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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 5, 2015 | 讬状讞 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nedarim 12

讜讛讗 谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗

But notar and piggul are conditions that apply after the sprinkling of the blood, when the prohibition against misusing consecrated property, which the individual is attempting to extend to a permitted item, no longer applies. Since the vow takes effect, this proves that the individual is associating the object of his vow with the original forbidden status of the offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 讘谞讜转专 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬转谞讬 讘讘砖专 注讜诇讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to him: It is possible to say that it is speaking here about notar of a burnt-offering. Since a burnt-offering may not be eaten even after its blood is sprinkled, the original prohibition against misusing consecrated property continues to apply to the meat of this offering. Rava said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan: If so, let it teach explicitly that the individual referred to the meat of a burnt-offering.

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘砖专 注讜诇讛 讚讗住讜专 讚讛讗 讘拽专讘谉 拽讗 诪转驻讬住 谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讚注讜诇讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗

The Gemara responds: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state that if one associates the object of his vow with meat of a burnt-offering, it is forbidden, as he extends the status of an offering to the other item. However, if one extends the status of notar and piggul of a burnt-offering, it is necessary to say that the other item is forbidden.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讗讬住讜专 谞讜转专 讻讗讬住讜专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪转驻讬住 讘讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讜诇讗 诪讬转住专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

It could enter your mind to say that the individual intended to declare the item forbidden like the prohibition of notar or like the prohibition of piggul, and this would be like one who associates the object of his vow with an item that is forbidden by the Torah rather than an item forbidden by means of a vow. Consequently, the item is not forbidden, as one can take a vow by associating the object of his vow with a forbidden item only if that item is itself prohibited due to a vow. The mishna therefore teaches us that his intention is to transfer the prohibition of the offering, and the vow takes effect.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讬住专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 专讘讜 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讻讬讜诐 砖专讗讬转讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讞讜专讘谞讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讚讜专 讘讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita: Which is the vow of prohibition [issar] mentioned in the Torah? It is a case where one said: I hereby declare that I will not eat meat and I will not drink wine today like the day his father died, referring to the father of the individual making the vow, as there is a custom to fast on the anniversary of a parent鈥檚 death, or: Like the day his teacher died, as one mourns his primary teacher like a father, or: Like the day Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed (see Jeremiah, chapter 41), i.e., the Fast of Gedaliah, or: Like the day I saw Jerusalem in its state of destruction. And Shmuel said: And this is if he was obligated by a previous vow to abstain from meat and wine on that day that he refers to in his declaration.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗讬 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗 讚诪讬转 讘讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讟讜讘讗 讞讚 讘砖讘讗 讚讛讬转专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬拽专 讛讜讗 诪转驻讬住

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? Is it not a case where, for example, it was Sunday, the same day of the week on which his father died? And although there were many permitted Sundays in the interim, nevertheless, when he said he would not eat meat or drink wine like the day of the week on which his father died, his intention was to the particular Sunday when his father died, when he had vowed to abstain from meat and wine, and therefore the tanna teaches that it is prohibited. Learn from this that he associates the object of his vow with the original halakhic status of the Sunday his father died, and not the status of the intervening Sundays. Similarly, in the case of peace-offerings following the sprinkling of the blood, he is referring to the original status of the meat before the sprinkling of the blood.

讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讚讜专 讜讘讗 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讬诇讱

The Gemara responds that this is how the comment of Shmuel was stated: Shmuel said: And this is if he was continuously obligated by a vow from that day forward to abstain from meat and wine on the anniversary of his father鈥檚 death. Consequently, when he associates another day with the day of his father鈥檚 death, he expresses a vow based upon the current status of the day, and there is no proof with regard to the case of the meat of the peace-offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讞诇转 讗讛专谉 讜讻转专讜诪转讜 诪讜转专 讛讗 讻转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara cites another attempted proof. Ravina said: Come and hear that which was taught in the mishna (13b): If one declares an item to be like the 岣lla of Aaron, i.e., the portion of dough given to the priests, or like his teruma, the portion of agricultural produce given to priests, the item remains permitted. Although these items are prohibited to non-priests as soon as they are designated, they are considered forbidden by the Torah rather than forbidden by a vow. The Gemara infers: But if one declares an item to be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering, i.e., the four loaves of the thanks-offering that were eaten by the priests, the item is forbidden.

