Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 4, 2022 | 讬壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 10

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in loving memory of her father, Tzvi Ben Moshe on his 14th yahrzeit.

聽Today’s daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her grandmother, Rose Schwartz Wittels.

The Gemara interprets the Mishna which distinguished between neder and nedava according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion and explains why he distinguishes between them. In the process, they brought a braita with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion which spoke about the early pious people who took on being a nazir in order to be able to bring a sin offering. In this braita, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is presented. He disagrees and explains that every nazir is considered a sinner. Abaye cites three people (Shimon the Tzadik in his story on Nedarim 9b, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar the Kapar) who viewed nazirs as sinners. What is the sin of being a nazir, according to them, and from which verse in the Torah did they derive this? The Mishna lists what words are kinui of vows, cherem, nazir and oaths. Regarding a kinui, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree – is it the language of the gentiles or the language of the sages that was made up for us to use? According to Reish Lakish, why would the rabbis make up words to use in place of the actual words? It was to avoid using God’s name in vain. Is their dispute the same as the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding a kinui of a kinui? Some examples of a kinui of a kinui are brought? The Mishna says that using the language of something that is forbidden or related to sacrifices would be a valid language of a vow.

 

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讚讘讛 讘谞讚专 诇讗 讗诪专

Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it can be argued that when Rabbi Yehuda said that it is good to take a vow and fulfill it, he said it with regard to a gift offering, but he did not say it with regard to vows.

讜讛拽转谞讬 讟讜讘 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 谞讜讚专 讜诪拽讬讬诐 转谞讬 谞讜讚讘 讜诪拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the mishna teaching that according to Rabbi Yehuda, better than both this and that is one who vows [noder] and pays, which indicates that he says this even about vows? The Gemara answers: Teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with the following, emended formulation: Better than both this and that is one who volunteers [nodev] a gift offering and pays it.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 谞讜讚专 讚诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 谞讚讘讛 谞诪讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering, due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讻讘砖转讜 诇注讝专讛 讜诪拽讚讬砖讛 讜住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛 讜砖讜讞讟讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said explicitly in a baraita: A person brings his lamb to the Temple courtyard and consecrates it there, and immediately leans on it and slaughters it. Consequently, there is no concern that he will encounter a stumbling block.

转讬谞讞 谞讚讘讛 讚拽专讘谞讜转 谞讚讘讛 讚谞讝讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: That works out well with regard to voluntary gifts in the context of offerings, but with regard to the volun-tary acceptance of naziriteship, what is there to say? There is still room for concern that one will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞住讬讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讬讜 诪转讗讜讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讞讟讗转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 转拽诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬讛诐 诪讛 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜诪转谞讚讘讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 诇诪拽讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讬转讞讬讬讘 拽专讘谉 讞讟讗转 诇诪拽讜诐

The Gemara answers: Here, too, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The early generations of pious men would desire to bring a sin-offering but did not have the opportunity to do so because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not bring about a stumbling block through them, and they would not sin even unwittingly. What would they do? They would rise and volunteer naziriteship to the Omnipresent in order to be liable to bring a sin-offering of a nazirite to the Omnipresent.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讚专讜 讘谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 讛专讜爪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜诇讛 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 砖诇诪讬诐 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讜讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬 诇讞诪讛 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诇讗 讛转谞讚讘讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽专讗讜 讞讜讟讗讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诪讗砖专 讞讟讗 注诇 讛谞驻砖

Rabbi Shimon says: They did not take a vow of naziriteship. Rather, one who would want to bring a burnt-offering would volunteer and bring it; one who would want to bring a peace-offering would volunteer and bring it; and one who would want to bring a thanks-offering and its four types of bread would volunteer and bring them. However, they did not volunteer naziriteship in order that they not be called sinners. According to Rabbi Shimon, naziriteship involves some element of sin, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul鈥 (Numbers 6:11).

