{Nedarim 13a}
Mishna:האומר קרבן עולה מנחה חטאת שלמים תודה שאני אוכל לך אסורF ONE SAYS [TO HIS NEIGHBOUR], 'THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE KORBAN', [OR]' A BURNT-OFFERING', [OR] 'A MEAL-OFFERING', [OR]' A SIN-OFFERING [OR] 'A THANKSGIVING-OFFERING', [OR]' A PEACE-OFFERING, — HE IS FORBIDDEN.
ורבי יהודה מתיר
הקרבן כקרבן קרבן שאוכל לך אסור
לקרבן לא אוכל לך ר"מ אוסר
האומר לחבירו קונם פי מדבר עמך ידי עושות עמך רגלי מהלכות לך אסור
RABBI YEHUDAH PERMITTED [HIM].
[IF HE SAYS,] 'THE KORBAN,' [OR] 'AS A KORBAN,' [OR]' KORBAN, BE THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS,' HE IS FORBIDDEN.
IF HE SAYS: THAT WHICH I MIGHT NOT EAT OF YOURS BE FOR A KORBAN,' RABBI MEIR FORBIDS.
{Nedarim 13b}
IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, 'KONAM BE MY MOUTH SPEAKING WITH YOU,' [OR] 'MY HANDS WORKING FOR YOU,' [OR] 'MY FEET WALKING WITH YOU,' HE IS FORBIDDEN.
Gemara:ר"מ אוסר
והתניא מודים חכמים לר"י באומר הא קרבן הא עולה הא חטאת הא מנחה הא תודה הא שלמים שאוכל לך מותר שלא נדר זה אלא בחיי קרבן
ל"ק הא דאמר הא קרבן [והא דאמר הי קרבן
אמר הא קרבן אסור אמר הי קרבן מותר מאי טעמא] חיי קרבן קאמר
וכן הלכתא."{hakorban [as one word] ...} Rabbi Meir forbids":
But they learnt {in a brayta}: The Sages admit to Rabbi Yehuda by where he says "ha korban, ha olah, ha chatat, ha mincha, ha todah, ha shelamim" "what I eat of yours," that he is permitted, for he did not vow except by the life of the korban. {thus, by the life of the korban, I will eat of yours."
{Nedarim 13b}
This is no contradiction. This is where he said ha korban [and this is where he said hay korban. {our gemara: "hakorban," as one word, but then the examples of permitted and forbidden would be reversed.} If he said ha korban, it is forbidden. If he said hay korban, he is permitted. What is the reason? By the life of the korban, he means.
And so is the halacha.
This is an interesting girsological difference between the Rif and our gemara. Compare with our gemara, as follows:
Our Mishna has the same haKorban as a single word:
Our Mishna has the same haKorban as a single word:
האומר קרבן עולה מנחה חטאת תודה שלמים שאני אוכל לך אסור רבי יהודה מתיר הקרבן כקרבן קרבן שאוכל לך אסור לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר
And so too in Yerushalmi 4b, stands the Mishna. But while our gemara opposes ha korban to hakorban, all Yerushalmi has to say is כל עמא מודיי הקרבן מותר כקרבן אסור. This would seem to be against the Mishna, but it seems redefining the Mishna, for it continues מה פליגין קרבן. ר' יודה אומר האומר קרבן כאומר הקרבן והוא מותר. ורבנין אמרין קרבן כאומר כקרבן והוא אסור. But perhaps rather than arguing on the Mishna, in a very weird way it is interpreting the Mishna's statement of הקרבן כקרבן קרבן שאוכל לך אסור. If you look at Yedid Nefesh's perush (presumably based on the standard commentaries), he reads hakorban as two words, hu korban. This is (Talmud) Babylonian influence, but could well resolve the issue. I am not so convinced, but our aim here is not to resolve the Yerushalmi but to explore the girsaot.
Our printed gemara, Bavli:
So just as in Rif, it sets up an apparent contradiction from ha korban as two words, upon the Mishna which has hakorban as one word.
But here is the point of distinction between Rif's girsa and our girsa. In our girsa, it appears that the distinction {made by the setama digmara} is between one word and two words. לא קשיא הא דאמר הא קרבן והא דאמר הקרבן. And to elaborate, it explains that the intent of it is "by the life of the korban." This would have two be the two word phraseology.
And so too in Yerushalmi 4b, stands the Mishna. But while our gemara opposes ha korban to hakorban, all Yerushalmi has to say is כל עמא מודיי הקרבן מותר כקרבן אסור. This would seem to be against the Mishna, but it seems redefining the Mishna, for it continues מה פליגין קרבן. ר' יודה אומר האומר קרבן כאומר הקרבן והוא מותר. ורבנין אמרין קרבן כאומר כקרבן והוא אסור. But perhaps rather than arguing on the Mishna, in a very weird way it is interpreting the Mishna's statement of הקרבן כקרבן קרבן שאוכל לך אסור. If you look at Yedid Nefesh's perush (presumably based on the standard commentaries), he reads hakorban as two words, hu korban. This is (Talmud) Babylonian influence, but could well resolve the issue. I am not so convinced, but our aim here is not to resolve the Yerushalmi but to explore the girsaot.
Our printed gemara, Bavli:
אי ר"מ הא] דקתני הקרבן שאוכל לך אסור והתניא מודים חכמים לרבי יהודה באומר הא קרבן והא עולה והא מנחה והא חטאת שאוכל לך שמותר שלא נדר זה אלא בחיי קרבן
לא קשיא הא דאמר הא קרבן והא דאמר הקרבן מאי טעמא חיי קרבן קאמר
So just as in Rif, it sets up an apparent contradiction from ha korban as two words, upon the Mishna which has hakorban as one word.
But here is the point of distinction between Rif's girsa and our girsa. In our girsa, it appears that the distinction {made by the setama digmara} is between one word and two words. לא קשיא הא דאמר הא קרבן והא דאמר הקרבן. And to elaborate, it explains that the intent of it is "by the life of the korban." This would have two be the two word phraseology.
Meanwhile, in Rif, he has:
ל"ק הא דאמר הא קרבן [והא דאמר הי קרבן
אמר הא קרבן אסור אמר הי קרבן מותר מאי טעמא] חיי קרבן קאמר
Thus, he opposes a two word phrase with another two-word phrase. One of them is ha korban and the other is hai korban. And furthermore, ha korban {which appears parallel to our gemara's two word phrase which is permitted} is here forbidden. But hai korban is permitted, because the implication is "by the life of the korban."אמר הא קרבן אסור אמר הי קרבן מותר מאי טעמא] חיי קרבן קאמר
Note also that if we strip out the words in square brackets {the square brackets are in the printed text}, then we end up with something that can roughly parallel our gemara, though even more abbreviated. For it would read:
ל"ק הא דאמר הא קרבן חיי קרבן קאמר
"This is no question. Here, where he said ha korban, he intended 'by the life of the korban'."
As such, I am not so certain about the text in brackets. But I do not have any conclusions about any of this.
Related to this post is my video on Rif Nedarim, 13a-b, from my Rif blog:
As such, I am not so certain about the text in brackets. But I do not have any conclusions about any of this.
Related to this post is my video on Rif Nedarim, 13a-b, from my Rif blog:
No comments:
Post a Comment