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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 7, 2022 | 讬状讙 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • 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 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.

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

Nedarim 13

The Gemara rejects the possibility of the answer to Rami bar Hama鈥檚 question (about whether a vow that was attached to the meat of a peace offering applies to the object as it is now or as it was previously) is a tannaitic debate (the case of a firstborn animal). The debate about the firstborn is due to a difference in perspective of the firstborn 鈥 is it considered a vowed item or a forbidden item? A braita says that if one used any language relating to a sacrifice, if one finishes with the words, 鈥渢hat I will eat from you,鈥 it is forbidden, 鈥渢hat I will not eat from you,鈥 it is permitted. The braita seems to follow Rabbi Meir, however, it also seems not to follow Rabbi Meir鈥檚 position. How is this resolved? The Mishna discusses more languages of sacrifices that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda debate. The Gemara raises some questions about Rabbi Meir鈥檚 positions in light of his opinion in other places and then resolves the difficulties. If one says to another that one鈥檚 mouth is konam from speaking to the other, or one鈥檚 hands will be konam to not produce anything for the other or one鈥檚 legs are konam from walking with the other, the vow is valid. How can this be reconciled with a braita that states the differences between vows and oaths and states that vows do not apply to non-tangible items? The Mishna says that if one takes a vow and says that something is forbidden like a forbidden item such as non-kosher food or something used for idol worship, it is not a valid vow. If one forbid鈥檚 one鈥檚 wife from deriving benefit from him by saying 鈥渓ike my mother is forbidden to me,鈥 even though it is not a valid vow, he must go to a chacham to annul the vow by a petach, by explaining that had he known鈥, he never would have taken the vow. This is used as a preventative method so that he doesn鈥檛 take vows like this again. According to whose opinion does the Mishna follow?

讚诪讞讬转 讘砖专 讘讻讜专 讜诪讞讬转 讘砖专 讚讛讗讬讱 讙讘讬讛 讜讗诪专 讝讛 讻讝讛 讜转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

that he places the meat of a firstborn animal in one place and he places another piece of meat next to it, and he said: This second piece of meat is hereby like that meat of the firstborn animal, and it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m about whether he is referring to the original forbidden status of the firstborn animal or its current permitted status?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬讚专 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 讘讚讘专 讛谞讚讜专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘讻讜专 讚讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讛讜讗

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is referring to the status of the animal before the sprinkling of the blood, and what is the reason of the one who renders it permitted? The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man takes a vow鈥 (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that he has not done so until he takes a vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., by extending the status of an item that itself was forbidden by a means of a vow. This comes to exclude a firstborn, which is an item that is forbidden by the Torah rather than by means of a vow; a firstborn animal is sacred simply because it is born first.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讚讘专 讛讗住讜专

And the one who renders it forbidden holds that it is because the verse states: 鈥淭o the Lord鈥 (Numbers 30:3), which comes to include one who takes a vow by associating an object with an item that is forbidden by the Torah.

讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诇讛壮 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪转驻讬住 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐

The Gemara asks: And the one who renders it permitted based on the principle that one cannot take a vow by associating the item with an item that is forbidden by the Torah, what does he do with the expression 鈥渢o the Lord鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires this expression to include the case of one who associates the object of his vow with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. Although these offerings are obligatory rather than voluntary, and in that regard they are dissimilar to items forbidden by means of a vow, one can render another item forbidden by associating it with these offerings.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讛讜讗 诪转驻讬住 讘谞讚专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 砖讛讜讗 拽讚讜砖 诪诪注讬 讗诪讜

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and to exclude the firstborn? The Gemara answers: I include the sin-offering and guilt-offering due to the fact that he associates the object of his vow with an animal forbidden by means of a vow, as it is the individual who designates a particular animal for one of these offerings. And I remove the firstborn, because it is sacred from its mother鈥檚 womb.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 诪转驻讬住讜 讘谞讚专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诪专讜 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜诇讚 讘讻讜专 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛讝讻专 转拽讚讬砖

And the one who renders it forbidden is of the opinion that one who says that a piece of meat shall be considered for him like the meat of a firstborn also associates the object of his vow with an item forbidden by a vow, as it is taught in a baraita: They said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: From where is it derived that if one has a firstborn animal born in his home it is still a mitzva to consecrate it? As it is stated: 鈥淭he males you shall consecrate鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19). Although a firstborn animal is considered consecrated from birth, its owner is still commanded to declare it consecrated, and it is therefore considered an item forbidden by means of a vow.

讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讻讬 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讬拽讚讬砖

And the one who renders it permitted in this case argues that although the owner is required to declare it consecrated, if he does not consecrate it, is it not consecrated? Since it is consecrated in any event, it is considered to have been rendered forbidden by the Torah rather than through a vow.

讻讗讬诪专讗 讻讚讬专讬诐

搂 It is taught in the mishna that if one says that food shall be considered like the lamb [imra] of the daily offering, or like the animals designated as offerings and kept in special enclosures, the vow takes effect.

转谞讗 讗讬诪专讗 诇讗讬诪专讗 讻讗讬诪专讗 讚讬专讬诐 诇讚讬专讬诐 讻讚讬专讬诐 注爪讬诐 诇注爪讬诐 讻注爪讬诐 讗讬砖讬诐 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讻讗讬砖讬诐 诪讝讘讞 诇诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞 讛讬讻诇 诇讛讬讻诇 讻讛讬讻诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讜诇谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诪讜转专

It was taught in a baraita: If one says that food shall be considered a lamb, for a lamb, like a lamb; enclosures, for enclosures, like enclosures; wood, for wood, like wood; fires, for fires, like fires; the altar, for the altar, like the altar; the Sanctuary, for the Sanctuary, like the Sanctuary; Jerusalem, for Jerusalem, like Jerusalem; with regard to all of them, if he adds: That which I will eat of yours, it is forbidden. This is because his intent is that whatever he eats that belongs to the other individual should be forbidden to him like one of these consecrated items. However, if he adds: That which I will not eat of yours, the food is permitted, since the only implication of his statement is that whatever he does not eat shall be forbidden.

诪讗谉 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪专讗 诇讗讬诪专讗 讻讗讬诪专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Who is the Sage of whom we have heard, for whom there is no difference whether one said a lamb, for a lamb, or like a lamb, that I eat of yours? It is Rabbi Meir. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the vow takes effect only if one says: Like a lamb.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诪讜转专 讜讛转谞谉 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇拽专讘谉 讬讛讗 诇驻讬讻讱 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱

However, say the latter clause of the baraita: With regard to all of them, if he adds: That which I will not eat of yours, the food remains permitted. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the next mishna that if one says: That which I will not eat of yours shall be for an offering [lekorban], Rabbi Meir prohibits him from eating food belonging to the other individual? And Rabbi Abba said in explanation of this ruling that it is as though he said: It shall be for an offering [lekorban], and therefore I will not eat that which is yours. Apparently, according to Rabbi Meir the food is forbidden even if he said: That which I will not eat of yours.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诇讗讬诪专讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讬诪专讗

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult: This baraita is referring to a case where one said: That which I do not eat from you shall not [la] be for a lamb [le鈥檌mra]. Although this statement implies that what he does eat shall be considered like the lamb of the daily offering, Rabbi Meir holds that one cannot infer a positive statement from a negative statement. Conversely, that mishna is referring to a case where he said: For a lamb [le鈥檌mra]. In that case, his statement is interpreted as though he said: It shall be considered the lamb used for the daily offering, and therefore I will not eat it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 拽专讘谉 注讜诇讛 诪谞讞讛 讞讟讗转 转讜讚讛 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讛拽专讘谉 讻拽专讘谉 拽专讘谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专

