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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 10, 2015 | 讻状讙 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 17

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讛专注 讗讜 诇讛讬讟讬讘 诪讛 讛讟讘讛 专砖讜转 讗祝 讛专注讛 专砖讜转 讬爪讗 谞砖讘注 诇讘讟诇 讗转 讛诪爪讜讛 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇 砖讗讬谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜

However, the verse states: 鈥淥r if anyone swears clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good鈥 (Leviticus 5:4). From the juxtaposition of evil and good it is derived that just as the doing of good, which is interpreted as obligating himself to take a positive action, is referring to a permitted activity, e.g., to eat, so too, the doing of evil, which is interpreted as prohibiting himself from something, refers only to that which is permitted, e.g., not to eat. This excludes one who takes an oath to nullify a mitzva and does not nullify it; he is not liable for violating the oath, as the permission to nullify it is not in his power.

讞讚 拽专讗 诇诪讬驻讟专讬讛 诪拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讜讞讚 诇诪讬驻讟专讬讛 诪谉 诇讗讜 讚砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara answers that both verses are necessary. One verse: 鈥淭o do evil or to do good,鈥 which is stated in the context of the halakhot of offerings, is necessary to exempt him from bringing an offering for violating an oath, and one verse: 鈥淗e shall not profane,鈥 is necessary to exempt him from the prohibition for violating an oath.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讘转讜讱 砖讘讜注讛 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

MISHNA: There is a vow within a vow. It is possible to impose an additional prohibition, by means of a vow, on an item that is already forbidden by means of a vow. But there is no oath within an oath. If one takes an oath twice with regard to the same action, the second oath does not take effect. How so? If one said: I am hereby a nazirite if I eat, and then repeated: I am hereby a nazirite if I eat, and then he ate, he is obligated to observe naziriteship for thirty days for each and every one of the vows, as both vows took effect. However, if he said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, and repeated: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, and then he ate, he is liable to bring an offering for only one violation of an oath.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讚诪讬讙讜 讚拽讗 诪讬转讜住祝 讬讜诪讗 讬转讬专讗 讞讬讬诇讗 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讞诇讛 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讞诇讛 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇讬讛

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: They taught that there is a vow within a vow only where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, and then he said: I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow. As since an additional day of naziriteship is added by the second vow, an additional thirty-day obligation of naziriteship takes effect upon the first term of naziriteship. However, if he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, and then repeated: I am hereby a nazirite today, a vow of naziriteship does not take effect upon a previous vow of naziriteship, and he must observe only one term of naziriteship. And Shmuel said that even if he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite today, a second vow of naziriteship takes effect with regard to him, as one can apply two obligations of naziriteship to himself one after the other.

讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讚转谞讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讘转讜讱 砖讘讜注讛 诇讬转谞讬 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Huna, instead of teaching that there is no oath within an oath, drawing a distinction between a vow and an oath, let the mishna teach a narrower distinction between different vows, stating that there is a case of a vow within a vow, and there is a case in which there is not a vow within a vow. How so? If one says: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow, in this case there is a vow within a vow. However, if one says: I am hereby a nazirite today, and then again says: I am hereby a nazirite today,

讗讬谉 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 拽砖讬讗

in this case there is no vow within a vow. The Gemara concludes: This question is difficult, although it is not a conclusive refutation.

转谞谉 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讘转讜讱 砖讘讜注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注谞讘讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讞诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 注诇 砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara raises several problems with the opinion of Rav Huna. We learned in the mishna: There is a vow within a vow, but there is no oath within an oath. What are the circumstances? If we say that the case of a vow within a vow is where one said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am a hereby a nazirite tomorrow, that in the corresponding situation with regard to an oath within an oath, which will not take effect, is where one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and he then said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat grapes, i.e., he took two separate oaths; if so, why does an additional oath not take effect where an oath was already made? It ought to take effect, as the second oath is not connected to the first one.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诇讗 讞诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 注诇 砖讘讜注讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讜拽转谞讬 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rather, what are the circumstances in which a second oath does not take effect after an oath was already made? For example, where one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and he again said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs. In the corresponding situation with regard to naziriteship, what are the circumstances? It must be a case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am a hereby a nazirite today; and the mishna teaches that in this case there is a vow within a vow. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Huna, who holds that in this case the second vow does not take effect.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讘讜注讛 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna could have said to you that the mishna is referring to a case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow; that in the corresponding situation with regard to an oath is where one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and then said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs and grapes, the second oath does not take effect, as he had already taken an oath with regard to part of its content.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讜讗讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 注谞讘讬诐 讛讜讬讗 诇讛讜 注谞讘讬诐 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 注诇 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabba say that if one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and then said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs and grapes, and he subsequently ate figs, violating the oath, and he then set aside an offering for the violation of an oath on a statement, and he then ate grapes, in this case the grapes that he ate are only a half-measure of the second oath. The inclusion of both figs and grapes in the oath indicates that his intention was to prohibit himself from eating both. Since he already set aside an offering for eating the figs, he is now considered as having eaten only grapes and as having violated only half of the oath. And therefore he is not liable to bring an offering for violating the second oath, as one does not bring an offering for a half-measure.

