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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 13, 2022 | 讬状讟 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • 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.

  • 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 for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 19

Today’s daf is sponsored by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in loving memory of my mother Arlene Goodstein’s 7th yahrzeit. “My mother’s love of Judaism and the land of Israel set the stage for my life. Missing her always.”

In order to resolve a contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna in Taharot 4:12, regarding the issue of whether we rule stringently or leniently with regard to vows, the Gemara suggested that each Mishna reflected a different tannaitic opinion. First, they try to establish that the lenient opinion matches Rabbi Elazar (Eliezer), but difficulties are raised against this suggestion, first from the continuation of the Mishna in Taharot and then from the Tosefta Taharot Chapter 5. The first difficulty is resolved but the second is not. The second suggestion is that the Mishnayot each represents a different tannaitic opinion regarding a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon about a case where one says “I will be a nazir if there are 100 kur in the pile.” If the pile is lost or stolen before they measure it, Rabbi Yehuda ruled the person is not a nazir and Rabbi Shimon rules the opposite. Based on this understanding, Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is based on the fact that when one vows, one does not put oneself into a situation of uncertainty. This contradicts an inference from a statement of Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna regarding a case of doubt when one said a vow using the language of teruma where the ruling is to be stringent. Rava answers by explaining the case of the nazir differently as the case of doubt for a nazir is worse than a doubt regarding a regular vow as one has no way to end the nazir prohibitions. Therefore, we can assume the person did not want to get into a situation of becoming a nazir out of doubt. Two questions are raised against Rava and one is resolved, but the other is not. Rav Ashi answers that Rabbi Yehuda by nazir is not his own opinion but him stating Rabbi Tarfon’s position that nazir can only be taken on by a definitive declaration. A difficulty is raised against Rav Ashi as well, but it is resolved. The Mishna has brought two cases where the law is different between those living in Judea and the Galilee. However, they seem to contradict each other and therefore the Gemara concludes that one is Rabbi Yehuda’s position and the other is Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Tzadok.

讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇住驻讬拽讗

holds that all the more so, one does not enter himself into uncertainty either. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇住驻拽 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讛拽诇 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 住驻拽 讘讻讜专讜转 讗讞讚 讘讻讜专讬 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讻讜专讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讬谉 讟诪讗讛 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: In what manner did you establish the mishna that states that uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? You established it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Say the latter clause of that mishna: If there is uncertainty with regard to firstborns, whether human firstborns, or animal firstborns, whether non-kosher firstborns, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey, or the firstborn of kosher animals, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. In other words, the priest cannot take the redemption money from the father of the child, or the animal from its owner, and conversely, if the father or owner mistakenly gave it to a priest, he does not get it back.

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜讗住讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛

And it is taught in a baraita in that regard: But with regard to shearing and working these uncertain animal firstborns, they are forbidden, just like definite firstborns. This indicates a difference between the monetary issue, with regard to which it is ruled that the animal cannot be taken from the owner by the priest, and the prohibition, which applies despite the uncertainty. Evidently, even the tanna of this mishna does not hold that all uncertainties with regard to consecration are to be treated leniently.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讘讗讛 诪讗诇讬讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: This is not difficult. Why do you compare sanctity that emerges by itself, i.e., the sanctity of a firstborn, which results from objective reality and not human intent, to sanctity that emerges by the volition of a person and is dependent on his intention? Only with regard to the latter type of sanctity can it be established that a person does not intend to consecrate an item in an uncertain manner.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 住驻拽 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讬讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讟讛讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜

Rather, if Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 answer is difficult, this is what is difficult. It is stated in that same mishna: In the case of liquid with regard to which there is uncertainty whether it became ritually impure through contact with someone who was ritually impure, the halakha is as follows: It is considered impure with regard to its being impure in and of itself, but it is considered pure with regard to its ability to render other items impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Elazar would also say in accordance with the statements of Rabbi Meir.

讜诪讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讬讟诪讗 讟诪讗

According to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 assertion that the rulings of this mishna with regard to uncertainty are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this causes a difficulty: But does Rabbi Eliezer hold that with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status being impure, it is considered impure?

