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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 8, 2022 | ื™ืดื“ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • 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 monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Nedarim 14

Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould for the refuah shleima of his wife, Carol Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah. “This is dedicated to the healing of my beloved wife and in gratitude to our Hadran family for all the notes and messages of support and in general just holding us in their hearts as we go through this difficult period.”

The Gemara gives two explanations as to how the Mishna can be explained according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, but the second explanation is rejected. What is the source of the halacha that one can take a vow by attaching it to another vowed item, but not a forbidden item? Why is it not possible to learn from the same verse to also include a forbidden item? The Mishna stated that the one who vows that he will not benefit from his wife with the words “She is forbidden to be like my mother” should be strict and undo the vow. But this is contradicted by an express braita. Abaye and Raba each resolve this in a different manner. Raba distinguished between a Torah scholar and an am haaeretz. Proof that the law sometimes distinguishes between these groups and requires annulling a vow only for an am haaretz can be learned from a braita about one who takes a vow on a Torah. The Gemara brings the braita in its entirety and discusses a difficulty with one of the lines of the braita and brings three resolutions. The Mishna says that one who says a vow not to sleep or not to talk or not to walk, must keep the vow. This Mishna will be further explained in Nedarim 15. The Gemara brings a dispute between Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and Rav Nachman regarding one who said “I vow (konam) my eyes not to sleep today if I sleep tomorrow.” Are they allowed to sleep today, and we will assume they will be careful tomorrow not to sleep so as not the break his vow, or do we tell them they cannot sleep today so that if they sleep tomorrow, the vow will not be broken? In the event that the declaration was said in the opposite directionย  “My eyes will be konam to sleep tomorrow if I sleep today” both agree that one need not be careful not to sleep today as the fulfillment of the vow is tomorrow and that we can assume people will be careful about. Whereas in the previous case, it was only fulfillment of the condition that was tomorrow and that, perhaps, people are less careful about.

ืœืื• ืืชื” ืฉื•ืžืข ื”ืŸ ื•ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื

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 laแธฅullin takes effect.

ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื›ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื›ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื›ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืื™ ืœื ืชื ื ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืืœื”

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.

ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืืกื•ืงื™ ืขืœ ื“ืขืชื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืขืœื™ ื›ืื™ืžื ืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืคืชื— ืžืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืฉืืœื” ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืœื ื ืกื‘ื”

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.

ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ืœื”ืณ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื“ื•ืจ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื“ื•ืจ

ยง 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: โ€œWhen a man takes a vow to the Lordโ€ (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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืืกื•ืจ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืืกืจ ืืกืจ ืขืœ ื ืคืฉื• ืœืืกืจ ืืกืจ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืื™ืกืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืณ

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: โ€œTo bind his soul with a bond [issar],โ€ which indicates that the association can be with an item forbidden [asur] by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The phrase โ€œTo bind his soul with a bondโ€ 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.

ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื”ืจื™ ืืช ื›ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืขืœื™ ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ืื™ืžื ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ืื—ื•ืชื™ ื›ืขืจืœื” ื•ื›ื›ืœืื™ ื”ื›ืจื ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

ยง 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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉืืœื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื‘ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ

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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉืืœื” ืœื—ื›ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉืืœื”

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 Yoแธฅanan said: But nevertheless, he needs to make a request to a halakhic authority for dissolution of the vow. And Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ

ยง 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 Godโ€™s name in his vow. If he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld.

ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืžื™ืžืจ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืžื—ืชื ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืืืจืขื ื”ื ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื—ืชื ืขืœ ืืจืขื ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืื’ื•ื™ืœื™ ื ืงื˜ ืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืขืœ ื”ืื–ื›ืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ื”

Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ืžื—ืชื ืขืœ ืืจืขื ื•ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื—ืชื ืขืœ ืืจืขื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ืžื”ื ื™ ื•ื–ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ืงืชื ื™

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.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืœื” ืžืฆื™ืขืชื ื ืžื™ ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื‘ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื“ืžื™

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื™ืฉืŸ ืฉืื ื™ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืžื”ืœืš ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉื” ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ืžืฉืžืฉืš ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื‘ืœื ื™ื—ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื•

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 โ€œHe shall not profane his wordโ€ (Numbers 30:3).

ื’ืžื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืขื™ื ื™ ื‘ืฉื™ื ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ืื ืื™ืฉืŸ ืœืžื—ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืœ ื™ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ืฉืžื ื™ืฉืŸ ืœืžื—ืจ ื•ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื™ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ืฉืŸ ืœืžื—ืจ ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืขื™ื ื™ ื‘ืฉื™ื ื” ืœืžื—ืจ ืื ืื™ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ืฉื™ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื

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 Naแธฅman 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 monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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 ย vowing via a Torah scroll: โ€œIt 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

ืœืื• ืืชื” ืฉื•ืžืข ื”ืŸ ื•ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื

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 laแธฅullin takes effect.

ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื›ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื›ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื›ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืื™ ืœื ืชื ื ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืืœื”

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.

ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืืกื•ืงื™ ืขืœ ื“ืขืชื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืขืœื™ ื›ืื™ืžื ืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืคืชื— ืžืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืฉืืœื” ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืœื ื ืกื‘ื”

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.

ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ืœื”ืณ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื“ื•ืจ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื“ื•ืจ

ยง 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: โ€œWhen a man takes a vow to the Lordโ€ (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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืืกื•ืจ ื ืžื™ ื“ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืืกืจ ืืกืจ ืขืœ ื ืคืฉื• ืœืืกืจ ืืกืจ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืื™ืกืจ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืณ

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: โ€œTo bind his soul with a bond [issar],โ€ which indicates that the association can be with an item forbidden [asur] by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The phrase โ€œTo bind his soul with a bondโ€ 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.

ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื”ืจื™ ืืช ื›ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืขืœื™ ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ืื™ืžื ื›ื‘ืฉืจ ืื—ื•ืชื™ ื›ืขืจืœื” ื•ื›ื›ืœืื™ ื”ื›ืจื ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

ยง 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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉืืœื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื‘ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ

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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉืืœื” ืœื—ื›ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉืืœื”

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 Yoแธฅanan said: But nevertheless, he needs to make a request to a halakhic authority for dissolution of the vow. And Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ

ยง 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 Godโ€™s name in his vow. If he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld.

ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืžื™ืžืจ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืžื—ืชื ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืืืจืขื ื”ื ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื—ืชื ืขืœ ืืจืขื ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืื’ื•ื™ืœื™ ื ืงื˜ ืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืขืœ ื”ืื–ื›ืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ื”

Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ืžื—ืชื ืขืœ ืืจืขื ื•ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื—ืชื ืขืœ ืืจืขื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ืžื”ื ื™ ื•ื–ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ืงืชื ื™

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.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืœื” ืžืฆื™ืขืชื ื ืžื™ ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื‘ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื” ื“ืžื™

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื™ืฉืŸ ืฉืื ื™ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืžื”ืœืš ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉื” ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ืžืฉืžืฉืš ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื‘ืœื ื™ื—ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื•

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 โ€œHe shall not profane his wordโ€ (Numbers 30:3).

ื’ืžื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืขื™ื ื™ ื‘ืฉื™ื ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ืื ืื™ืฉืŸ ืœืžื—ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืœ ื™ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ืฉืžื ื™ืฉืŸ ืœืžื—ืจ ื•ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื™ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ืฉืŸ ืœืžื—ืจ ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืขื™ื ื™ ื‘ืฉื™ื ื” ืœืžื—ืจ ืื ืื™ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ืฉื™ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื

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 Naแธฅman 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