讜讛讗 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讛讬讗

Having made this inference, Ravina comments: But the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering is designated only after the sprinkling of the blood. Consequently, the individual must have made his vow after the sprinkling of the blood, when these loaves are permitted to priests. If the vow nevertheless takes effect, it must be because the individual is referring to the original forbidden status of the loaves before the sprinkling of the blood. This indicates that one has in mind the original status of the item rather than its current status.

讗讬诪讗 讻转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara refutes this: Say that when the mishna specifies that if one said the food should be like the teruma of Aaron it remains permitted it thereby indicates that if he said it should be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, which is also called a teruma and is always forbidden, the food becomes forbidden. However, one cannot infer from the mishna that if one declares the food to be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering the food becomes forbidden.

讗讘诇 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪讗讬 诪讜转专 诇讬转谞讬 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 转专讜诪转讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 转专讜诪转讜 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But according to this, if one said the food should be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering, what, does the food remain permitted? If so, let it teach in the mishna that if one said the food should be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering it remains permitted even though the thanks-offering is forbidden by means of a vow, and one would know on his own that if he says the food should be like the teruma of Aaron, all the more so the food remains permitted. The Gemara responds: It teaches us this: Teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering is also referred to as his teruma and is therefore included in the mishna.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 谞诪讬 拽讜讚诐 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讛

The Gemara offers an alternative response to Ravina鈥檚 attempted proof from the case of the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering, that one has in mind the original status of an item when one expresses a vow. And if you wish, say that the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering can also be designated before the sprinkling of the blood, for example, when he separated the teruma during the kneading of the dough. Consequently, the case may be where one makes the vow before the sprinkling of the blood, when the loaves are forbidden to all, and that is the reason the vow takes effect.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 拽讬住谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 砖讗驻讗谉 讘讗专讘注 讞诇讜转 讬爪讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗专讘注讬诐 诇诪爪讜讛

And this is in accordance with that which Rav Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: If one baked the loaves of the thanks-offering as four loaves rather than the forty loaves that should ideally be baked, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written that forty loaves must be brought with the thanks-offering, ten loaves of each of the four different types? The Gemara answers: One must bake forty loaves in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.

讜讛讗 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讞讚讗 专讬驻转讗 注诇 讻讜诇讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 拽专讘谉 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 诪拽专讘谉 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚砖拽讬诇 驻专讜住讛 诪讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讜讛转谞谉 讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻专讜住讛

The Gemara asks: But he is required to take teruma, i.e., designate one loaf of each type to be given to the priests. And if you would say that he takes one loaf of bread of the four as teruma for all the others, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Mena岣t 77b) with regard to the verse 鈥淎nd of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 7:14), that it indicates that he should not take from one offering, i.e., one type of loaf, for another? And if you would say that he takes a slice from each one of the four loaves and gives them to the priest, but didn鈥檛 we learn in that mishna that the word one in the verse indicates that he may not take a slice but rather a complete loaf?

讗诇讗 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讛 讚砖拽讬诇 讞讚讗 诪讞诪抓 讜讞讚讗 诪谉 讞诇讜转 讜讞讚讗 诪谉 专拽讬拽讬诐 讜讞讚讗 诪谉 专讘讜讻讛

Rather, it must be that he separated the teruma during the time of kneading. He took one piece of dough from the leavened bread, one from the loaves, one from the wafers, and one from the flour mixed with water and oil. After separating one tenth of each type of dough for the priest, he then baked the remainder into four loaves. Since it is possible to separate the teruma at the time of the kneading, before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, it is possible that the case is one where he expressed the vow at this time. Consequently, there is no proof that one has in mind the original status of an offering rather than its current status when one expresses a vow after the sprinkling of the blood.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛专讬 注诇讬 讻讘讻讜专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this question, whether one intends to extend the original or current status of an offering, is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. If one says: This meat is prohibited to me like the meat of a firstborn, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov renders the meat forbidden and Rabbi Yehuda renders it permitted.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that he associates the object of his vow with the status of a firstborn animal before the sprinkling of the blood, when it is forbidden as a consecrated item, what is the rationale of the one who renders it permitted? And if he associates the object of his vow with the status of a firstborn animal after the sprinkling of the blood, when it belongs to the priest and is permitted to be eaten, what is the rationale of the one who renders it forbidden? Rather, is it not