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讛注讬讚 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 讗讬诇 拽诪爪讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: By Torah law, impurity does not apply to liquids at all? Know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida testified concerning a grasshopper species called eil kamtza that it is kosher, and concerning the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse that they are pure. Liquids are susceptible to ritual impurity only by rabbinic law, and liquids in the Temple were not included in this decree so as not to cause additional impurity there. Since Rabbi Eliezer holds that by Torah law liquids are not susceptible to impurity, how can it be his opinion that liquids of uncertain ritual status are considered impure?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 砖驻讬专

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to Shmuel, who said that the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling that the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse are pure is that they cannot render other items impure, but they themselves are susceptible to impurity. Accordingly, liquids are susceptible to impurity by Torah law; only their ability to render other items impure is by rabbinic law. The ruling in the mishna that liquid of uncertain ritual status is considered impure is therefore consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 answer works out well.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

However, according to Rav, who said that they are actually pure, i.e., they are not susceptible to impurity, what is there to say? The mishna that is lenient with regard to uncertain naziriteship and stringent with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status is clearly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rather, Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 answer should be rejected, and the contradiction between the mishna here, which states that unspecified vows should be treated stringently, and the mishna in tractate Teharot, which states that uncertain naziriteship should be treated leniently, should be resolved as follows: That mishna, in Teharot, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻专讬 讛讝讛 诪讗讛 讻讜专 讜讛诇讱 讜诪爪讗讜 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专

As it is taught in a baraita that if someone says: I am hereby a nazirite if there are in this heap of grain one hundred kor, and he went to measure the heap and found that it was stolen or that it was lost and cannot be measured, Rabbi Yehuda permits him to perform actions forbidden to a nazirite, as he holds that this uncertain naziriteship does not take effect. And Rabbi Shimon prohibits him from doing so, as he maintains that it does take effect. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that uncertain naziriteship is treated stringently.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 谞驻砖讬讛 诇住驻讬拽讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 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 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诪讜转专转 砖讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讛讙诇讬诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that a person does not enter himself into a state of uncertainty, and therefore as long as the volume of the heap is unknown, naziriteship does not take effect? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are not familiar with the collection of the chamber. The Gemara infers: The reason it is permitted is that they are not familiar;

讛讗 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

but where they are familiar, it is forbidden, even if the person mentioned teruma without specification, and there is still uncertainty with regard to which teruma he was referring.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讘讬 讻专讬 拽住讘专 讻诇 砖住驻讬拽讜 讞诪讜专 诪讜讚讗讬 诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 谞驻砖讬讛 诇住驻讬拽讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讜讚讗讬 诪讙诇讞 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 注诇 住驻讬拽讜 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讙诇讞

Rava said that the contradiction can be resolved as follows: With regard to the case of a vow conditioned on the volume of a heap, Rabbi Yehuda holds that wherever uncertainty is more stringent than certainty, one does not enter himself into a state of uncertainty. Uncertain naziriteship is more stringent than definite naziriteship, as while a definite nazirite has a remedy, i.e., at the end of his naziriteship he shaves his hair and brings an offering and it is eaten, one cannot shave his hair for uncertain naziriteship. He cannot bring an offering in case he is not a nazirite, which would render his offering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard. Since he cannot bring an offering he may not shave.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诪讗讬

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: According to your answer, that Rabbi Yehuda holds that he is not a nazirite only because uncertain naziriteship is more stringent than definite naziriteship, if one said: If there are a hundred kor in this heap I am hereby a permanent nazirite, what is the halakha? In this case, uncertainty is apparently not more stringent than certainty, as the naziriteship will never end even if it is definite.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 谞诪讬 住驻讬拽讜 讞诪讜专 诪讜讚讗讬 讚讗讬诇讜 讜讚讗讬 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讘讬讗 砖诇讜砖 讘讛诪讜转 讜讗讬诇讜 住驻讬拽讜 诇讗

Rava said to him: Even with regard to a permanent nazirite, his uncertainty is more stringent than certainty with regard to a different halakha: As when the hair of a definite nazirite is too heavy for him he may lighten the hair with a razor and bring the three animal offerings that a nazirite brings when he has completed his term of naziriteship, before continuing to observe naziriteship; whereas in a case of uncertainty he cannot do so. Since it is not certain that he is a nazirite, he cannot bring these offerings and is therefore prohibited from shaving. Therefore, uncertainty is more stringent than certainty with regard to a permanent nazirite as well.

讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 诪讗讬

Rav Huna further asked him: If one said: If there are one hundred kor in this heap, I am hereby a nazirite like Samson (Judges, chapters 13鈥16), i.e., he would be like Samson, whose permanent naziriteship could not be dissolved and who had no remedy at all, even by bringing offerings, and therefore could never shave, what is the halakha? Uncertainty is definitely not more stringent than certainty in this case.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 转谞讬讗 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

Rava said to him: The concept of a nazirite like Samson is not taught. It was not mentioned at all by the Sages, as the naziriteship of Samson could not have been created through a vow. It was a one-time, divine order that cannot be emulated. Rav Huna said to him: But didn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Ahava say that the concept of a nazirite like Samson is taught in a baraita, which shows that it takes effect? Rava said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda acknowledges that in this case even uncertain naziriteship takes effect.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 谞讝讬专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛驻诇讗讛

Rav Ashi said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda. That baraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda treats uncertain naziriteship leniently, is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita: If a number of people wager on the truth of a statement, and they stipulate that whoever is correct will be a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: None of them is a nazirite no matter who is correct, because naziriteship was given to take effect only through explicitness of intent. A vow of naziriteship takes effect only if it is taken unconditionally. Therefore, in the case of the heap, since the speaker was uncertain of its volume at the time the vow of naziriteship was taken, the vow does not take effect.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 讗诇讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 拽住讘专 诪注讬讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 谞驻砖讬讛 诇住驻讬拽讗

The Gemara asks: If so, why is it specifically stated that the heap was stolen or that it was lost? Even if it was still present and measured, the naziriteship would not have taken effect as it was conditioned and was not a clear expression. The Gemara answers: Rather, that detail was established to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that even if it is the case that it was stolen or that it was lost and consequently cannot be measured, nevertheless he holds that a person enters himself into uncertainty, and therefore the vow takes effect.

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 讻讜壮 讛讗 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 住驻讬拽讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

搂 It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden, but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. The Gemara infers: Where they are familiar with the collection of the chamber, it is forbidden. Apparently, uncertainty with regard to vows is treated stringently.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讘讙诇讬诇 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讛讙诇讬诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 讞专诪讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛讗 诪讻讬专讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 住驻讬拽讗 诇拽讜诇讗

However, say the latter clause of the mishna: Unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, because the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests. It may be inferred that where they are familiar with dedications allotted to the priests they are permitted, due to the uncertainty. Apparently, uncertainty with regard to vows is treated leniently.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 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 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 讗住讜专讬谉

Abaye said: The latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, not of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that unspecified dedications in the Galilee are forbidden.

  • 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.

  • 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 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 19: The Burden of Proof

Consecrating property, even when it has questionable status, as compared to vows, when there is doubt as to the status...

Nedarim 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 19

讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇住驻讬拽讗

holds that all the more so, one does not enter himself into uncertainty either. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇住驻拽 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讛拽诇 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 住驻拽 讘讻讜专讜转 讗讞讚 讘讻讜专讬 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讻讜专讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讬谉 讟诪讗讛 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: In what manner did you establish the mishna that states that uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? You established it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Say the latter clause of that mishna: If there is uncertainty with regard to firstborns, whether human firstborns, or animal firstborns, whether non-kosher firstborns, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey, or the firstborn of kosher animals, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. In other words, the priest cannot take the redemption money from the father of the child, or the animal from its owner, and conversely, if the father or owner mistakenly gave it to a priest, he does not get it back.

