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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 12, 2022 | 讬状讞 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 18

Today’s daf is sponsored by Beth Kissileff Perlman in honor of the lives and in memory of the deaths of the 11 kedoshim killed at Tree of Life, New Light and Dor Hadash synagogues in Pittsburgh on October 27, 2018. Joyce Fienberg, Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal, David Rosenthal, Bernice Simon, Sylvan Simon, Dan Stein, Mel Wax and Irving Younger.

The third question against Rav Huna is answered and a fourth question is raised and answered. When the Mishna stated that one is not liable for an oath on an oath, Rava infers that one is not liable but the oath exists, meaning that if the first oath is undone, the second will move into its place. If the language of a vow is unclear, one rules stringently. But if the language was ambiguous and the one who vowed explained the meaning of their words to be referring to a language that would not be a valid vow, then we can rule leniently and it is not considered a vow. The Mishna brings different examples of cases where one would rule leniently or stringently. This Mishna contradicts an explicit Mishna that one rules leniently in cases of nazir, which is a type of vow.

讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

and this is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Huna.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 诇诪讞专 讜诪讗讬 注诇转讛 诇讜 诇讘专 诪讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讬转讬专讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: No, actually the case is where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow. And what is the meaning of the statement: The second term of naziriteship is counted for him instead of the first? It is counted except for that additional day, which he still must observe. Alternatively, it may be a case where he accepted upon himself two periods of naziriteship simultaneously, i.e., he said: I am hereby a nazirite twice. Therefore, when the vow with regard to the first term of naziriteship is dissolved, the days he observed count entirely for his second term.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诪讻讗谉 砖讛谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 讛谞讝讬专讜转 砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 砖讘讜注讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讞诇讛 注诇 砖讘讜注讛 谞讝讬专讜转 拽诇讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诪讻讗谉 砖讛谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇 讛谞讝讬专讜转

Rav Hamnuna raised an additional objection against the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita. It is stated in the verse: 鈥淎 nazirite, to consecrate [nazir lehazzir]鈥 (Numbers 6:2). From the use of similar, repetitive wording in the verse here it is derived that naziriteship takes effect upon a prior vow of naziriteship. As one might have thought that it could be derived through an a fortiori inference that naziriteship does not take effect, as follows: And just as with regard to an oath, which is more stringent, an oath does not take effect upon a prior oath, with regard to naziriteship, which is more lenient, all the more so is it not clear that it does not take effect where a vow of naziriteship was already in effect? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥Nazir lehazzir.鈥 From here it is derived that naziriteship takes effect upon a prior vow 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 讛讗 拽专讗 讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 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 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转

What are the circumstances? If we say it is a case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow, does that case require proof from a verse that it takes effect? It is obvious that the second vow of naziriteship takes effect at least on the additional day. And as the minimum term of naziriteship is thirty days, an additional thirty days must be observed. Rather, is it not a case where one said: I am a nazirite today, I am a nazirite today? And the baraita teaches that in this case as well, naziriteship takes effect upon a prior vow of naziriteship, contrary to the opinion of Rav Huna.

诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: That is not the case. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he accepted upon himself two terms of naziriteship simultaneously. The baraita teaches that he must observe two terms of naziriteship and bring a separate offering for each.

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚砖讘讜注讛 诪谞讚专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬讬诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪诪砖 谞讚专 谞诪讬 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 讞诇 注诇 讛诪爪讜讛 讻专砖讜转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 讬谞拽讛

The baraita stated that an oath is more stringent than a vow. The Gemara asks: And what is the stringency of an oath vis-脿-vis a vow, such as a vow of naziriteship? If we say the baraita posits this because an oath, unlike a vow, takes effect even with regard to a matter that has no actual substance, there is a counterargument that a vow also has stringency vis-脿-vis an oath, in that it, unlike an oath, takes effect with regard to a mitzva just as it does with regard to a matter that is permitted. Rather, oaths are more stringent because it is written with regard to an oath: 鈥淭he Lord will not hold guiltless he who takes His name in vain鈥 (Exodus 20:6).

