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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 7, 2015 | 讻壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • 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 14

Study Guide Nedarim 14


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讗讜 讗转讛 砖讜诪注 讛谉 讜讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗

a negative statement you can infer a positive statement? How then can it be inferred that it should be like an offering? And if it is rather the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees with Rabbi Meir in this matter, the ruling of the mishna is superfluous, as this is identical to the ruling of the mishna in the first clause. The mishna above (10b) already established that a vow that uses the term la岣llin takes effect.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽转谞讬 讻讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: The ruling is superfluous. However, since the mishna teaches that the vow does not take effect when he says that the food will be like pig meat or like an object of idol worship, it therefore teaches incidentally that this ruling also applies when he says that it will be non-sacred.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉 讻讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 转谞讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注讬 砖讗诇讛

Ravina said that this is what the mishna is teaching: And these are the vows that do not take effect at all and therefore the item mentioned in the vow remains permitted: One who said that a certain item will be like non-sacred food, or like pig meat, or like an object of idol worship. And if it did not teach the case of non-sacred food, I would say that although the vow does not take effect, it still requires, by rabbinic law, a request to a halakhic authority for its dissolution.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇讗住讜拽讬 注诇 讚注转讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗 讘注讬讗 砖讗诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讞讜诇讬谉 诪诪讬诇讗 谞住讘讛

The Gemara asks: But is there any reason to consider this interpretation? But from the fact that the latter clause teaches with regard to a man who says to his wife: You are hereby to me like my mother, that dissolution is broached with him by suggesting a different extenuation, it may be inferred that the vow in the first clause does not necessitate a request to a halakhic authority. Rather, the interpretation of Ravina must be rejected, and it is clear that the case of non-sacred food was cited tangentially to the other cases in the mishna.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讚专 谞讚专 诇讛壮 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 讘讚讘专 讛谞讚讜专

搂 With regard to the principle that a prohibition cannot be created by associating a permitted item with one forbidden by Torah law, the Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淲hen a man takes a vow to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that a vow does not take effect until one takes a vow by associating the status of an item that is forbidden by means of a vow with another item. If the item one is using to create the prohibition is forbidden by Torah law, the vow does not take effect.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗住专 讗住专 注诇 谞驻砖讜 诇讗住专 讗住专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讬住专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the item in the vow is associated with an item forbidden by Torah law, the vow should also take effect, as following that phrase in the verse it is written: 鈥淭o bind his soul with a bond [issar],鈥 which indicates that the association can be with an item forbidden [asur] by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The phrase 鈥淭o bind his soul with a bond鈥 is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita (12a): What is the bond mentioned in the Torah. The baraita derives from this phrase that a vow that associates the relevant item with an item whose prohibition was created by a pre-existing vow takes effect, but one whose prohibition is by Torah law does not take effect.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讗转 讻讗讬诪讗 讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讗转 注诇讬 讻讘砖专 讗讬诪讗 讻讘砖专 讗讞讜转讬 讻注专诇讛 讜讻讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

搂 It is stated in the mishna that with regard to a man who says to his wife: You are hereby to me like my mother, dissolution is broached with him suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., by rabbinic law it is treated like an actual vow and it requires dissolution by a halakhic authority. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita that states that if a man says to his wife: You are hereby to me like the flesh of my mother, or like the flesh of my sister, or like the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla], or like forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, all forbidden items, he has said nothing. This indicates that he does not even have to make a request to a halakhic authority.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜爪专讬讱 砖讗诇讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓

Abaye said: He has said nothing by Torah law, as the vow does not take effect. However, he needs to make a request to a halakhic authority by rabbinic law. Rava said: That baraita is referring to Torah scholars, who are aware that this vow does not take effect. This mishna, on the other hand, is referring to an ignoramus, with regard to whom a rabbinic ordinance is necessary lest they take vows lightly.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 讘转讜专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜爪专讬讱 砖讗诇讛 诇讞讻诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讗诇讛

The Gemara comments: And it is taught in a baraita: One who takes a vow by associating an item with a Torah scroll has not said anything, i.e., the vow does not take effect. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: But nevertheless, he needs to make a request to a halakhic authority for dissolution of the vow. And Rav Na岣an said: And if he is a Torah scholar he does not need to make a request. The postulation of Rava, which states that with regard to some vows that do not take effect it is necessary to make a request to a halakhic authority only if they are taken by an ignoramus, can be seen from here.

