all his needs”? The Alexandrians made it from their own¹⁹Tosephta 2:17. In the Babli 26a it is the synagogue of the metal smelters, a local guild, so no far-away person may have a say in it. Therefore their vote is undisputed.. So far if it was built as a synagogue. If it was built as a court and he dedicated it, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “A qônam²⁰A formula to confirm an oath, Phoenician for qorbān; cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim. that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue.²¹Mishnah Nedarim9:2. Since the Mishnah states that this vow may be dissolved, it confirms that the dedication of profane building turns it into a synagogue.” This implies that if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it became sanctified. When is it sanctified, immediately [or] at the moment of use? Let us hear from the following: If one builds a chest for a scroll²²A Torah scroll. or makes ribands for a scroll. As long as it was not used for a scroll profane use is permitted; after it was used for the scroll private use is prohibited. Therefore, if these who were made for a scroll are not sanctified until used, this which was built as court not so much more? What is the rule for these if they were made for profane use? Since you are saying there, if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it is sanctified, so here if they were made for profane use and he dedicated them they are sanctified²³The rules for dedication of real estate and of movables are identical..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean²⁰The expression “to lean on” for “going to start” is found only here. on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second²¹Since nezirut presupposes a vow, any nezirut can be eliminated by an Elder who finds “an opening” to declare the vow invalid; cf. Nedarim, Introduction, p. 422; Chapter 3:1, Notes 6–9; Chapter 9:1., the second can be used for the first²²If he had sacrifices prepared for the second nezirut but none for the first, those of the second may be used for the first.. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled²³Mishnah Nedarim 9:6. In this case, no sacrifice is due since there is no nezirut; if he wishes, he can shave without formality.. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first²⁴If he made two separate vows, rather than one vow covering separate periods, the sacrifices are not transferable since they are dedicated for separate vows.. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.²⁵He refers to the vow but not to the particular instance mentioned in the vow. Then the sacrifice can be brought for any obligation implied by the vow.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first²⁴If he made two separate vows, rather than one vow covering separate periods, the sacrifices are not transferable since they are dedicated for separate vows.. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second²⁶R. Eleazar deals with the opposite case. He made the double vow, finished the first period, brought a sacrifice, and then went to ask an Elder about his vow. If the first nezirut was annulled, he can count the nezirut he kept as second nezirut and be freed from his obligation. This is essentially stated in Tosephta 2:15 (quoted in the Babli, Nedarim 17b, Šebuot 27b): “If somebody vowed two neziriot, finished the first one but did not bring his sacrifices, went to an Elder to ask to annul his first [nezirut], the second nezirut is fulfilled by the first.”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees²⁷Since R. Eleazar was R. Joḥanan’s student, if he felt impelled to formulate a statement by himself, not referring to R. Joḥanan, it is safe to assume that R. Joḥanan disagreed.: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice²⁸R. Joḥanan does not disagree with the main thrust of R. Eleazar’s statement, that the nezirut can be counted as the one covered by his vow, but he objects to the formulation referring to “a sacrifice”, which implies that a nazir can shave and drink wine after one sacrifice. This is R. Simeon’s opinion in Mishnah 6:11. R. Joḥanan insists that all three sacrifices be brought in order to be valid; this is the opinion of the anonymous majority which in R. Joḥanan’s opinion always defines practice (cf. Yebamot 4:11, Note 177).. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand²⁹This refers to a different situation, Tosephta 2:15: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, finished both of them, and brought the sacrifices for both of them together, he has only one in his hand.” Since the sacrifices of a nazir presuppose a period of at least 30 days for the growth of his hair, it is impossible for one person to bring sacrifices for multiple periods of nezirut together. He has to be nazir for another 30 days and bring another set of sacrifices.. If he dedicated each of them separately or³⁰This must read “and”; then the text becomes the last sentence in Tosephta 2:15. brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy³¹If one of the neziriot was dissolved by an Elder, why should the sacrifice attached to it be holy? If the vow was in error, the dedication is in error.. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state³²Chapter 2:9, Note 118.: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut³³The argument of R. Ḥiyya is not applicable to our case. It is clear that a person cannot dedicate animals to satisfy a future vow of nazir since that would be “stipulating about non-existence” (Chapter 2:5, Note 89). But in the present case, the vow exists.. One understands the second for the first³⁴The case treated at the start of the Halakhah.. The first for the second³⁵The case discussed by R. Eleazar. Does the argument of R. Ḥiyya not apply in this case, when the dedication of the sacrifice for the first period preceded the start of the second.? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon³⁶Since the disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan only refers to the disagreement between R. Simeon and the rabbis, it is clear that R. Eleazar follows R. Simeon and the second period substituted for the first both in time and in sacrifices.. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first³⁷He rejects the previous explanation and restricts the possibility of substituting the second period for the first to the case that both are occasioned by the birth of a son, one period for himself and one for his son’s birth. In this case, it was stated in Chapter 2:9 (Note 118) that R. Ḥiyya’s argument is disregarded; both neziriot combined constitute one vow.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”³⁸It had been decided that the substitution of sacrifices was possible only for the person who said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” It would be a reasonable interpretation to say that the second “and nazir” was said for emphasis rather than duplication. Therefore, the second nezirut is a rabbinic obligation, not an original vow, and there should be no discussion of legalistic niceties in this case.? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

⁷⁹Here the text in Šebuot is no longer a parallel. It was found stated about both cases⁸⁰About vows and oaths.: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted⁸¹The Babli, 25b and Šebuot 28b, states the opposite: Both erroneous vows and oaths are permitted.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ]⁸²It is clear that something must be missing since R. Simeon ben Laqish could have asked Rebbi only as a very little boy but this is improbable since he was a wild youth not interested in studies. The commentaries all assume that the original text was בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי [בָּא מַה] בָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה and the copyist mistook the name בָּא for the verb בָּא: “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Abba, what does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel?” However this is not more than a weak conjecture since R. Abba I belongs to the generation of the students of R. Joḥanan. Probably the question was asked before R. Yannai, as most of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s other questions., does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there⁸³Mishnah 9:6., “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.⁸⁴R. Aqiba adds much in that Mishnah, that a vow which is voided because the maker of the vow did not consider that it would deprive him of the enjoyment of sabbaths or holidays. Before him, the vow was lifted only for sabbaths or holidays. But in the Mishnah here, the House of Hillel lifts the vow for all people who were eating the figs when his vow was lifted as an erroneous vow only for his father and brothers. So why is the teaching of Mishnah 9:6 not credited to the House of Hillel, who are not mentioned in the Mishnah?” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more⁸⁵From 9:6 one can infer the last statement of 3:2 but not vice-versa; the House of Hillel held that the principle does not apply to vows which have to be investigated by a Sage.! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow⁸⁶R. Hila holds that in Mishnah 3:2 the vow is not partially but totally in error; the farmer would not have made the vow at all had he known that his father was there, and did not object to the presence of others. One has no information about the views of the House of Hillel in the matter of partially voided vows..