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 12

讜讛讗 谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗

But notar and piggul are conditions that apply after the sprinkling of the blood, when the prohibition against misusing consecrated property, which the individual is attempting to extend to a permitted item, no longer applies. Since the vow takes effect, this proves that the individual is associating the object of his vow with the original forbidden status of the offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 讘谞讜转专 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬转谞讬 讘讘砖专 注讜诇讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to him: It is possible to say that it is speaking here about notar of a burnt-offering. Since a burnt-offering may not be eaten even after its blood is sprinkled, the original prohibition against misusing consecrated property continues to apply to the meat of this offering. Rava said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan: If so, let it teach explicitly that the individual referred to the meat of a burnt-offering.

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘砖专 注讜诇讛 讚讗住讜专 讚讛讗 讘拽专讘谉 拽讗 诪转驻讬住 谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讚注讜诇讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗

The Gemara responds: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state that if one associates the object of his vow with meat of a burnt-offering, it is forbidden, as he extends the status of an offering to the other item. However, if one extends the status of notar and piggul of a burnt-offering, it is necessary to say that the other item is forbidden.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讗讬住讜专 谞讜转专 讻讗讬住讜专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪转驻讬住 讘讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讜诇讗 诪讬转住专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

It could enter your mind to say that the individual intended to declare the item forbidden like the prohibition of notar or like the prohibition of piggul, and this would be like one who associates the object of his vow with an item that is forbidden by the Torah rather than an item forbidden by means of a vow. Consequently, the item is not forbidden, as one can take a vow by associating the object of his vow with a forbidden item only if that item is itself prohibited due to a vow. The mishna therefore teaches us that his intention is to transfer the prohibition of the offering, and the vow takes effect.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讬住专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 讻讬讜诐 砖诪转 讘讜 专讘讜 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讻讬讜诐 砖专讗讬转讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讞讜专讘谞讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讚讜专 讘讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita: Which is the vow of prohibition [issar] mentioned in the Torah? It is a case where one said: I hereby declare that I will not eat meat and I will not drink wine today like the day his father died, referring to the father of the individual making the vow, as there is a custom to fast on the anniversary of a parent鈥檚 death, or: Like the day his teacher died, as one mourns his primary teacher like a father, or: Like the day Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed (see Jeremiah, chapter 41), i.e., the Fast of Gedaliah, or: Like the day I saw Jerusalem in its state of destruction. And Shmuel said: And this is if he was obligated by a previous vow to abstain from meat and wine on that day that he refers to in his declaration.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗讬 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗 讚诪讬转 讘讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讟讜讘讗 讞讚 讘砖讘讗 讚讛讬转专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬拽专 讛讜讗 诪转驻讬住

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? Is it not a case where, for example, it was Sunday, the same day of the week on which his father died? And although there were many permitted Sundays in the interim, nevertheless, when he said he would not eat meat or drink wine like the day of the week on which his father died, his intention was to the particular Sunday when his father died, when he had vowed to abstain from meat and wine, and therefore the tanna teaches that it is prohibited. Learn from this that he associates the object of his vow with the original halakhic status of the Sunday his father died, and not the status of the intervening Sundays. Similarly, in the case of peace-offerings following the sprinkling of the blood, he is referring to the original status of the meat before the sprinkling of the blood.

讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讚讜专 讜讘讗 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讬诇讱

The Gemara responds that this is how the comment of Shmuel was stated: Shmuel said: And this is if he was continuously obligated by a vow from that day forward to abstain from meat and wine on the anniversary of his father鈥檚 death. Consequently, when he associates another day with the day of his father鈥檚 death, he expresses a vow based upon the current status of the day, and there is no proof with regard to the case of the meat of the peace-offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讞诇转 讗讛专谉 讜讻转专讜诪转讜 诪讜转专 讛讗 讻转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara cites another attempted proof. Ravina said: Come and hear that which was taught in the mishna (13b): If one declares an item to be like the 岣lla of Aaron, i.e., the portion of dough given to the priests, or like his teruma, the portion of agricultural produce given to priests, the item remains permitted. Although these items are prohibited to non-priests as soon as they are designated, they are considered forbidden by the Torah rather than forbidden by a vow. The Gemara infers: But if one declares an item to be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering, i.e., the four loaves of the thanks-offering that were eaten by the priests, the item is forbidden.