转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 讘转讜专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讛 讜讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

It is taught in a baraita: One who takes a vow by associating an item with a Torah scroll has not said anything, and the vow does not take effect. However, he associates the item with what is written in the Torah scroll, his statement is upheld. Since the name of God is written in the Torah, he has invoked God鈥檚 name in his vow. If he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld.

拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讛 讜讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: It is taught that if he associates the item with what is written in the Torah scroll, his statement is upheld. Need it be said that the halakha is the same if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it? That is obvious.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讞转讗 讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讗专注讗 讛讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛 讘讬讚讬讛 诪讞转讗 注诇 讗专注讗 讚注转讬讛 讗讙讜讬诇讬 谞拽讟 诇讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讚注转讬讛 注诇 讛讗讝讻专讜转 砖讘讛

Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult. This case, in which the item is associated with it and with what is written in it, is referring to where the Torah scroll is placed on the ground, while that case, in which the item is associated with what is written in it, is referring to where he is holding it in his hands. If it is placed on the ground, whether one mentions the Torah scroll or what is written in it, his thoughts are concerning the parchment, i.e., the physical scroll, as he naturally assumes that since the scroll is placed on the ground, the parchment must be blank. Therefore, the vow takes effect only if he mentions both it and what is written in it, indicating that he is aware that it is a Torah scroll. However, where he is holding it in his hands and associates the item with what is written in it, his thoughts are concerning the mentions [azkarot] of the name of God that are in it, and the vow takes effect.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚诪讞转讗 注诇 讗专注讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讞转讗 注诇 讗专注讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 诪讛谞讬 讜讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬

And if you wish, say instead that the entire baraita is referring to a case where it is placed on the ground, and this middle clause of: With what is written in the Torah scroll, teaches us that even though it is placed on the ground, since he said: With what is written in it, it is an effective vow, as he was clearly referring to the names of God. And the tanna of the baraita teaches employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that. The baraita teaches the halakha where he said: What is written in it, which has a novel element, and then states a more obvious ruling, i.e., it goes without saying that if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, the vow takes effect.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 诪爪讬注转讗 谞诪讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 讚诪讬

And if you wish, say instead that the entire middle clause, i.e., the latter clause, where he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, is referring to a case where he is holding the Torah scroll in his hands. And the baraita teaches us this: Since he is holding it in his hands, even though he said only: With the Torah scroll, and did not explicitly state: With what is written in it, he is considered to be like one who said: With what is written in it. Therefore, the item is prohibited.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 讬砖谉 砖讗谞讬 诪讚讘专 砖讗谞讬 诪讛诇讱 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 诪砖诪砖讱 讛专讬 讝讛 讘诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who says: Sleeping is forbidden for me as if it were an offering [konam], thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: Speaking is konam for me; or: Walking is konam for me; or one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is konam for me, if he violates the vow he is in violation of the prohibition 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3).

讙诪讬 讗讬转诪专 拽讜谞诐 注讬谞讬 讘砖讬谞讛 讛讬讜诐 讗诐 讗讬砖谉 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诇 讬砖谉 讛讬讜诐 砖诪讗 讬砖谉 诇诪讞专 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讬砖谉 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬砖谉 诇诪讞专 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜诪专 拽讜谞诐 注讬谞讬 讘砖讬谞讛 诇诪讞专 讗诐 讗讬砖谉 讛讬讜诐 砖讬砖谉 讛讬讜诐

GEMARA: It was stated that with regard to one who says: Sleeping is konam for my eyes today if I will sleep tomorrow, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: He may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow and thereby cause the vow to have been violated today, retroactively. And Rav Na岣an said: He may sleep today, as there is currently no prohibition, and we are not concerned that he will perhaps sleep tomorrow, as he will be careful not to sleep. And Rav Yehuda concedes that in a case where he says: Sleeping is konam for my eyes tomorrow if I sleep today, he may sleep today.

