Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2

משנה: הָאוֹמֵר קוֹנָם קוֹנָח קוֹנָס הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כִּנּוּיִין לְקָרְבָּן. חֵרֶק חֵרֶךְ חֶרֶף הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כִּנּוּיִין לְחֵרֶם. נָזִיק נָזִיחַ פָּזִיחַ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כִּנּוּיִים לִנְזִירוּת. שְׁבוּתָה שְׁקוּקָה נָדַר בְּמוֹהִי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כִּנּוּיִים לִשְׁבוּעָה. MISHNAH: If somebody says qônām¹⁰³“Sacrifice” in Phoenician. The other words have not been identified in any language. Cf. Nedarim 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.1.1">Note 1., or qônāḥ, or qônās, these are substitute names for qorbān. Ḥēreq, ḥērek, ḥēreph, these are substitute names for ban. Nāzîq, nāzîaḥ, pāzîaḥ, these are substitute names for nazir. Šĕbûtâ, šĕqûqâ, or he made a vow of Moy¹⁰⁴The first half of the name Moyses (Moses). The connection between Moses and oaths is given later, Nedarim 1:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.2.4">Note 122. While the difference between vow and oath is important in rabbinic law, people in everyday speech do not make these fine distinctions. If the verb is an expression of making a vow but the noun is “oath”, the entire sentence has to be interpreted as being an oath., these are substitute names for an oath.

הלכה: הָאוֹמֵר קוֹנָם קוֹנָח כול׳. עַד כְּדוֹן עַצְמוֹ. מַהוּ שֶׁיַּקְדִּישׁ לַשָּׁמַיִם בִּלְשׁוֹן קוֹנָם. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמַר לוֹ. הַשְׁאִילֵינִי קַרְדּוֹמָךְ. אָמַר קוֹנָם קוֹרְדּוֹם יֵשׁ לִי. קוֹנָם נְכָסַיי עָלִי. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קוֹרְדּוֹם. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין שֶׁאֵין לַזֶּה קוֹרְדּוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי תַחְלִיפָא קַיסָרַייָא. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. שֶׁבּוֹ בְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁהִתְפִּיס אֶת הַקַּרְדּוֹם בּוֹ בְלָשׁוֹן הִתְפִּיס בּוֹ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. קָדַשׁ קוֹרְדּוֹם קָֽדְשׁוּ נְכָסִים. לֹא קָדַשׁ קוֹרְדּוֹם אֲפִילוּ נְכָסִים לֹא קָֽדְשׁוּ. אִילּוּ אָמַר. קוֹנָם קוֹרְדּוֹם יֵשׁ לִי. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. קוֹנָם נְכָסַיי עָלַי. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קוֹרְדוֹם. נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. יֵאוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה. אִילּוּ אָמַר. נְכָסַיי מוּתָּרִין. וְקָם לֵיהּ. יֵאוּת. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לַזֶּה קוֹרְדּוֹם. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ קוֹרְדוֹם נְכָסָיו אֲסוּרִין. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁקָּדַשׁ קוֹרְדּוֹם. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁקָּֽדְשׁוּ נְכָסִים. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ לַשָּׁמַיִם בִּלְשׁוֹן קוֹנָם. HALAKHAH: “If somebody says qônām, or qônāḥ,” etc. So far for himself. Can one dedicate to Heaven by saying qônām¹⁰⁵Can one dedicate property to the Temple using the expression qônām or any other of the recognized substitutes for qorbān?? Let us hear from the following¹⁰⁶There exists a Babylonian version of this baraita, Nedarim.35a">Babli 35a and in abbreviated form Tosephta 4:6. The Babylonian version differs from the Yerushalmi in that the lender asserts that he has only one spade which he needs for himself and only asserts that he has no spare and, most importantly, that the lying lender’s property is only forbidden to him during his lifetime but becomes the property of his heir while in the Yerushalmi the property becomes the Temple’s. Therefore, the position of the Babli is opposed to that of the Yerushalmi and every attempt to emend and explain the Yerushalmi in the light of the Babli falsifies the text.: One said to another, lend me your spade¹⁰⁷In modern Hebrew, קרדום is an axe. But in Mishnaic Hebrew it means “spade” as shown by the formulaic expression קרדום לחפור בו “a qardom used for digging.”. He said, qônām the spade if I have it, qônām my property on me. If he has a spade, his property would be forbidden for this one “has no spade”¹⁰⁸He made a conditional vow. The vow must refer to an object. If he has no spade, there is nothing the vow refers to, and the vow is nonexistent. But should he have a spade, the vow refers to an object and is valid.. Rebbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, there is a difference, for he used the same expression to attach the spade and to attach his property¹⁰⁹As described in detail now, the two vows are one and both refer to the spade.. As you look at it, if the spade is sanctified, so is his property. If the spade is not sanctified, neither is his property. If he said, qônām the spade if I have it, and added qônām my property on me, if he owns a spade, his property is forbidden¹¹⁰To himself, but not to any other person in the world.. That is correct. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, if he had said “my property”¹¹¹Without repeating the word qônām, or any equivalent expression, there is no vow., it would be permitted for he stopped. That is correct. He only asserted that the person had no spade. Therefore, if he has a spade, his property is forbidden. That means that the spade was sanctified. That means that the property was sanctified¹¹²R. Joshua ben Ḥanania holds that the property is permanently forbidden to everyone, including the heirs, and must be surrendered to the Temple administrator. This proves that qônām is as valid for dedications as qorbān.. This means that a person may dedicate to Heaven using the expression qônām.