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 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 诪诪讗讬 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 专讜讜讞讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻讬 诪讬转砖讬诇 注诇 讞讘讬专转讛 讞讬讬诇讗

搂 It is taught in the mishna that if one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, and he then ate, he is liable to bring an offering for only one violation of an oath. Rava said: If he requested and received dissolution from a halakhic authority for the first oath, the second oath takes effect upon him. From where is this derived? From the fact that it is not taught in the mishna that there is only one, i.e., it is as though he took only one oath as the oaths are identical. Rather, it is taught that he is liable for only one. Evidently, he is not liable for the second oath only because it does not have a span of time in which to take effect, as he is already under oath not to eat. However, when he requests dissolution of the other oath, i.e. the first oath, the second oath has a span of time in which to take effect, and takes effect.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讬讛 转讞转讬讛

Another version of Rava鈥檚 proof from the mishna is that it may be inferred from the statement: He is liable for only one, that although there is no liability to bring an offering for violating the second oath, there is an effective oath. But if there is no liability, then with regard to what halakha is it effective? Certainly it is effective with regard to the statement of Rava, as Rava said: If he requested and received dissolution from a halakhic authority for the first oath, the second is counted for him in its place.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬 砖谞讚专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讜诪谞讛 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 proposes: Let us say that the following mishna (Shevuot 27b) supports his opinion: In the case of one who took two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first term, and set aside an offering, and requested and received dissolution from a halakhic authority for the first oath, the second term counts for him instead of the first. Evidently, although initially the second term of naziriteship did not have a span of time in which to take effect, it was not completely void. Therefore, when the first vow was dissolved, the second one immediately took its place. It may be proved from here that this is true with regard to oaths as well.

讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara refutes this proof: That mishna may be referring to a case where he accepted upon himself two terms of naziriteship simultaneously. Since two terms cannot be observed concurrently, when he accepts two terms simultaneously, the halakha is that the second term commences immediately following the close of the first, which immediately took effect upon sequential periods of time. However, when one takes an oath prohibiting himself from a matter that is already prohibited by an oath in the same period of time, the second oath may not take effect at all.

诪转谞讬壮 住转诐 谞讚专讬诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜驻讬专讜砖诐 诇讛拽诇 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 讻讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讻讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗诐 讘砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 谞讚专 讗住讜专

MISHNA: Unspecified vows are treated stringently, but their specification, if specification is necessary, is treated leniently. How so? If one said: This item is prohibited to me like salted meat, or: This item is prohibited to me like the wine used for libations, if he vowed in reference to meat or libations of a peace-offering, i.e., if he claimed that his intention was that the item will be forbidden to him like the salted meat of an offering, or like wine that is used for libations on the altar, it is forbidden, as he associated the item of the vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., the offering.

讗诐 讘砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞讚专 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 住转诐 讗住讜专

If he claims that he vowed in reference to meat or libations of idol worship, i.e., that the item will be like the salted meat of an offering for an idol, or like wine that is used for libations as idol worship, it is permitted, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by the Torah. By enabling the one who took the vow to later clarify his intent, the vow is treated leniently. And if the vow was without specification, i.e., the one who took the vow did not specify whether his intention was to associate the item with an offering for Heaven or to associate the item with idol worship, it is forbidden.

讛专讬 注诇讬 讻讞专诐 讗诐 讻讞专诐 砖诇 砖诪讬诐 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 讻讞专诐 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 住转诐 讗住讜专

Similarly, if one said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to Heaven, which is a form of consecration, it is forbidden. And if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to priests, whereby one pledges his asset as a gift to priests, it is permitted, as this type of gift is not forbidden at all. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden.