MISHNA: With regard to one who says: An offering, a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, a sin-offering, a thanks-offering, or a peace-offering, and adds: That which I eat of yours, the vow takes effect and the food is forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda renders the food permitted in all these cases. If one says: The offering, like an offering, or an offering, and adds: That which I will eat of yours, the food is forbidden. If he says: That which I will not eat of your shall be for an offering, Rabbi Meir renders the food forbidden.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 拽专讘谉 讛拽专讘谉 讻拽专讘谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 住转诪讗 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讗讬诪专讗 诇讗讬诪专讗

GEMARA: It teaches in the mishna that if one says: An offering, the offering, or like an offering, and then adds: That which I will eat of yours, it is forbidden. This indicates that this unattributed opinion in the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, for whom there is no difference whether one says a lamb [imra] or as a lamb [le鈥檌mra].

[讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗] 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽专讘谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜诪专 讛讗 拽专讘谉 讜讛讗 注讜诇讛 讜讛讗 诪谞讞讛 讜讛讗 讞讟讗转 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖诪讜转专 砖诇讗 谞讚专 讝讛 讗诇讗 讘讞讬讬 拽专讘谉

The Gemara asks: However, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that which it teaches is difficult. It teaches that if one says: The offering [hakorban], and adds: That which I will eat of yours, the food is forbidden. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda that with regard to one who says: This offering [ha korban], or this burnt-offering [ha ola], or this meal-offering [ha min岣], or this sin-offering [ha 岣tat], and then adds: That I will eat of yours, the vow does not take effect and the food is permitted? The reason for this is that the individual did not take a vow that the item should be associated with an offering; rather, he took a vow by the life of the offering, which is not a valid expression of a vow.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛讗 拽专讘谉 讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛拽专讘谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞讬讬 拽专讘谉 拽讗诪专

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This case, where the vow does not take effect, is where one said: This offering [ha korban], and that case, where the vow does take effect, is where one said: The offering [hakorban]. What is the reason that the vow does not take effect when he says this offering [ha korban]? It is because he is saying that he is taking a vow by the life of this offering, which is not a valid way to express a vow.

拽转谞讬 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻诇诇 诇讗讜 讗转讛 砖讜诪注 讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇拽专讘谉 讬讛讗 诇驻讬讻讱 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱

The mishna teaches that if one says: That which I will not eat of yours is lakorban, which indicates la korban, it is not an offering, Rabbi Meir prohibits him from eating food belonging to the other individual. This is because his statement indicates that what he does eat shall be considered an offering. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it true that Rabbi Meir does not hold that from a negative statement you can infer a positive statement? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Abba said: It is as though he said: It shall be for an offering [lekorban], and therefore I will not eat that which is yours.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 驻讬 诪讚讘专 注诪讱 讬讚讬 注讜砖讛 注诪讱 专讙诇讬 诪讛诇讻转 注诪讱 讗住讜专

MISHNA: One who says to another: It is konam for me for my mouth to speak with you, or: It is konam for me for my hand to work with you, or: It is konam for me for my foot to walk with you, it is prohibited for him to speak with, work with, or walk with the other individual.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讞讜诪专 讘砖讘讜注讜转 诪讘谞讚专讬诐 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 诪讘砖讘讜注讜转 讞讜诪专 讘谞讚专讬诐 砖讛谞讚专讬诐 讞诇讬诐 注诇 讛诪爪讜讛 讻讘专砖讜转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘讜注讜转 讜讞讜诪专 讘砖讘讜注讜转 砖讛砖讘讜注讜转 讞诇讜转 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪诪砖 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪诪砖 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘谞讚专讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: There is a stricture that applies to oaths beyond the strictures that apply to vows, and there is a stricture that applies to vows beyond the strictures that apply to oaths. The stricture that applies to vows is that vows take effect with regard to a mitzva as they do with regard to optional activities, which is not the case with regard to oaths, as one cannot take an oath to neglect a mitzva. And the stricture that applies to oaths is that oaths take effect upon a matter that has substance and a matter that does not have substance, which is not the case with regard to vows, which take effect only upon a matter that has substance. This contradicts the mishna, which states that a vow can apply to speech or actions, which are not physical items that have concrete substance.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜诪专 讬讗住专 驻讬 诇讚讬讘讜专讬 讬讚讬 诇诪注砖讬讛诐 专讙诇讬 诇讛讬诇讜讻谉 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 驻讬 诪讚讘专 注诪讱 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讚讘专 注诪讱

Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is referring to one who says: My mouth shall be forbidden with regard to my speech, or: My hands shall be forbidden with regard to their work, or: My feet should be forbidden with regard to their walking. In these cases the vow applies to a limb, which is a concrete item, and therefore it takes effect. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: For my mouth to speak with you, and it does not teach: That which I speak with you. This indicates that he imposed the vow upon his mouth and not upon the act of speaking.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讻谞讜讬讬

 

讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讻讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻注讜专讜转 诇讘讜讘讬谉 讻谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 讻砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讻讞诇转 讗讛专谉 讜讻转专讜诪转讜 诪讜转专

MISHNA: And these are the vows in which the one who takes the vow attempts to create a prohibition on an item by associating it with an item in an ineffective manner, rendering the vow void and leaving the item permitted: If one says: That which I will eat of yours will be non-sacred [岣llin]; or: That which I will eat of yours will be like pig meat; or: Like an object of idol worship; or: Like the hides of animal offerings whose hearts were removed as a form of idol worship, and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from those animals; or: Like animal carcasses and animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]; or: Like non-kosher repugnant creatures and non-kosher creeping animals; or: Like the 岣lla of Aaron, the first priest, or like his teruma; in all these cases, the food is permitted. Although none of these items may be eaten, they are forbidden by Torah law, not by means of a vow. Therefore, it is impossible to extend their prohibition to other items by means of a vow that associates them with those items.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讗转 注诇讬 讻讗讬诪讗 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 驻转讞 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬拽诇 专讗砖讜 诇讻讱

With regard to a man who says to his wife: You are hereby to me like my mother, i.e., deriving benefit from you should be forbidden to me like engaging in sexual intercourse with my mother, dissolution is broached with him by suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., a halakhic authority suggests other, extenuating circumstances that enable the dissolution of the vow. Although this vow does not take effect either, as engaging in sexual intercourse with one鈥檚 mother is prohibited by Torah law, by rabbinic law this is treated like an actual vow and requires dissolution by a halakhic authority, so that he will not take genuine vows lightly.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诪砖诪注 诇讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉

GEMARA: It may be inferred from the first case in the mishna that the reason the vow does not take effect is that he said: That which I will eat of yours will be 岣llin; but if he said: That which I will eat of yours will be la岣llin, that indicates that he is saying: It will not [la] be non-sacred [岣llin], but rather like an offering, which is a vow that takes effect.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讻诇诇

Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, isn鈥檛 he of the opinion that one does not say: From

  • 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 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima 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: 13-20 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the proper format to create a vow or an oath and the difference between the...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 13: Granularity

More on precise phrasing of neder - making an oath by association, given the terms invoked. Plus, a new mishnah...

Nedarim 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 13

讚诪讞讬转 讘砖专 讘讻讜专 讜诪讞讬转 讘砖专 讚讛讗讬讱 讙讘讬讛 讜讗诪专 讝讛 讻讝讛 讜转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

that he places the meat of a firstborn animal in one place and he places another piece of meat next to it, and he said: This second piece of meat is hereby like that meat of the firstborn animal, and it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m about whether he is referring to the original forbidden status of the firstborn animal or its current permitted status?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬讚专 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 讘讚讘专 讛谞讚讜专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘讻讜专 讚讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讛讜讗

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is referring to the status of the animal before the sprinkling of the blood, and what is the reason of the one who renders it permitted? The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man takes a vow鈥 (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that he has not done so until he takes a vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., by extending the status of an item that itself was forbidden by a means of a vow. This comes to exclude a firstborn, which is an item that is forbidden by the Torah rather than by means of a vow; a firstborn animal is sacred simply because it is born first.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讚讘专 讛讗住讜专

And the one who renders it forbidden holds that it is because the verse states: 鈥淭o the Lord鈥 (Numbers 30:3), which comes to include one who takes a vow by associating an object with an item that is forbidden by the Torah.

讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诇讛壮 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪转驻讬住 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐

The Gemara asks: And the one who renders it permitted based on the principle that one cannot take a vow by associating the item with an item that is forbidden by the Torah, what does he do with the expression 鈥渢o the Lord鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires this expression to include the case of one who associates the object of his vow with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. Although these offerings are obligatory rather than voluntary, and in that regard they are dissimilar to items forbidden by means of a vow, one can render another item forbidden by associating it with these offerings.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讛讜讗 诪转驻讬住 讘谞讚专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 砖讛讜讗 拽讚讜砖 诪诪注讬 讗诪讜

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and to exclude the firstborn? The Gemara answers: I include the sin-offering and guilt-offering due to the fact that he associates the object of his vow with an animal forbidden by means of a vow, as it is the individual who designates a particular animal for one of these offerings. And I remove the firstborn, because it is sacred from its mother鈥檚 womb.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 诪转驻讬住讜 讘谞讚专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诪专讜 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜诇讚 讘讻讜专 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛讝讻专 转拽讚讬砖

And the one who renders it forbidden is of the opinion that one who says that a piece of meat shall be considered for him like the meat of a firstborn also associates the object of his vow with an item forbidden by a vow, as it is taught in a baraita: They said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: From where is it derived that if one has a firstborn animal born in his home it is still a mitzva to consecrate it? As it is stated: 鈥淭he males you shall consecrate鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19). Although a firstborn animal is considered consecrated from birth, its owner is still commanded to declare it consecrated, and it is therefore considered an item forbidden by means of a vow.

讜诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讻讬 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讬拽讚讬砖

And the one who renders it permitted in this case argues that although the owner is required to declare it consecrated, if he does not consecrate it, is it not consecrated? Since it is consecrated in any event, it is considered to have been rendered forbidden by the Torah rather than through a vow.

讻讗讬诪专讗 讻讚讬专讬诐

搂 It is taught in the mishna that if one says that food shall be considered like the lamb [imra] of the daily offering, or like the animals designated as offerings and kept in special enclosures, the vow takes effect.

转谞讗 讗讬诪专讗 诇讗讬诪专讗 讻讗讬诪专讗 讚讬专讬诐 诇讚讬专讬诐 讻讚讬专讬诐 注爪讬诐 诇注爪讬诐 讻注爪讬诐 讗讬砖讬诐 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讻讗讬砖讬诐 诪讝讘讞 诇诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞 讛讬讻诇 诇讛讬讻诇 讻讛讬讻诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讜诇谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诪讜转专

It was taught in a baraita: If one says that food shall be considered a lamb, for a lamb, like a lamb; enclosures, for enclosures, like enclosures; wood, for wood, like wood; fires, for fires, like fires; the altar, for the altar, like the altar; the Sanctuary, for the Sanctuary, like the Sanctuary; Jerusalem, for Jerusalem, like Jerusalem; with regard to all of them, if he adds: That which I will eat of yours, it is forbidden. This is because his intent is that whatever he eats that belongs to the other individual should be forbidden to him like one of these consecrated items. However, if he adds: That which I will not eat of yours, the food is permitted, since the only implication of his statement is that whatever he does not eat shall be forbidden.

诪讗谉 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪专讗 诇讗讬诪专讗 讻讗讬诪专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Who is the Sage of whom we have heard, for whom there is no difference whether one said a lamb, for a lamb, or like a lamb, that I eat of yours? It is Rabbi Meir. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the vow takes effect only if one says: Like a lamb.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诪讜转专 讜讛转谞谉 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇拽专讘谉 讬讛讗 诇驻讬讻讱 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱

However, say the latter clause of the baraita: With regard to all of them, if he adds: That which I will not eat of yours, the food remains permitted. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the next mishna that if one says: That which I will not eat of yours shall be for an offering [lekorban], Rabbi Meir prohibits him from eating food belonging to the other individual? And Rabbi Abba said in explanation of this ruling that it is as though he said: It shall be for an offering [lekorban], and therefore I will not eat that which is yours. Apparently, according to Rabbi Meir the food is forbidden even if he said: That which I will not eat of yours.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诇讗讬诪专讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讬诪专讗

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult: This baraita is referring to a case where one said: That which I do not eat from you shall not [la] be for a lamb [le鈥檌mra]. Although this statement implies that what he does eat shall be considered like the lamb of the daily offering, Rabbi Meir holds that one cannot infer a positive statement from a negative statement. Conversely, that mishna is referring to a case where he said: For a lamb [le鈥檌mra]. In that case, his statement is interpreted as though he said: It shall be considered the lamb used for the daily offering, and therefore I will not eat it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 拽专讘谉 注讜诇讛 诪谞讞讛 讞讟讗转 转讜讚讛 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讛拽专讘谉 讻拽专讘谉 拽专讘谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专

MISHNA: With regard to one who says: An offering, a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, a sin-offering, a thanks-offering, or a peace-offering, and adds: That which I eat of yours, the vow takes effect and the food is forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda renders the food permitted in all these cases. If one says: The offering, like an offering, or an offering, and adds: That which I will eat of yours, the food is forbidden. If he says: That which I will not eat of your shall be for an offering, Rabbi Meir renders the food forbidden.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 拽专讘谉 讛拽专讘谉 讻拽专讘谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 住转诪讗 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讗讬诪专讗 诇讗讬诪专讗

GEMARA: It teaches in the mishna that if one says: An offering, the offering, or like an offering, and then adds: That which I will eat of yours, it is forbidden. This indicates that this unattributed opinion in the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, for whom there is no difference whether one says a lamb [imra] or as a lamb [le鈥檌mra].

[讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗] 讚拽转谞讬 讛拽专讘谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜诪专 讛讗 拽专讘谉 讜讛讗 注讜诇讛 讜讛讗 诪谞讞讛 讜讛讗 讞讟讗转 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖诪讜转专 砖诇讗 谞讚专 讝讛 讗诇讗 讘讞讬讬 拽专讘谉

The Gemara asks: However, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that which it teaches is difficult. It teaches that if one says: The offering [hakorban], and adds: That which I will eat of yours, the food is forbidden. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda that with regard to one who says: This offering [ha korban], or this burnt-offering [ha ola], or this meal-offering [ha min岣], or this sin-offering [ha 岣tat], and then adds: That I will eat of yours, the vow does not take effect and the food is permitted? The reason for this is that the individual did not take a vow that the item should be associated with an offering; rather, he took a vow by the life of the offering, which is not a valid expression of a vow.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛讗 拽专讘谉 讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 讛拽专讘谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞讬讬 拽专讘谉 拽讗诪专

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This case, where the vow does not take effect, is where one said: This offering [ha korban], and that case, where the vow does take effect, is where one said: The offering [hakorban]. What is the reason that the vow does not take effect when he says this offering [ha korban]? It is because he is saying that he is taking a vow by the life of this offering, which is not a valid way to express a vow.

拽转谞讬 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻诇诇 诇讗讜 讗转讛 砖讜诪注 讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇拽专讘谉 讬讛讗 诇驻讬讻讱 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讱

The mishna teaches that if one says: That which I will not eat of yours is lakorban, which indicates la korban, it is not an offering, Rabbi Meir prohibits him from eating food belonging to the other individual. This is because his statement indicates that what he does eat shall be considered an offering. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it true that Rabbi Meir does not hold that from a negative statement you can infer a positive statement? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Abba said: It is as though he said: It shall be for an offering [lekorban], and therefore I will not eat that which is yours.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 驻讬 诪讚讘专 注诪讱 讬讚讬 注讜砖讛 注诪讱 专讙诇讬 诪讛诇讻转 注诪讱 讗住讜专