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְשֵׁם חוּלִין וּלְשֵׁם קָרְבָּן מַהוּ לוֹסַר עַצְמוֹ בוֹ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. קוֹנָס. קוֹנָסָה שְׁמָהּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן שְׁבוּתָה. שְׁפוּתָה שְׁמָהּ. וְהָא תַנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. חֶרֶס. לֹא חַסְפָּא הִוא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לְשׁוֹן גְּבוֹהַּ הוּא. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֶרֶס וְלֹא יִזְרַח. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לְשׁוֹן אוּמּוֹת הוּא. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין נֵיװַתָּאֵי דִּינוּן קַרֵייָן לְחַסְפָּא כַסְפָּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. נִרְאִין הַדְּבָרִים בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֲחֵרִים. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין לְנָזִיר נָזִיק כֵּן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. נְזִיר פְּסִילִים לֹא יְהֵא נָזִיר. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: May a person bind himself by a word which has both a profane and a sacral meaning? Did we not state קוֹנָס? Its name is קונסה¹¹³Which word is intended is not quite clear. The early commentators vote for קְנָס “a fine”; then קוּנְסָה could be a stand-in for קְנָסָא. Another possibility would be קִינְסָא “a chip”. There is no problem in asserting that קוֹנָס is used only for vows. Note Arabic قّونّس “point of the helmet”.. Did we not state שְּׁבוּתָה? Its name is שְׁפוּתָה¹¹⁴“Cooking”. It also could be a word שפתא [Tanḥuma Re’e (5) “a bench”.] This is another example to show that in Galilee, under the influence of Greek, β was /v/ and /v/ close to /f/.. ¹¹⁵From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Nazir 1:1:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.1.2-9">Nazir 1:1, 51a 1. 52. But did not Bar Qappara state ḥeres¹¹⁶In Mishnaic Hebrew the word usually means “potsherd”, which certainly is not coming close to the meaning “ban” for which it may be substituted according to Bar Qappara. In Biblical Hebrew, it may be “sun” or “scabies”.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that is a name relating to the High One: ¹¹⁷Job.9.7">Job 9:7.“If He commands the sun: would it not shine?”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, these are Gentile words¹¹⁸The Yerushalmi is inconsistent in its attribution. In Nazir 1:1:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.1.2-9">Nazir 1:1 (and the Nedarim.10a">Babli 10a), R. Joḥanan is reported to hold that the substitutes are words from foreign languages whereas R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that they are artificial words created by the Sages to avoid using Hebrew sacral words. In the latter case it would be obvious that only officially sanctioned words may be used., like those Nabateans who say khaspa for ḥaspa¹¹⁹They cannot distinguish between ح and خ.. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable in other places, but in a place where the nazir is called naziq¹²⁰Where ר is not a dental sound but close to a French /r/, which may be confounded with ق or غ. If the locals hear the equivalent of nazir, that is enough to establish the vow., do I say that a nazir of people with speech defects should not be a nazir?

מִיתְנֵי. שְׁבוּתָה שְׁקוּקָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. שְׁבוּקָה שְׁקוּעָה שְׁקוּרָה. נֶדֶר. דְּנָדַר בְּמוֹהִי בְּמוֹמֵי דְנָדַר מֹשֶׁה וַיּוֹאֵל מֹשֶׁה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לִינָן אָֽמְרִין בְּמוֹמֵי דְנָדַר שָׁאוּל וַיּוֹאֵל שָׁאוּל. יְמִינָא הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. שְׂמֹאלָא הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מִתַּנְיָה. דִּכְתִיב וַיָּרֶם יְמִינוֹ וּשְׂמֹאלוֹ הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיִּשָּׁבַע בְּחֵי הָעוֹלָם. It was stated¹²¹The Nedarim.10b">Babli, 10b, has a different collection of substitutes for “oath”.: šĕbutâ, šĕquqâ; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: šĕbuqa, šĕqu‘â, šĕqurâ. “A vow”, when he made a vow by Moy, by the oath which Moses vowed, “and Moses accepted the curse.¹²²Exodus.2.21">Ex. 2:21. “Moses swore to stay by the man,” not “Moses agreed to stay with the man,” cf. the Targumim.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not say, by the oath which Saul vowed, “Saul menaced the people with a curse¹²³1S. 14:24. Why is the invocation of Saul’s name not a form of oath. In the verse quoted, the meaning of “imposing a curse by an oath” is clear and undisputed. There is no answer, probably because religious fear was never connected with the name of Saul. It is noteworthy that all through proto-Mishnaic, Mishnaic, and Talmudic periods the name Moses is not used for living persons; there are a few appearences of a substitute name such as Maishe.”? By my right hand, that is a vow, by my left hand, that is a vow¹²⁴In the Nedarim.10b">Babli, 10b, only “right hand” is accepted.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, for it is written¹²⁵Daniel.12.7">Dan. 12:7.: “He lifted his right hand and his left hand to the Heavens and swore by the Eternally Living.”