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛爪讚讬拽 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讻讜诇谉 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讛谉 讚谞讝讬专 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛爪讚讬拽 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Abaye said: Shimon HaTzaddik, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar are all of the same opinion, that a nazirite is a sinner. The statements of Shimon HaTzaddik and Rabbi Shimon in this regard are that which we already said.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讘专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讘专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诪讗砖专 讞讟讗 注诇 讛谞驻砖 讜讻讬 讘讗讬讝讜 谞驻砖 讞讟讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 砖爪讬注专 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 爪讬注专 注爪诪讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 谞拽专讗 讞讜讟讗 讛诪爪注专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇 讚讘专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 诪讻讗谉 讻诇 讛讬讜砖讘 讘转注谞讬转 谞拽专讗 讞讜讟讗

And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished agrees, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished says: It is written with regard to the priest who sacrificed the offering of a nazirite: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul.鈥 Against which soul did the nazirite sin? Rather, his sin is that he caused himself suffering by refraining from wine. Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: Just as this nazirite, who causes himself suffering only by refraining from wine, is called a sinner, one who causes himself suffering by refraining from everything is all the more so to be considered a sinner. From here it can be derived that whoever fasts unnecessarily is called a sinner.

讜讛讚讬谉 拽专讗 讘谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讻转讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚砖谞讛 讘讞讟讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar. Isn鈥檛 this verse written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite? Consequently, only a nazirite who becomes impure shall be considered a sinner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that the verse uses this terminology with regard to a ritually impure nazirite because he repeated his sin. However, becoming a nazirite is itself considered a sin.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 (诇讞讘讬专讜) 拽讜谞诐 拽讜谞讞 拽讜谞住 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇拽专讘谉 讞专拽 讞专讱 讞专祝 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇讞专诐 谞讝讬拽 谞讝讬讞 驻讝讬讞 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专讜转 砖讘讜转讛 砖拽讜拽讛 谞讜讚专 讘诪讜讛讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讘讜注讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who says to another that a certain object is konam, kona岣, or konas, these expressions are substitutes for the term offering [korban], and the vow takes effect. 岣rek, 岣rekh and 岣ref; these are substitutes for the term indicating a dedication [岣rem] to the Temple treasury. Nazik, nazia岣, and pazia岣; these are substitutes for the term naziriteship [nazir]. Shevuta, shekuka, or one who vows with the term mohi, these are substitutes for the term oath [shevua].

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇砖讜谉 讗讜诪讜转 讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇砖讜谉 砖讘讚讜 诇讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 谞讜讚专 讘讜 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讗砖专 讘讚讗 诪诇讘讜

GEMARA: It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about substitutes for the language of vows. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They are terms from a language of other nations that mean offering, dedication, naziriteship, or oath. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: These terms employ language that the Sages devised [badu] with which one can take a vow. In order to explain the word badu, he adds: And so it states with regard to Jeroboam: 鈥淚n the month that he had devised [bada] in his own heart鈥 (I聽Kings 12:33).

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚诇讗 诇讬诪讗 拽专讘谉 讜诇讬诪讗 拽专讘谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讜诇讬诪讗 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛壮 讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讘谉 讜拽讗 诪驻讬拽 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讘讟诇讛

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, what is the reason that the Sages established substitutes for the language of vows? The Gemara answers: It is so that one not explicitly say the term offering. The Gemara asks: And let him say the term offering; what is wrong with that? The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara asks: And let him say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: To the Lord, and he will then change his mind and not say: An offering, and he will thereby express the name of Heaven in vain.

讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讛壮 注讜诇讛 诇讛壮 诪谞讞讛 诇讛壮 转讜讚讛 诇讛壮 砖诇诪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮

From where is it derived that a person should not say: To the Lord a burnt-offering, or: To the Lord a meal-offering, or: To the Lord a thanks-offering, or: To the Lord a peace-offering, but should mention the offering first and then state that it is for the Lord? The verse states: 鈥淎n offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The reason for this is that if one first says: To the Lord, perhaps he will change his mind and not complete the sentence in order to avoid consecrating the offering, and he will have uttered the name of God in vain.

讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讛讝讻讬专 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 注诇 讛拽专讘谉 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诇讘讟诇讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

And it is an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to this individual discussed in the baraita, who intended to mention the name of Heaven only upon an offering, the Torah said that he should say: An offering to the Lord, in order to avoid possibly mentioning the name of God in vain, with regard to one who actually mentions the Divine Name in vain, all the more so it is clear that he has committed a severe transgression.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: If one expresses a vow with substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna, the vow takes effect and the items are forbidden. And Beit Hillel say: If one expresses a vow with substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna, the vow does not take effect and the items are permitted.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 拽住讘专 (讻讬谞讜讬讬) 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讜谉 讗讜诪讜转 讛谉 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讬诐 拽住讘专 诇砖讜谉 砖讘讚讜 诇讛谉 讞讻诪讬诐

What, is it not correct that the one who says that a vow expressed with substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna takes effect and that the item is consequently forbidden likewise holds that substitutes for the language of vows are terms from the language of other nations, and therefore substitutes for those terms, which are also from foreign languages, should be equally acceptable? And similarly, according to the one who says that the vow does not take effect and the item is permitted, it must be that he holds that these terms are language that the Sages devised. Consequently, substitutes for those terms, which the Sages did not declare to be acceptable terms for expressing a vow, do not cause a vow to take effect.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讜谉 讗讜诪讜转 讛谉 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讘讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诪砖转注讬 讗讜诪讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讘讛谞讬 诇讗 诪砖转注讬 讗讜诪讜转

The Gemara responds: No, it is possible that everyone holds that substitutes for the language of vows are terms from the language of other nations, and Beit Shammai hold that the nations speak using these substitutes for the terms mentioned in the mishna also, and Beit Hillel hold that the nations do not speak using these terms.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉

And if you wish, say an alternate response: Substitute terms themselves are terms from a foreign language. Beit Shammai hold that we issue a decree with regard to substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna, despite the fact that these terms themselves are not valid terms even in a foreign language, due to a concern that if they are not considered to express a vow, one will come to act leniently with regard to a vow expressed with the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna. And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree with regard to substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna due to a concern that one will come to act leniently with regard to a vow expressed with the substitute terms themselves.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚谞讚专讬诐 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪拽谞诪谞讗 诪拽谞讞谞讗 诪拽谞住谞讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚讞专诐 转谞讬 诪驻砖讗讛 讞专拽讬诐 讞专讻讬诐 讞专驻讬诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚谞讝讬专讜转 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞讝拽谞讗 诪谞讝讞谞讗 诪驻讬讞谞讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms for vows? Rav Yosef teaches that they include the following terms: Mekanamna, mekana岣a, and mekanasna. These are verb forms of the terms konam, kona岣, and konas respectively, mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms for dedication [岣rem]? The Sage Mafsha鈥檃 teaches: 岣rakim, 岣rakhim, and 岣rafim. The Gemara continues: What are the substitutes for substitute terms for naziriteship [nezirut]? Rav Yosef teaches: Me岣zakna, menaza岣a, and mafi岣a.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬驻讞讝谞讗 诪讗讬 诪讬转讞讝谞讗 诪讗讬 诪讬转注讝谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 拽讬谞诪讗 (拽讬谞诪讗) 诪讗讬 拽讜谞诐 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽谞诪谉 讘砖诐 拽讗诪专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one uses the term mif岣zna, what is the halakha? If one uses the term mit岣zna, what is the halakha? If one uses the term mitazna, what is the halakha? Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If one uses the term kinma, what is the halakha? Is he saying that the item should be like a konam, in which case the vow takes effect, or perhaps he is saying sweet cinnamon [kineman besem] (see Exodus 30:23) and does not intend to express a vow with the word konam?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 拽讬谞讛 诪讗讬 拽讬谞讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇砖讜谉 讚拽讜谞诐 转讬讘注讬

Rav A岣, son of Rav 岣yya, said to Rav Ashi: If one uses the term kina, what is the halakha? Is he saying this term in reference to a chicken coop, which is also called a kina, or perhaps it is a term for konam and expresses a vow? With regard to these cases, the Gemara says: The dilemma remains unresolved.

讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚砖讘讜注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讜讗诇 砖讘讜转讬讗诇 砖拽讜拽讗诇 砖讘讜讗诇 砖讘讜讗诇 讘谉 讙专砖讜诐 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 砖讘讜讘讗诇 砖讘讜转讬讗诇 砖拽讜拽讗诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗砖讬讘转讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗砖拽讬拽讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 拽专讬谞砖讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms of oaths [shevua]? The Gemara answers that this category includes the terms shevuel, shevutiel, and shekukael. The Gemara asks: Why is the term shevuel included? This word indicates Shevuel, son of Gershom, the proper name of an individual (see I聽Chronicles 26:24), and therefore it should not be considered a substitute term for an oath. Rather, the list of terms includes shevuvael, shevutiel, and shekukael. What is the halakha? Shmuel said: If he said ashivta he has not said anything, despite the fact that there is some similarity between this term and the word oath [shevua]. Similarly, if he said ashkika he has not said anything. If he said karinsha he has not said anything, although it is somewhat similar to konam.

谞讚专 讘诪讜讛讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜诪专 讘诪讜讛讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘诪讜诪转讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讛讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讘讜注讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If one used the terms shevuta or shekuka, or took a vow with the term mohi, these are substitute terms for an oath. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who says that he is taking an oath by mohi has not said anything. However, if he says: By an oath [bemomata] that Mohi said, these are valid substitute terms for an oath.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诇讗 讻砖专 讜诇讗 讚讻讬 讟讛讜专 讜讟诪讗 谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讗住讜专

MISHNA: If one says to another: That which I eat of yours shall be considered la岣llin, it is interpreted as though he said: La 岣llin, not non-sacred, and the food is thereby forbidden to him. Similarly, if he said that food shall be considered not valid or not dekhi, i.e., not ritually pure, or if he said the food shall be considered an offering that has become ritually impure, left over [notar], or piggul, i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time, it is forbidden.

讻讗讬诪专讗 讻讚讬专讬诐 讻注爪讬诐 讻讗砖讬诐 讻诪讝讘讞 讻讛讬讻诇 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 谞讚专 讘讗讞讚 诪讻诇 诪砖诪砖讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讝讻讬专 拽专讘谉 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讚专 讘拽专讘谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜诪专 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

If one says that food shall be considered like the lamb of the daily offering, like the animals designated as offerings and kept in special enclosures, like the wood of the altar, like the fires on the altar, like the altar, like the Sanctuary, or like Jerusalem, or if he took a vow with any of the accessories of the altar, although he did not explicitly mention that the food should be like an offering, it is considered a vow that associates a different item with an offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says that an item shall be considered Jerusalem, instead of saying that it shall be considered like Jerusalem, has not said anything.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 8-12 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that it is permissible to take a vow to fulfill a mitzvah. The Gemara explains...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 10: Sinner or Saint

Is taking the vow of Nezirut considered to be an admirable action or is the Nazir a sinner? The Gemara...

Nedarim 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 10

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讚讘讛 讘谞讚专 诇讗 讗诪专

Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it can be argued that when Rabbi Yehuda said that it is good to take a vow and fulfill it, he said it with regard to a gift offering, but he did not say it with regard to vows.

讜讛拽转谞讬 讟讜讘 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 谞讜讚专 讜诪拽讬讬诐 转谞讬 谞讜讚讘 讜诪拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the mishna teaching that according to Rabbi Yehuda, better than both this and that is one who vows [noder] and pays, which indicates that he says this even about vows? The Gemara answers: Teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with the following, emended formulation: Better than both this and that is one who volunteers [nodev] a gift offering and pays it.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 谞讜讚专 讚诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛 谞讚讘讛 谞诪讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘讛 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering, due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讻讘砖转讜 诇注讝专讛 讜诪拽讚讬砖讛 讜住讜诪讱 注诇讬讛 讜砖讜讞讟讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said explicitly in a baraita: A person brings his lamb to the Temple courtyard and consecrates it there, and immediately leans on it and slaughters it. Consequently, there is no concern that he will encounter a stumbling block.