讛专讬 注诇讬 讻诪注砖专 讗诐 讻诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 谞讚专 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 砖诇 讙讜专谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 住转诐 讗住讜专

Likewise, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like tithes, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the animal tithe, it is forbidden, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it will be like the tithe of the granary, i.e., grain that is given to the Levites and has no sanctity, it is permitted. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden.

讛专讬 注诇讬 讻转专讜诪讛 讗诐 讻转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 谞讚专 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 砖诇 讙讜专谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 住转诐 讗住讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Similarly, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like teruma, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber [terumat halishka], which is a tax for the communal offerings, it is forbidden, his vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it would be like teruma of the granary that is given to the priests, it is permitted, as teruma is not an item forbidden by a vow. And if the vow was taken without specification, it is forbidden. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住转诐 转专讜诪讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讙诇讬诇 诪讜转专转 砖讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讙诇讬诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讙诇讬诇 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讙诇讬诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 讞专诪讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. However, in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the chamber. When they say teruma they are referring to the teruma allotted to the priests, which is familiar to them. Conversely, unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests, so when they say dedication they are referring to dedication to Heaven.

讙诪壮 讜讛转谞谉 住驻拽 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讛拽诇

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a problem with the principle stated in the mishna that unspecified vows are treated stringently. But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Taharot 4:12): Uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? And naziriteship is a type of vow.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讞讬讬转讜 讜讘讛诪转讜 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛讻讜讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛讻讜讬

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. That mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him. As it is taught in a baraita: One who consecrates his undomesticated animal and his domesticated animal has consecrated the koy as well, although it is uncertain whether it is an undomesticated or a domesticated animal. Rabbi Eliezer says: He has not consecrated the koy.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪讜谞讜 诪注讬讬诇 诇住驻讬拽讗 讙讜驻讬讛 谞诪讬 诪注讬讬诇 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪讜谞讜 诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇住驻讬拽讗 讙讜驻讬讛 (谞诪讬)

The Rabbis who said that one puts his possessions into a state of uncertainty, and therefore a koy is included in the aforementioned vow, hold that one enters himself into a state of uncertainty as well. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated stringently. And Rabbi Eliezer, who said that one does not put his possessions into a state of uncertainty, and therefore the phrase: Undomesticated and domesticated animals, refers only to definitely undomesticated and definitely domesticated animals,

  • 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 18: Context Matters: Swearing Casually and Its Implications

Challenges to R. Huna, and answers to the challenges. More on the stringencies of a neder vs. an oath. Plus,...

Nedarim 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 18

讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

and this is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Huna.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬讜诐 讛专讬谞讬 诇诪讞专 讜诪讗讬 注诇转讛 诇讜 诇讘专 诪讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讬转讬专讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: No, actually the case is where he said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow. And what is the meaning of the statement: The second term of naziriteship is counted for him instead of the first? It is counted except for that additional day, which he still must observe. Alternatively, it may be a case where he accepted upon himself two periods of naziriteship simultaneously, i.e., he said: I am hereby a nazirite twice. Therefore, when the vow with regard to the first term of naziriteship is dissolved, the days he observed count entirely for his second term.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诪讻讗谉 砖讛谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 讛谞讝讬专讜转 砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 砖讘讜注讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讞诇讛 注诇 砖讘讜注讛 谞讝讬专讜转 拽诇讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诪讻讗谉 砖讛谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇 讛谞讝讬专讜转

Rav Hamnuna raised an additional objection against the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita. It is stated in the verse: 鈥淎 nazirite, to consecrate [nazir lehazzir]鈥 (Numbers 6:2). From the use of similar, repetitive wording in the verse here it is derived that naziriteship takes effect upon a prior vow of naziriteship. As one might have thought that it could be derived through an a fortiori inference that naziriteship does not take effect, as follows: And just as with regard to an oath, which is more stringent, an oath does not take effect upon a prior oath, with regard to naziriteship, which is more lenient, all the more so is it not clear that it does not take effect where a vow of naziriteship was already in effect? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥Nazir lehazzir.鈥 From here it is derived that naziriteship takes effect upon a prior vow 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 讛讗 拽专讗 讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 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 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转