MISHNA: One who says to another: It is konam for me for my mouth to speak with you, or: It is konam for me for my hand to work with you, or: It is konam for me for my foot to walk with you, it is prohibited for him to speak with, work with, or walk with the other individual.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讞讜诪专 讘砖讘讜注讜转 诪讘谞讚专讬诐 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 诪讘砖讘讜注讜转 讞讜诪专 讘谞讚专讬诐 砖讛谞讚专讬诐 讞诇讬诐 注诇 讛诪爪讜讛 讻讘专砖讜转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘讜注讜转 讜讞讜诪专 讘砖讘讜注讜转 砖讛砖讘讜注讜转 讞诇讜转 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪诪砖 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪诪砖 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘谞讚专讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: There is a stricture that applies to oaths beyond the strictures that apply to vows, and there is a stricture that applies to vows beyond the strictures that apply to oaths. The stricture that applies to vows is that vows take effect with regard to a mitzva as they do with regard to optional activities, which is not the case with regard to oaths, as one cannot take an oath to neglect a mitzva. And the stricture that applies to oaths is that oaths take effect upon a matter that has substance and a matter that does not have substance, which is not the case with regard to vows, which take effect only upon a matter that has substance. This contradicts the mishna, which states that a vow can apply to speech or actions, which are not physical items that have concrete substance.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜诪专 讬讗住专 驻讬 诇讚讬讘讜专讬 讬讚讬 诇诪注砖讬讛诐 专讙诇讬 诇讛讬诇讜讻谉 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 驻讬 诪讚讘专 注诪讱 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讚讘专 注诪讱

Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is referring to one who says: My mouth shall be forbidden with regard to my speech, or: My hands shall be forbidden with regard to their work, or: My feet should be forbidden with regard to their walking. In these cases the vow applies to a limb, which is a concrete item, and therefore it takes effect. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: For my mouth to speak with you, and it does not teach: That which I speak with you. This indicates that he imposed the vow upon his mouth and not upon the act of speaking.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讻谞讜讬讬

 

讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讻讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻注讜专讜转 诇讘讜讘讬谉 讻谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 讻砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讻讞诇转 讗讛专谉 讜讻转专讜诪转讜 诪讜转专

MISHNA: And these are the vows in which the one who takes the vow attempts to create a prohibition on an item by associating it with an item in an ineffective manner, rendering the vow void and leaving the item permitted: If one says: That which I will eat of yours will be non-sacred [岣llin]; or: That which I will eat of yours will be like pig meat; or: Like an object of idol worship; or: Like the hides of animal offerings whose hearts were removed as a form of idol worship, and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from those animals; or: Like animal carcasses and animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]; or: Like non-kosher repugnant creatures and non-kosher creeping animals; or: Like the 岣lla of Aaron, the first priest, or like his teruma; in all these cases, the food is permitted. Although none of these items may be eaten, they are forbidden by Torah law, not by means of a vow. Therefore, it is impossible to extend their prohibition to other items by means of a vow that associates them with those items.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讗转 注诇讬 讻讗讬诪讗 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 驻转讞 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬拽诇 专讗砖讜 诇讻讱

With regard to a man who says to his wife: You are hereby to me like my mother, i.e., deriving benefit from you should be forbidden to me like engaging in sexual intercourse with my mother, dissolution is broached with him by suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., a halakhic authority suggests other, extenuating circumstances that enable the dissolution of the vow. Although this vow does not take effect either, as engaging in sexual intercourse with one鈥檚 mother is prohibited by Torah law, by rabbinic law this is treated like an actual vow and requires dissolution by a halakhic authority, so that he will not take genuine vows lightly.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇 诇讱 诪砖诪注 诇讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉

GEMARA: It may be inferred from the first case in the mishna that the reason the vow does not take effect is that he said: That which I will eat of yours will be 岣llin; but if he said: That which I will eat of yours will be la岣llin, that indicates that he is saying: It will not [la] be non-sacred [岣llin], but rather like an offering, which is a vow that takes effect.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讻诇诇

Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, isn鈥檛 he of the opinion that one does not say: From

Scroll To Top