转讬谞讞 谞讚讘讛 讚拽专讘谞讜转 谞讚讘讛 讚谞讝讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: That works out well with regard to voluntary gifts in the context of offerings, but with regard to the volun-tary acceptance of naziriteship, what is there to say? There is still room for concern that one will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞住讬讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讬讜 诪转讗讜讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讞讟讗转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 转拽诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬讛诐 诪讛 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜诪转谞讚讘讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 诇诪拽讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讬转讞讬讬讘 拽专讘谉 讞讟讗转 诇诪拽讜诐

The Gemara answers: Here, too, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The early generations of pious men would desire to bring a sin-offering but did not have the opportunity to do so because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not bring about a stumbling block through them, and they would not sin even unwittingly. What would they do? They would rise and volunteer naziriteship to the Omnipresent in order to be liable to bring a sin-offering of a nazirite to the Omnipresent.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讚专讜 讘谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 讛专讜爪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜诇讛 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 砖诇诪讬诐 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讜讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬 诇讞诪讛 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诇讗 讛转谞讚讘讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽专讗讜 讞讜讟讗讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诪讗砖专 讞讟讗 注诇 讛谞驻砖

Rabbi Shimon says: They did not take a vow of naziriteship. Rather, one who would want to bring a burnt-offering would volunteer and bring it; one who would want to bring a peace-offering would volunteer and bring it; and one who would want to bring a thanks-offering and its four types of bread would volunteer and bring them. However, they did not volunteer naziriteship in order that they not be called sinners. According to Rabbi Shimon, naziriteship involves some element of sin, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul鈥 (Numbers 6:11).

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛爪讚讬拽 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讻讜诇谉 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讛谉 讚谞讝讬专 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛爪讚讬拽 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Abaye said: Shimon HaTzaddik, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar are all of the same opinion, that a nazirite is a sinner. The statements of Shimon HaTzaddik and Rabbi Shimon in this regard are that which we already said.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讘专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讘专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诪讗砖专 讞讟讗 注诇 讛谞驻砖 讜讻讬 讘讗讬讝讜 谞驻砖 讞讟讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 砖爪讬注专 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 爪讬注专 注爪诪讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 谞拽专讗 讞讜讟讗 讛诪爪注专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇 讚讘专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 诪讻讗谉 讻诇 讛讬讜砖讘 讘转注谞讬转 谞拽专讗 讞讜讟讗

And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished agrees, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished says: It is written with regard to the priest who sacrificed the offering of a nazirite: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul.鈥 Against which soul did the nazirite sin? Rather, his sin is that he caused himself suffering by refraining from wine. Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: Just as this nazirite, who causes himself suffering only by refraining from wine, is called a sinner, one who causes himself suffering by refraining from everything is all the more so to be considered a sinner. From here it can be derived that whoever fasts unnecessarily is called a sinner.

讜讛讚讬谉 拽专讗 讘谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讻转讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚砖谞讛 讘讞讟讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar. Isn鈥檛 this verse written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite? Consequently, only a nazirite who becomes impure shall be considered a sinner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that the verse uses this terminology with regard to a ritually impure nazirite because he repeated his sin. However, becoming a nazirite is itself considered a sin.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 (诇讞讘讬专讜) 拽讜谞诐 拽讜谞讞 拽讜谞住 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇拽专讘谉 讞专拽 讞专讱 讞专祝 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇讞专诐 谞讝讬拽 谞讝讬讞 驻讝讬讞 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专讜转 砖讘讜转讛 砖拽讜拽讛 谞讜讚专 讘诪讜讛讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讘讜注讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who says to another that a certain object is konam, kona岣, or konas, these expressions are substitutes for the term offering [korban], and the vow takes effect. 岣rek, 岣rekh and 岣ref; these are substitutes for the term indicating a dedication [岣rem] to the Temple treasury. Nazik, nazia岣, and pazia岣; these are substitutes for the term naziriteship [nazir]. Shevuta, shekuka, or one who vows with the term mohi, these are substitutes for the term oath [shevua].

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇砖讜谉 讗讜诪讜转 讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇砖讜谉 砖讘讚讜 诇讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 谞讜讚专 讘讜 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 讗砖专 讘讚讗 诪诇讘讜

GEMARA: It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about substitutes for the language of vows. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They are terms from a language of other nations that mean offering, dedication, naziriteship, or oath. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: These terms employ language that the Sages devised [badu] with which one can take a vow. In order to explain the word badu, he adds: And so it states with regard to Jeroboam: 鈥淚n the month that he had devised [bada] in his own heart鈥 (I聽Kings 12:33).