What are the circumstances? If we say it is a case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite today, I am hereby a nazirite tomorrow, does that case require proof from a verse that it takes effect? It is obvious that the second vow of naziriteship takes effect at least on the additional day. And as the minimum term of naziriteship is thirty days, an additional thirty days must be observed. Rather, is it not a case where one said: I am a nazirite today, I am a nazirite today? And the baraita teaches that in this case as well, naziriteship takes effect upon a prior vow of naziriteship, contrary to the opinion of Rav Huna.

诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: That is not the case. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he accepted upon himself two terms of naziriteship simultaneously. The baraita teaches that he must observe two terms of naziriteship and bring a separate offering for each.

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚砖讘讜注讛 诪谞讚专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬讬诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪诪砖 谞讚专 谞诪讬 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 讞诇 注诇 讛诪爪讜讛 讻专砖讜转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 讬谞拽讛

The baraita stated that an oath is more stringent than a vow. The Gemara asks: And what is the stringency of an oath vis-脿-vis a vow, such as a vow of naziriteship? If we say the baraita posits this because an oath, unlike a vow, takes effect even with regard to a matter that has no actual substance, there is a counterargument that a vow also has stringency vis-脿-vis an oath, in that it, unlike an oath, takes effect with regard to a mitzva just as it does with regard to a matter that is permitted. Rather, oaths are more stringent because it is written with regard to an oath: 鈥淭he Lord will not hold guiltless he who takes His name in vain鈥 (Exodus 20:6).

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 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 诪诪讗讬 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 专讜讜讞讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讻讬 诪讬转砖讬诇 注诇 讞讘讬专转讛 讞讬讬诇讗

搂 It is taught in the mishna that if one said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, and he then ate, he is liable to bring an offering for only one violation of an oath. Rava said: If he requested and received dissolution from a halakhic authority for the first oath, the second oath takes effect upon him. From where is this derived? From the fact that it is not taught in the mishna that there is only one, i.e., it is as though he took only one oath as the oaths are identical. Rather, it is taught that he is liable for only one. Evidently, he is not liable for the second oath only because it does not have a span of time in which to take effect, as he is already under oath not to eat. However, when he requests dissolution of the other oath, i.e. the first oath, the second oath has a span of time in which to take effect, and takes effect.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 砖讘讜注讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讬讛 转讞转讬讛

Another version of Rava鈥檚 proof from the mishna is that it may be inferred from the statement: He is liable for only one, that although there is no liability to bring an offering for violating the second oath, there is an effective oath. But if there is no liability, then with regard to what halakha is it effective? Certainly it is effective with regard to the statement of Rava, as Rava said: If he requested and received dissolution from a halakhic authority for the first oath, the second is counted for him in its place.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬 砖谞讚专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讜诪谞讛 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 proposes: Let us say that the following mishna (Shevuot 27b) supports his opinion: In the case of one who took two vows of naziriteship, and counted the first term, and set aside an offering, and requested and received dissolution from a halakhic authority for the first oath, the second term counts for him instead of the first. Evidently, although initially the second term of naziriteship did not have a span of time in which to take effect, it was not completely void. Therefore, when the first vow was dissolved, the second one immediately took its place. It may be proved from here that this is true with regard to oaths as well.

讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara refutes this proof: That mishna may be referring to a case where he accepted upon himself two terms of naziriteship simultaneously. Since two terms cannot be observed concurrently, when he accepts two terms simultaneously, the halakha is that the second term commences immediately following the close of the first, which immediately took effect upon sequential periods of time. However, when one takes an oath prohibiting himself from a matter that is already prohibited by an oath in the same period of time, the second oath may not take effect at all.