  • 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...
ramhal Torah

I Solemnly Swear

In our discussion of vows and what makes them work, the Gemara discusses 聽vowing via a Torah scroll: 鈥淚t is...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 14: When Your Vow Doesn’t Work

A new chapter! Including vows vs. oaths. And a new mishnah: when the vow doesn't work - for example, swearing...

Nedarim 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 14

诇讗讜 讗转讛 砖讜诪注 讛谉 讜讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗

a negative statement you can infer a positive statement? How then can it be inferred that it should be like an offering? And if it is rather the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees with Rabbi Meir in this matter, the ruling of the mishna is superfluous, as this is identical to the ruling of the mishna in the first clause. The mishna above (10b) already established that a vow that uses the term la岣llin takes effect.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽转谞讬 讻讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: The ruling is superfluous. However, since the mishna teaches that the vow does not take effect when he says that the food will be like pig meat or like an object of idol worship, it therefore teaches incidentally that this ruling also applies when he says that it will be non-sacred.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉 讻讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 转谞讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注讬 砖讗诇讛

Ravina said that this is what the mishna is teaching: And these are the vows that do not take effect at all and therefore the item mentioned in the vow remains permitted: One who said that a certain item will be like non-sacred food, or like pig meat, or like an object of idol worship. And if it did not teach the case of non-sacred food, I would say that although the vow does not take effect, it still requires, by rabbinic law, a request to a halakhic authority for its dissolution.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇讗住讜拽讬 注诇 讚注转讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗 讘注讬讗 砖讗诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讞讜诇讬谉 诪诪讬诇讗 谞住讘讛

The Gemara asks: But is there any reason to consider this interpretation? But from the fact that the latter clause teaches with regard to a man who says to his wife: You are hereby to me like my mother, that dissolution is broached with him by suggesting a different extenuation, it may be inferred that the vow in the first clause does not necessitate a request to a halakhic authority. Rather, the interpretation of Ravina must be rejected, and it is clear that the case of non-sacred food was cited tangentially to the other cases in the mishna.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讚专 谞讚专 诇讛壮 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 讘讚讘专 讛谞讚讜专

搂 With regard to the principle that a prohibition cannot be created by associating a permitted item with one forbidden by Torah law, the Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淲hen a man takes a vow to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that a vow does not take effect until one takes a vow by associating the status of an item that is forbidden by means of a vow with another item. If the item one is using to create the prohibition is forbidden by Torah law, the vow does not take effect.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗住专 讗住专 注诇 谞驻砖讜 诇讗住专 讗住专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讬住专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the item in the vow is associated with an item forbidden by Torah law, the vow should also take effect, as following that phrase in the verse it is written: 鈥淭o bind his soul with a bond [issar],鈥 which indicates that the association can be with an item forbidden [asur] by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The phrase 鈥淭o bind his soul with a bond鈥 is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita (12a): What is the bond mentioned in the Torah. The baraita derives from this phrase that a vow that associates the relevant item with an item whose prohibition was created by a pre-existing vow takes effect, but one whose prohibition is by Torah law does not take effect.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讗转 讻讗讬诪讗 讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讗转 注诇讬 讻讘砖专 讗讬诪讗 讻讘砖专 讗讞讜转讬 讻注专诇讛 讜讻讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

搂 It is stated in the mishna that with regard to a man who says to his wife: You are hereby to me like my mother, dissolution is broached with him suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., by rabbinic law it is treated like an actual vow and it requires dissolution by a halakhic authority. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita that states that if a man says to his wife: You are hereby to me like the flesh of my mother, or like the flesh of my sister, or like the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla], or like forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, all forbidden items, he has said nothing. This indicates that he does not even have to make a request to a halakhic authority.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜爪专讬讱 砖讗诇讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓

Abaye said: He has said nothing by Torah law, as the vow does not take effect. However, he needs to make a request to a halakhic authority by rabbinic law. Rava said: That baraita is referring to Torah scholars, who are aware that this vow does not take effect. This mishna, on the other hand, is referring to an ignoramus, with regard to whom a rabbinic ordinance is necessary lest they take vows lightly.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 讘转讜专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜爪专讬讱 砖讗诇讛 诇讞讻诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讗诇讛

The Gemara comments: And it is taught in a baraita: One who takes a vow by associating an item with a Torah scroll has not said anything, i.e., the vow does not take effect. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: But nevertheless, he needs to make a request to a halakhic authority for dissolution of the vow. And Rav Na岣an said: And if he is a Torah scholar he does not need to make a request. The postulation of Rava, which states that with regard to some vows that do not take effect it is necessary to make a request to a halakhic authority only if they are taken by an ignoramus, can be seen from here.

