Nedarim 7A

״מעמך״, זה לקט שכחה ופאה.

The verse states with regard to offerings: “When you should take a vow to YHWH your God, you should not delay to pay it; for YHWH your God will surely require it of you” (Deuteronomy 23:22). With regard to the term “of you” the baraita states: This is a reference to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a.

יש יד לצדקה, או אין יד לצדקה? היכי דמי? אילימא דאמר: ״הדין זוזא לצדקה, והדין נמי״⁠ — ההוא צדקה עצמה היא! אלא כגון דאמר ״הדין״ ולא אמר ״נמי״, מאי? ״הדין נמי צדקה״ קאמר, או דלמא [מאי] ״והדין״ (נמי) ⁠— לנפקותא בעלמא קאמר, ודבורא הוא דלא אסקיה.

§ The Talmud asks: Is there intimation for charity or is there no intimation for charity? The Talmud clarifies the question: What are the circumstances of such a case? If we say that it is a case where one said: This dinar is for charity and this also, that itself is an explicit statement of donating to charity. Rather, it is a case where he said: This, and did not say: Also. What is his intention? Is he understood to be saying: This is also charity, or perhaps what is the meaning of: And this? He is saying that this coin is merely for general use, and he did not complete his statement.

מי אמרינן: כיון דאיתקש לקרבנות, דכתיב: ״בפיך״⁠ — זו צדקה. מה קרבנות יש להן יד, אף צדקה יש לה יד. או דלמא ל״בל תאחר״ הוא דאיתקש?

The Talmud explains the two sides of this dilemma: Do we say that since charity is juxtaposed to offerings, as it is written in a verse following the prohibition against delaying an offering: “That you have spoken with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24) and the rabbis expounded that this is a reference to charity, therefore, just as there is intimation, i.e., intimation is effective, with regard to offerings, so too, there is intimation with regard to charity? Or perhaps it is only with regard to the prohibition: You should not delay, that it is juxtaposed, but not with regard to other halakhot?