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚诇讗 诇讬诪讗 拽专讘谉 讜诇讬诪讗 拽专讘谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讜诇讬诪讗 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛壮 讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讘谉 讜拽讗 诪驻讬拽 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讘讟诇讛

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, what is the reason that the Sages established substitutes for the language of vows? The Gemara answers: It is so that one not explicitly say the term offering. The Gemara asks: And let him say the term offering; what is wrong with that? The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara asks: And let him say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: To the Lord, and he will then change his mind and not say: An offering, and he will thereby express the name of Heaven in vain.

讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讛壮 注讜诇讛 诇讛壮 诪谞讞讛 诇讛壮 转讜讚讛 诇讛壮 砖诇诪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮

From where is it derived that a person should not say: To the Lord a burnt-offering, or: To the Lord a meal-offering, or: To the Lord a thanks-offering, or: To the Lord a peace-offering, but should mention the offering first and then state that it is for the Lord? The verse states: 鈥淎n offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The reason for this is that if one first says: To the Lord, perhaps he will change his mind and not complete the sentence in order to avoid consecrating the offering, and he will have uttered the name of God in vain.

讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讛讝讻讬专 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 注诇 讛拽专讘谉 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诇讘讟诇讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

And it is an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to this individual discussed in the baraita, who intended to mention the name of Heaven only upon an offering, the Torah said that he should say: An offering to the Lord, in order to avoid possibly mentioning the name of God in vain, with regard to one who actually mentions the Divine Name in vain, all the more so it is clear that he has committed a severe transgression.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: If one expresses a vow with substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna, the vow takes effect and the items are forbidden. And Beit Hillel say: If one expresses a vow with substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna, the vow does not take effect and the items are permitted.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 拽住讘专 (讻讬谞讜讬讬) 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讜谉 讗讜诪讜转 讛谉 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讬诐 拽住讘专 诇砖讜谉 砖讘讚讜 诇讛谉 讞讻诪讬诐

What, is it not correct that the one who says that a vow expressed with substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna takes effect and that the item is consequently forbidden likewise holds that substitutes for the language of vows are terms from the language of other nations, and therefore substitutes for those terms, which are also from foreign languages, should be equally acceptable? And similarly, according to the one who says that the vow does not take effect and the item is permitted, it must be that he holds that these terms are language that the Sages devised. Consequently, substitutes for those terms, which the Sages did not declare to be acceptable terms for expressing a vow, do not cause a vow to take effect.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讜谉 讗讜诪讜转 讛谉 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讘讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诪砖转注讬 讗讜诪讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讘讛谞讬 诇讗 诪砖转注讬 讗讜诪讜转

The Gemara responds: No, it is possible that everyone holds that substitutes for the language of vows are terms from the language of other nations, and Beit Shammai hold that the nations speak using these substitutes for the terms mentioned in the mishna also, and Beit Hillel hold that the nations do not speak using these terms.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉

And if you wish, say an alternate response: Substitute terms themselves are terms from a foreign language. Beit Shammai hold that we issue a decree with regard to substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna, despite the fact that these terms themselves are not valid terms even in a foreign language, due to a concern that if they are not considered to express a vow, one will come to act leniently with regard to a vow expressed with the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna. And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree with regard to substitutes for the substitute terms mentioned in the mishna due to a concern that one will come to act leniently with regard to a vow expressed with the substitute terms themselves.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚谞讚专讬诐 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪拽谞诪谞讗 诪拽谞讞谞讗 诪拽谞住谞讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚讞专诐 转谞讬 诪驻砖讗讛 讞专拽讬诐 讞专讻讬诐 讞专驻讬诐 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚谞讝讬专讜转 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞讝拽谞讗 诪谞讝讞谞讗 诪驻讬讞谞讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms for vows? Rav Yosef teaches that they include the following terms: Mekanamna, mekana岣a, and mekanasna. These are verb forms of the terms konam, kona岣, and konas respectively, mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms for dedication [岣rem]? The Sage Mafsha鈥檃 teaches: 岣rakim, 岣rakhim, and 岣rafim. The Gemara continues: What are the substitutes for substitute terms for naziriteship [nezirut]? Rav Yosef teaches: Me岣zakna, menaza岣a, and mafi岣a.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬驻讞讝谞讗 诪讗讬 诪讬转讞讝谞讗 诪讗讬 诪讬转注讝谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 拽讬谞诪讗 (拽讬谞诪讗) 诪讗讬 拽讜谞诐 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽谞诪谉 讘砖诐 拽讗诪专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one uses the term mif岣zna, what is the halakha? If one uses the term mit岣zna, what is the halakha? If one uses the term mitazna, what is the halakha? Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If one uses the term kinma, what is the halakha? Is he saying that the item should be like a konam, in which case the vow takes effect, or perhaps he is saying sweet cinnamon [kineman besem] (see Exodus 30:23) and does not intend to express a vow with the word konam?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 拽讬谞讛 诪讗讬 拽讬谞讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇砖讜谉 讚拽讜谞诐 转讬讘注讬