讜讛讗 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讛讬讗

Having made this inference, Ravina comments: But the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering is designated only after the sprinkling of the blood. Consequently, the individual must have made his vow after the sprinkling of the blood, when these loaves are permitted to priests. If the vow nevertheless takes effect, it must be because the individual is referring to the original forbidden status of the loaves before the sprinkling of the blood. This indicates that one has in mind the original status of the item rather than its current status.

讗讬诪讗 讻转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara refutes this: Say that when the mishna specifies that if one said the food should be like the teruma of Aaron it remains permitted it thereby indicates that if he said it should be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, which is also called a teruma and is always forbidden, the food becomes forbidden. However, one cannot infer from the mishna that if one declares the food to be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering the food becomes forbidden.

讗讘诇 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪讗讬 诪讜转专 诇讬转谞讬 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 转专讜诪转讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 转专讜诪转讜 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But according to this, if one said the food should be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering, what, does the food remain permitted? If so, let it teach in the mishna that if one said the food should be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering it remains permitted even though the thanks-offering is forbidden by means of a vow, and one would know on his own that if he says the food should be like the teruma of Aaron, all the more so the food remains permitted. The Gemara responds: It teaches us this: Teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering is also referred to as his teruma and is therefore included in the mishna.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 谞诪讬 拽讜讚诐 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讛

The Gemara offers an alternative response to Ravina鈥檚 attempted proof from the case of the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering, that one has in mind the original status of an item when one expresses a vow. And if you wish, say that the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering can also be designated before the sprinkling of the blood, for example, when he separated the teruma during the kneading of the dough. Consequently, the case may be where one makes the vow before the sprinkling of the blood, when the loaves are forbidden to all, and that is the reason the vow takes effect.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 拽讬住谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 砖讗驻讗谉 讘讗专讘注 讞诇讜转 讬爪讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗专讘注讬诐 诇诪爪讜讛

And this is in accordance with that which Rav Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: If one baked the loaves of the thanks-offering as four loaves rather than the forty loaves that should ideally be baked, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written that forty loaves must be brought with the thanks-offering, ten loaves of each of the four different types? The Gemara answers: One must bake forty loaves in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.

讜讛讗 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚砖拽讬诇 讞讚讗 专讬驻转讗 注诇 讻讜诇讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 拽专讘谉 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 诪拽专讘谉 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚砖拽讬诇 驻专讜住讛 诪讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讜讛转谞谉 讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻专讜住讛

The Gemara asks: But he is required to take teruma, i.e., designate one loaf of each type to be given to the priests. And if you would say that he takes one loaf of bread of the four as teruma for all the others, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Mena岣t 77b) with regard to the verse 鈥淎nd of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 7:14), that it indicates that he should not take from one offering, i.e., one type of loaf, for another? And if you would say that he takes a slice from each one of the four loaves and gives them to the priest, but didn鈥檛 we learn in that mishna that the word one in the verse indicates that he may not take a slice but rather a complete loaf?

讗诇讗 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讛 讚砖拽讬诇 讞讚讗 诪讞诪抓 讜讞讚讗 诪谉 讞诇讜转 讜讞讚讗 诪谉 专拽讬拽讬诐 讜讞讚讗 诪谉 专讘讜讻讛

Rather, it must be that he separated the teruma during the time of kneading. He took one piece of dough from the leavened bread, one from the loaves, one from the wafers, and one from the flour mixed with water and oil. After separating one tenth of each type of dough for the priest, he then baked the remainder into four loaves. Since it is possible to separate the teruma at the time of the kneading, before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, it is possible that the case is one where he expressed the vow at this time. Consequently, there is no proof that one has in mind the original status of an offering rather than its current status when one expresses a vow after the sprinkling of the blood.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛专讬 注诇讬 讻讘讻讜专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this question, whether one intends to extend the original or current status of an offering, is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. If one says: This meat is prohibited to me like the meat of a firstborn, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov renders the meat forbidden and Rabbi Yehuda renders it permitted.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that he associates the object of his vow with the status of a firstborn animal before the sprinkling of the blood, when it is forbidden as a consecrated item, what is the rationale of the one who renders it permitted? And if he associates the object of his vow with the status of a firstborn animal after the sprinkling of the blood, when it belongs to the priest and is permitted to be eaten, what is the rationale of the one who renders it forbidden? Rather, is it not

Scroll To Top