Some are treated as first-borns in respect of inheritance
but not in respect of the priest;
others are treated as first-borns in respect of the priest but not in respect of inheritance. Now who isregarded as a first-born in respect of inheritance but not in respect of the priest etc.?
— In theseexamples [the first clause is explained first] because it contains numerous instances [to which its lawapplies]. But, ‘Wherewith may a beast go out on the Sabbath, and wherewith may it not go out?’where [the first clause does] not contain numerous instances, yet it is explained [first], viz., a camelmay go out etc.?____________________
Viz., HARAMIM, OATHS, AND VOWS.
The tractate Nazir commences likewise: All substitutes for the nazirite vow are binding.
Num. XXX, 3: If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath.
A vow is thus taken: ‘This shall be forbidden tonic,’ the prohibition falling upon the thing. An oath, however, is thustaken: ‘I swear to abstain from a certain thing,’ the prohibition falling upon the person.
Since the principal way of making a vow is to declare a thing to be as korban, the omission of such a declarationrenders the vow merely an abbreviation or suggestion (lit., ‘a handle’) of a vow, V. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 2.
This may mean either that there is actually a lacuna in the text, words having fallen out, or that though it is correct initself something has to be supplied to complete the sense; v. Weiss, Dor. III, p. 6. n. 14. The former is the most probablehere.
Ibid. 57a. — In all these examples the second clause is first discussed.
In Levirate marriage, v. Deut. XXV, 5 seq.
A ceremony in which the priest put his hands under those of the person bringing the offering and waved them to andfro in front of the altar.
I.e., they receive a double share of their patrimony; v. Deut. XXI, 17.
They do not need redemption: v. Ex. XIII, 23.
Bek. 46a. In all these examples the first clause is discussed first.
Talmud - Mas. Nedarim 3a