讗诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诪讬讙讜 讚讞诇 砖讘讜注讛 注诇 注谞讘讬诐 讞讬讬诇讗 谞诪讬 注诇 转讗谞讬诐 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讛

The fact that he is exempt from bringing an offering merely because he ate a half-measure indicates that the second oath took effect. Apparently, where one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and then said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs and grapes, since the second oath can take effect with regard to grapes, as grapes were not included in the first oath, it takes effect with regard to figs as well. This poses a problem according to the opinion of Rav Huna, who would explain the mishna as teaching that the second oath in this case does not take effect at all. The Gemara answers: This is not a problem. Rav Huna does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba was an amora and Rav Huna鈥檚 student.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 砖谞讝专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 诪谞讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜谞砖讗诇 注诇讬讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讬讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who took two vows of naziriteship, counted the thirty days of the first term of naziriteship and set aside an offering at the end of its term, and then requested from a halakhic authority for dissolution of the vow before the offering was sacrificed, thereby rendering the offering unnecessary, the second term of naziriteship is counted for him instead of the first. He is considered as having fulfilled the second term of naziriteship during the period in which he observed the first one. Therefore, the offering that he set aside counts for the second term of naziriteship.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讗诪讗讬 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讬讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讬讜诪讗 讬转讬专讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐

What are the circumstances? If we say that it is a case where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow, why is the second term of naziriteship counted for him instead of the first? Isn鈥檛 there an additional day in the second term of naziriteship that he has not yet observed, as the second thirty day term commences the day after the first thirty day period had commenced? How, then, is it possible that the second obligation was fulfilled through his observance of the first one? Rather, it is obvious that it is a case where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite 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...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 17: How One Can Be a Nazir Twice at the Same Time

A vow within a vow! (But not an oath within an oath). Also, how that kind of vow applies to...

Nedarim 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 17

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讛专注 讗讜 诇讛讬讟讬讘 诪讛 讛讟讘讛 专砖讜转 讗祝 讛专注讛 专砖讜转 讬爪讗 谞砖讘注 诇讘讟诇 讗转 讛诪爪讜讛 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇 砖讗讬谉 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜

However, the verse states: 鈥淥r if anyone swears clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good鈥 (Leviticus 5:4). From the juxtaposition of evil and good it is derived that just as the doing of good, which is interpreted as obligating himself to take a positive action, is referring to a permitted activity, e.g., to eat, so too, the doing of evil, which is interpreted as prohibiting himself from something, refers only to that which is permitted, e.g., not to eat. This excludes one who takes an oath to nullify a mitzva and does not nullify it; he is not liable for violating the oath, as the permission to nullify it is not in his power.

讞讚 拽专讗 诇诪讬驻讟专讬讛 诪拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讜讞讚 诇诪讬驻讟专讬讛 诪谉 诇讗讜 讚砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara answers that both verses are necessary. One verse: 鈥淭o do evil or to do good,鈥 which is stated in the context of the halakhot of offerings, is necessary to exempt him from bringing an offering for violating an oath, and one verse: 鈥淗e shall not profane,鈥 is necessary to exempt him from the prohibition for violating an oath.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讘转讜讱 砖讘讜注讛 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

MISHNA: There is a vow within a vow. It is possible to impose an additional prohibition, by means of a vow, on an item that is already forbidden by means of a vow. But there is no oath within an oath. If one takes an oath twice with regard to the same action, the second oath does not take effect. How so? If one said: I am hereby a nazirite if I eat, and then repeated: I am hereby a nazirite if I eat, and then he ate, he is obligated to observe naziriteship for thirty days for each and every one of the vows, as both vows took effect. However, if he said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, and repeated: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, and then he ate, he is liable to bring an offering for only one violation of an oath.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讚诪讬讙讜 讚拽讗 诪讬转讜住祝 讬讜诪讗 讬转讬专讗 讞讬讬诇讗 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讞诇讛 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讞诇讛 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇讬讛

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: They taught that there is a vow within a vow only where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, and then he said: I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow. As since an additional day of naziriteship is added by the second vow, an additional thirty-day obligation of naziriteship takes effect upon the first term of naziriteship. However, if he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, and then repeated: I am hereby a nazirite today, a vow of naziriteship does not take effect upon a previous vow of naziriteship, and he must observe only one term of naziriteship. And Shmuel said that even if he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite today, a second vow of naziriteship takes effect with regard to him, as one can apply two obligations of naziriteship to himself one after the other.

讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讚转谞讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讘转讜讱 砖讘讜注讛 诇讬转谞讬 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Huna, instead of teaching that there is no oath within an oath, drawing a distinction between a vow and an oath, let the mishna teach a narrower distinction between different vows, stating that there is a case of a vow within a vow, and there is a case in which there is not a vow within a vow. How so? If one says: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow, in this case there is a vow within a vow. However, if one says: I am hereby a nazirite today, and then again says: I am hereby a nazirite today,

讗讬谉 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 拽砖讬讗

in this case there is no vow within a vow. The Gemara concludes: This question is difficult, although it is not a conclusive refutation.

转谞谉 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讘转讜讱 砖讘讜注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注谞讘讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讞诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 注诇 砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara raises several problems with the opinion of Rav Huna. We learned in the mishna: There is a vow within a vow, but there is no oath within an oath. What are the circumstances? If we say that the case of a vow within a vow is where one said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am a hereby a nazirite tomorrow, that in the corresponding situation with regard to an oath within an oath, which will not take effect, is where one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and he then said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat grapes, i.e., he took two separate oaths; if so, why does an additional oath not take effect where an oath was already made? It ought to take effect, as the second oath is not connected to the first one.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诇讗 讞诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 注诇 砖讘讜注讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讜拽转谞讬 讬砖 谞讚专 讘转讜讱 谞讚专 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rather, what are the circumstances in which a second oath does not take effect after an oath was already made? For example, where one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and he again said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs. In the corresponding situation with regard to naziriteship, what are the circumstances? It must be a case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am a hereby a nazirite today; and the mishna teaches that in this case there is a vow within a vow. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Huna, who holds that in this case the second vow does not take effect.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讘讜注讛 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna could have said to you that the mishna is referring to a case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow; that in the corresponding situation with regard to an oath is where one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and then said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs and grapes, the second oath does not take effect, as he had already taken an oath with regard to part of its content.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讜讗讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 注谞讘讬诐 讛讜讬讗 诇讛讜 注谞讘讬诐 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 注诇 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabba say that if one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and then said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs and grapes, and he subsequently ate figs, violating the oath, and he then set aside an offering for the violation of an oath on a statement, and he then ate grapes, in this case the grapes that he ate are only a half-measure of the second oath. The inclusion of both figs and grapes in the oath indicates that his intention was to prohibit himself from eating both. Since he already set aside an offering for eating the figs, he is now considered as having eaten only grapes and as having violated only half of the oath. And therefore he is not liable to bring an offering for violating the second oath, as one does not bring an offering for a half-measure.

讗诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诪讬讙讜 讚讞诇 砖讘讜注讛 注诇 注谞讘讬诐 讞讬讬诇讗 谞诪讬 注诇 转讗谞讬诐 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讛

The fact that he is exempt from bringing an offering merely because he ate a half-measure indicates that the second oath took effect. Apparently, where one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs, and then said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat figs and grapes, since the second oath can take effect with regard to grapes, as grapes were not included in the first oath, it takes effect with regard to figs as well. This poses a problem according to the opinion of Rav Huna, who would explain the mishna as teaching that the second oath in this case does not take effect at all. The Gemara answers: This is not a problem. Rav Huna does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba was an amora and Rav Huna鈥檚 student.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 砖谞讝专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 诪谞讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜谞砖讗诇 注诇讬讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讬讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who took two vows of naziriteship, counted the thirty days of the first term of naziriteship and set aside an offering at the end of its term, and then requested from a halakhic authority for dissolution of the vow before the offering was sacrificed, thereby rendering the offering unnecessary, the second term of naziriteship is counted for him instead of the first. He is considered as having fulfilled the second term of naziriteship during the period in which he observed the first one. Therefore, the offering that he set aside counts for the second term of naziriteship.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讞专 讗诪讗讬 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讬讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讬讜诪讗 讬转讬专讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐

What are the circumstances? If we say that it is a case where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow, why is the second term of naziriteship counted for him instead of the first? Isn鈥檛 there an additional day in the second term of naziriteship that he has not yet observed, as the second thirty day term commences the day after the first thirty day period had commenced? How, then, is it possible that the second obligation was fulfilled through his observance of the first one? Rather, it is obvious that it is a case where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite today,

Scroll To Top