诪转谞讬壮 住转诐 谞讚专讬诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜驻讬专讜砖诐 诇讛拽诇 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 讻讘砖专 诪诇讬讞 讻讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗诐 讘砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 谞讚专 讗住讜专

MISHNA: Unspecified vows are treated stringently, but their specification, if specification is necessary, is treated leniently. How so? If one said: This item is prohibited to me like salted meat, or: This item is prohibited to me like the wine used for libations, if he vowed in reference to meat or libations of a peace-offering, i.e., if he claimed that his intention was that the item will be forbidden to him like the salted meat of an offering, or like wine that is used for libations on the altar, it is forbidden, as he associated the item of the vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., the offering.

讗诐 讘砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞讚专 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 住转诐 讗住讜专

If he claims that he vowed in reference to meat or libations of idol worship, i.e., that the item will be like the salted meat of an offering for an idol, or like wine that is used for libations as idol worship, it is permitted, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by the Torah. By enabling the one who took the vow to later clarify his intent, the vow is treated leniently. And if the vow was without specification, i.e., the one who took the vow did not specify whether his intention was to associate the item with an offering for Heaven or to associate the item with idol worship, it is forbidden.

讛专讬 注诇讬 讻讞专诐 讗诐 讻讞专诐 砖诇 砖诪讬诐 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 讻讞专诐 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 住转诐 讗住讜专

Similarly, if one said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to Heaven, which is a form of consecration, it is forbidden. And if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to priests, whereby one pledges his asset as a gift to priests, it is permitted, as this type of gift is not forbidden at all. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden.

讛专讬 注诇讬 讻诪注砖专 讗诐 讻诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 谞讚专 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 砖诇 讙讜专谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 住转诐 讗住讜专

Likewise, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like tithes, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the animal tithe, it is forbidden, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it will be like the tithe of the granary, i.e., grain that is given to the Levites and has no sanctity, it is permitted. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden.

讛专讬 注诇讬 讻转专讜诪讛 讗诐 讻转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 谞讚专 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 砖诇 讙讜专谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 住转诐 讗住讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Similarly, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like teruma, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber [terumat halishka], which is a tax for the communal offerings, it is forbidden, his vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it would be like teruma of the granary that is given to the priests, it is permitted, as teruma is not an item forbidden by a vow. And if the vow was taken without specification, it is forbidden. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住转诐 转专讜诪讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讙诇讬诇 诪讜转专转 砖讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讙诇讬诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讙诇讬诇 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讙诇讬诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 讞专诪讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. However, in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the chamber. When they say teruma they are referring to the teruma allotted to the priests, which is familiar to them. Conversely, unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests, so when they say dedication they are referring to dedication to Heaven.

讙诪壮 讜讛转谞谉 住驻拽 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讛拽诇

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a problem with the principle stated in the mishna that unspecified vows are treated stringently. But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Taharot 4:12): Uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? And naziriteship is a type of vow.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讞讬讬转讜 讜讘讛诪转讜 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛讻讜讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛讻讜讬

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. That mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him. As it is taught in a baraita: One who consecrates his undomesticated animal and his domesticated animal has consecrated the koy as well, although it is uncertain whether it is an undomesticated or a domesticated animal. Rabbi Eliezer says: He has not consecrated the koy.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪讜谞讜 诪注讬讬诇 诇住驻讬拽讗 讙讜驻讬讛 谞诪讬 诪注讬讬诇 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪讜谞讜 诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇住驻讬拽讗 讙讜驻讬讛 (谞诪讬)

The Rabbis who said that one puts his possessions into a state of uncertainty, and therefore a koy is included in the aforementioned vow, hold that one enters himself into a state of uncertainty as well. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated stringently. And Rabbi Eliezer, who said that one does not put his possessions into a state of uncertainty, and therefore the phrase: Undomesticated and domesticated animals, refers only to definitely undomesticated and definitely domesticated animals,

Scroll To Top