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜讗住讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛

And it is taught in a baraita in that regard: But with regard to shearing and working these uncertain animal firstborns, they are forbidden, just like definite firstborns. This indicates a difference between the monetary issue, with regard to which it is ruled that the animal cannot be taken from the owner by the priest, and the prohibition, which applies despite the uncertainty. Evidently, even the tanna of this mishna does not hold that all uncertainties with regard to consecration are to be treated leniently.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讘讗讛 诪讗诇讬讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: This is not difficult. Why do you compare sanctity that emerges by itself, i.e., the sanctity of a firstborn, which results from objective reality and not human intent, to sanctity that emerges by the volition of a person and is dependent on his intention? Only with regard to the latter type of sanctity can it be established that a person does not intend to consecrate an item in an uncertain manner.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 住驻拽 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讬讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讟讛讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜

Rather, if Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 answer is difficult, this is what is difficult. It is stated in that same mishna: In the case of liquid with regard to which there is uncertainty whether it became ritually impure through contact with someone who was ritually impure, the halakha is as follows: It is considered impure with regard to its being impure in and of itself, but it is considered pure with regard to its ability to render other items impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Elazar would also say in accordance with the statements of Rabbi Meir.

讜诪讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讬讟诪讗 讟诪讗

According to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 assertion that the rulings of this mishna with regard to uncertainty are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this causes a difficulty: But does Rabbi Eliezer hold that with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status being impure, it is considered impure?

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讛注讬讚 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 讗讬诇 拽诪爪讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: By Torah law, impurity does not apply to liquids at all? Know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida testified concerning a grasshopper species called eil kamtza that it is kosher, and concerning the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse that they are pure. Liquids are susceptible to ritual impurity only by rabbinic law, and liquids in the Temple were not included in this decree so as not to cause additional impurity there. Since Rabbi Eliezer holds that by Torah law liquids are not susceptible to impurity, how can it be his opinion that liquids of uncertain ritual status are considered impure?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 砖驻讬专

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to Shmuel, who said that the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling that the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse are pure is that they cannot render other items impure, but they themselves are susceptible to impurity. Accordingly, liquids are susceptible to impurity by Torah law; only their ability to render other items impure is by rabbinic law. The ruling in the mishna that liquid of uncertain ritual status is considered impure is therefore consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 answer works out well.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

However, according to Rav, who said that they are actually pure, i.e., they are not susceptible to impurity, what is there to say? The mishna that is lenient with regard to uncertain naziriteship and stringent with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status is clearly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rather, Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 answer should be rejected, and the contradiction between the mishna here, which states that unspecified vows should be treated stringently, and the mishna in tractate Teharot, which states that uncertain naziriteship should be treated leniently, should be resolved as follows: That mishna, in Teharot, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讬砖 讘讻专讬 讛讝讛 诪讗讛 讻讜专 讜讛诇讱 讜诪爪讗讜 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专

As it is taught in a baraita that if someone says: I am hereby a nazirite if there are in this heap of grain one hundred kor, and he went to measure the heap and found that it was stolen or that it was lost and cannot be measured, Rabbi Yehuda permits him to perform actions forbidden to a nazirite, as he holds that this uncertain naziriteship does not take effect. And Rabbi Shimon prohibits him from doing so, as he maintains that it does take effect. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that uncertain naziriteship is treated stringently.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 谞驻砖讬讛 诇住驻讬拽讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 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 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诪讜转专转 砖讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讛讙诇讬诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that a person does not enter himself into a state of uncertainty, and therefore as long as the volume of the heap is unknown, naziriteship does not take effect? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are not familiar with the collection of the chamber. The Gemara infers: The reason it is permitted is that they are not familiar;

讛讗 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

but where they are familiar, it is forbidden, even if the person mentioned teruma without specification, and there is still uncertainty with regard to which teruma he was referring.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讘讬 讻专讬 拽住讘专 讻诇 砖住驻讬拽讜 讞诪讜专 诪讜讚讗讬 诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 谞驻砖讬讛 诇住驻讬拽讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讜讚讗讬 诪讙诇讞 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 注诇 住驻讬拽讜 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讙诇讞