Rav A岣, son of Rav 岣yya, said to Rav Ashi: If one uses the term kina, what is the halakha? Is he saying this term in reference to a chicken coop, which is also called a kina, or perhaps it is a term for konam and expresses a vow? With regard to these cases, the Gemara says: The dilemma remains unresolved.

讻讬谞讜讬讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚砖讘讜注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讜讗诇 砖讘讜转讬讗诇 砖拽讜拽讗诇 砖讘讜讗诇 砖讘讜讗诇 讘谉 讙专砖讜诐 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 砖讘讜讘讗诇 砖讘讜转讬讗诇 砖拽讜拽讗诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗砖讬讘转讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗砖拽讬拽讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 拽专讬谞砖讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms of oaths [shevua]? The Gemara answers that this category includes the terms shevuel, shevutiel, and shekukael. The Gemara asks: Why is the term shevuel included? This word indicates Shevuel, son of Gershom, the proper name of an individual (see I聽Chronicles 26:24), and therefore it should not be considered a substitute term for an oath. Rather, the list of terms includes shevuvael, shevutiel, and shekukael. What is the halakha? Shmuel said: If he said ashivta he has not said anything, despite the fact that there is some similarity between this term and the word oath [shevua]. Similarly, if he said ashkika he has not said anything. If he said karinsha he has not said anything, although it is somewhat similar to konam.

谞讚专 讘诪讜讛讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜诪专 讘诪讜讛讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘诪讜诪转讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讛讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讘讜注讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If one used the terms shevuta or shekuka, or took a vow with the term mohi, these are substitute terms for an oath. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who says that he is taking an oath by mohi has not said anything. However, if he says: By an oath [bemomata] that Mohi said, these are valid substitute terms for an oath.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诇讗 讻砖专 讜诇讗 讚讻讬 讟讛讜专 讜讟诪讗 谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讗住讜专

MISHNA: If one says to another: That which I eat of yours shall be considered la岣llin, it is interpreted as though he said: La 岣llin, not non-sacred, and the food is thereby forbidden to him. Similarly, if he said that food shall be considered not valid or not dekhi, i.e., not ritually pure, or if he said the food shall be considered an offering that has become ritually impure, left over [notar], or piggul, i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time, it is forbidden.

讻讗讬诪专讗 讻讚讬专讬诐 讻注爪讬诐 讻讗砖讬诐 讻诪讝讘讞 讻讛讬讻诇 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 谞讚专 讘讗讞讚 诪讻诇 诪砖诪砖讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讝讻讬专 拽专讘谉 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讚专 讘拽专讘谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜诪专 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

If one says that food shall be considered like the lamb of the daily offering, like the animals designated as offerings and kept in special enclosures, like the wood of the altar, like the fires on the altar, like the altar, like the Sanctuary, or like Jerusalem, or if he took a vow with any of the accessories of the altar, although he did not explicitly mention that the food should be like an offering, it is considered a vow that associates a different item with an offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says that an item shall be considered Jerusalem, instead of saying that it shall be considered like Jerusalem, has not said anything.

Scroll To Top