转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 讘转讜专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讛 讜讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

It is taught in a baraita: One who takes a vow by associating an item with a Torah scroll has not said anything, and the vow does not take effect. However, he associates the item with what is written in the Torah scroll, his statement is upheld. Since the name of God is written in the Torah, he has invoked God鈥檚 name in his vow. If he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld.

拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讛 讜讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: It is taught that if he associates the item with what is written in the Torah scroll, his statement is upheld. Need it be said that the halakha is the same if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it? That is obvious.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讞转讗 讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讗专注讗 讛讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛 讘讬讚讬讛 诪讞转讗 注诇 讗专注讗 讚注转讬讛 讗讙讜讬诇讬 谞拽讟 诇讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讚注转讬讛 注诇 讛讗讝讻专讜转 砖讘讛

Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult. This case, in which the item is associated with it and with what is written in it, is referring to where the Torah scroll is placed on the ground, while that case, in which the item is associated with what is written in it, is referring to where he is holding it in his hands. If it is placed on the ground, whether one mentions the Torah scroll or what is written in it, his thoughts are concerning the parchment, i.e., the physical scroll, as he naturally assumes that since the scroll is placed on the ground, the parchment must be blank. Therefore, the vow takes effect only if he mentions both it and what is written in it, indicating that he is aware that it is a Torah scroll. However, where he is holding it in his hands and associates the item with what is written in it, his thoughts are concerning the mentions [azkarot] of the name of God that are in it, and the vow takes effect.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚诪讞转讗 注诇 讗专注讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讞转讗 注诇 讗专注讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 诪讛谞讬 讜讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬

And if you wish, say instead that the entire baraita is referring to a case where it is placed on the ground, and this middle clause of: With what is written in the Torah scroll, teaches us that even though it is placed on the ground, since he said: With what is written in it, it is an effective vow, as he was clearly referring to the names of God. And the tanna of the baraita teaches employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that. The baraita teaches the halakha where he said: What is written in it, which has a novel element, and then states a more obvious ruling, i.e., it goes without saying that if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, the vow takes effect.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 诪爪讬注转讗 谞诪讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 讚诪讬

And if you wish, say instead that the entire middle clause, i.e., the latter clause, where he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, is referring to a case where he is holding the Torah scroll in his hands. And the baraita teaches us this: Since he is holding it in his hands, even though he said only: With the Torah scroll, and did not explicitly state: With what is written in it, he is considered to be like one who said: With what is written in it. Therefore, the item is prohibited.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 讬砖谉 砖讗谞讬 诪讚讘专 砖讗谞讬 诪讛诇讱 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 诪砖诪砖讱 讛专讬 讝讛 讘诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜

MISHNA: With regard to one who says: Sleeping is forbidden for me as if it were an offering [konam], thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: Speaking is konam for me; or: Walking is konam for me; or one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is konam for me, if he violates the vow he is in violation of the prohibition 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3).

讙诪讬 讗讬转诪专 拽讜谞诐 注讬谞讬 讘砖讬谞讛 讛讬讜诐 讗诐 讗讬砖谉 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诇 讬砖谉 讛讬讜诐 砖诪讗 讬砖谉 诇诪讞专 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讬砖谉 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬砖谉 诇诪讞专 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜诪专 拽讜谞诐 注讬谞讬 讘砖讬谞讛 诇诪讞专 讗诐 讗讬砖谉 讛讬讜诐 砖讬砖谉 讛讬讜诐

GEMARA: It was stated that with regard to one who says: Sleeping is konam for my eyes today if I will sleep tomorrow, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: He may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow and thereby cause the vow to have been violated today, retroactively. And Rav Na岣an said: He may sleep today, as there is currently no prohibition, and we are not concerned that he will perhaps sleep tomorrow, as he will be careful not to sleep. And Rav Yehuda concedes that in a case where he says: Sleeping is konam for my eyes tomorrow if I sleep today, he may sleep today.

Scroll To Top