Rava said that the contradiction can be resolved as follows: With regard to the case of a vow conditioned on the volume of a heap, Rabbi Yehuda holds that wherever uncertainty is more stringent than certainty, one does not enter himself into a state of uncertainty. Uncertain naziriteship is more stringent than definite naziriteship, as while a definite nazirite has a remedy, i.e., at the end of his naziriteship he shaves his hair and brings an offering and it is eaten, one cannot shave his hair for uncertain naziriteship. He cannot bring an offering in case he is not a nazirite, which would render his offering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard. Since he cannot bring an offering he may not shave.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诪讗讬

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: According to your answer, that Rabbi Yehuda holds that he is not a nazirite only because uncertain naziriteship is more stringent than definite naziriteship, if one said: If there are a hundred kor in this heap I am hereby a permanent nazirite, what is the halakha? In this case, uncertainty is apparently not more stringent than certainty, as the naziriteship will never end even if it is definite.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 谞诪讬 住驻讬拽讜 讞诪讜专 诪讜讚讗讬 讚讗讬诇讜 讜讚讗讬 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讘讬讗 砖诇讜砖 讘讛诪讜转 讜讗讬诇讜 住驻讬拽讜 诇讗

Rava said to him: Even with regard to a permanent nazirite, his uncertainty is more stringent than certainty with regard to a different halakha: As when the hair of a definite nazirite is too heavy for him he may lighten the hair with a razor and bring the three animal offerings that a nazirite brings when he has completed his term of naziriteship, before continuing to observe naziriteship; whereas in a case of uncertainty he cannot do so. Since it is not certain that he is a nazirite, he cannot bring these offerings and is therefore prohibited from shaving. Therefore, uncertainty is more stringent than certainty with regard to a permanent nazirite as well.

讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 诪讗讬

Rav Huna further asked him: If one said: If there are one hundred kor in this heap, I am hereby a nazirite like Samson (Judges, chapters 13鈥16), i.e., he would be like Samson, whose permanent naziriteship could not be dissolved and who had no remedy at all, even by bringing offerings, and therefore could never shave, what is the halakha? Uncertainty is definitely not more stringent than certainty in this case.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 转谞讬讗 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

Rava said to him: The concept of a nazirite like Samson is not taught. It was not mentioned at all by the Sages, as the naziriteship of Samson could not have been created through a vow. It was a one-time, divine order that cannot be emulated. Rav Huna said to him: But didn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Ahava say that the concept of a nazirite like Samson is taught in a baraita, which shows that it takes effect? Rava said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda acknowledges that in this case even uncertain naziriteship takes effect.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 谞讝讬专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛驻诇讗讛

Rav Ashi said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda. That baraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda treats uncertain naziriteship leniently, is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita: If a number of people wager on the truth of a statement, and they stipulate that whoever is correct will be a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: None of them is a nazirite no matter who is correct, because naziriteship was given to take effect only through explicitness of intent. A vow of naziriteship takes effect only if it is taken unconditionally. Therefore, in the case of the heap, since the speaker was uncertain of its volume at the time the vow of naziriteship was taken, the vow does not take effect.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 讗诇讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞讙谞讘 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 拽住讘专 诪注讬讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 谞驻砖讬讛 诇住驻讬拽讗

The Gemara asks: If so, why is it specifically stated that the heap was stolen or that it was lost? Even if it was still present and measured, the naziriteship would not have taken effect as it was conditioned and was not a clear expression. The Gemara answers: Rather, that detail was established to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that even if it is the case that it was stolen or that it was lost and consequently cannot be measured, nevertheless he holds that a person enters himself into uncertainty, and therefore the vow takes effect.

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 讻讜壮 讛讗 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 住驻讬拽讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

搂 It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden, but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. The Gemara infers: Where they are familiar with the collection of the chamber, it is forbidden. Apparently, uncertainty with regard to vows is treated stringently.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讘讙诇讬诇 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 讛讙诇讬诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗转 讞专诪讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛讗 诪讻讬专讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 住驻讬拽讗 诇拽讜诇讗

However, say the latter clause of the mishna: Unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, because the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests. It may be inferred that where they are familiar with dedications allotted to the priests they are permitted, due to the uncertainty. Apparently, uncertainty with regard to vows is treated leniently.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 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 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 讗住讜专讬谉

Abaye said: The latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, not of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that unspecified dedications in the Galilee are forbidden.

Scroll To Top