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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 27, 2022 | ื‘ืณ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • 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 2

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.ย 
Today’s daf is sponsored by the Agus family in honor of Aviva Adler completing the Siyum HaShas.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabia and Oliver Mitchell in honor of their daughter Ellin Mitchell Cooper on becoming the Yoetzet Halacha for Manhattan.ย 
Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Bardack in loving memory of the 11 souls who were killed in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting four years ago. Yehi Zichram Baruch.
When someone takes a vow to forbid an item, that vow is effective. One can take a vow using the language of a vow (neder) or also using a similar term that has the same meaning (kinui).ย  The same holds true for cherem (a type of vow performed by using the term cherem), oaths and vows to take upon oneself to become a nazir. If one uses a different language that indicates that one is distancing or separating from a friend or one will not eat from a friend, this is effective as well. The Gemara refers to this category as yadot, incomplete statements. If one uses a language of excommunication: “I am menuda (excommunicated) from you,” Rabbi Akiva was unsure how to treat it and therefore ruled stringently. Masechet Nazir begins in the same manner, mentioning that if one uses a kinui (word similar to) of nazir, the vow is effective, but does not mention vow, oaths and cherem. The Gemara notes the difference between the two mishnayot and tries to figure out why. The answer leads to a further question regarding the order of our Mishna – vows, cherem, oaths and nazir. Another issue is raised regarding the structure of the Mishna. To resolve this issue, they explain that the Mishna is missing words. This leads to a further question as the order is troubling – it starts with kinuyim and then moves to yadot, then explains the yadot in detail and then goes back to explain kinuyim. Why? This can be explained as an ABBA structure as can be found in a number of other mishnayot. Why are some mishnayot written in that structure and others ABAB?

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื

MISHNA: When an individual takes a vow, he renders an object forbidden to himself or to others as though it were a sacrificial offering; this parallels the act of consecrating an offering, which also renders an item forbidden for personal use by means of a verbal declaration. The most direct expression of a vow is when an individual says: This object is forbidden to me, or to others, like an offering. Additionally, the mishna states that all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows. Consequently, if one states that an object is forbidden to him like a konam instead of like an offering [korban], the vow takes effect, as konam is a substitute term for the word korban (see 10a).

ื•ื—ืจืžื™ื ื›ื—ืจืžื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื›ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื•ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช

Similarly, substitutes for the language of dedications are like dedications, substitutes for the language of oaths are like oaths, and substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. Therefore, if one declared a แธฅerekh instead of a dedication [แธฅerem], a shevuta instead of an oath [shevua], or proclaimed that he was becoming a nazik instead of a nazirite [nazir], his statement takes effect.

ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ืจื• ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ืžืžืš ืžื•ืคืจืฉื ื™ ืžืžืš ืžืจื•ื—ืงื ื™ ืžืžืš ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ืืกื•ืจ

With regard to one who says to another: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you, and he then says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, even though he did not explicitly state that he is taking a vow or specify the nature of the vow, the object of his vow is nevertheless forbidden. His intention is understood based on his incomplete statement, known as an intimation of a vow, and his vow therefore takes effect.

ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื” ื—ื•ื›ืš ื‘ื–ื” ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ

However, if he says: I am ostracized from you, which does not clearly declare any matter to be prohibited, Rabbi Akiva was uncertain about this halakha but was inclined to rule stringently about this and consider it a vow prohibiting the speaker from deriving benefit from his fellow.

ื’ืžืณ ื›ืœ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”ื• ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื•

GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows, substitutes for the language of dedications are like dedications, substitutes for the language of oaths are like oaths, and substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to the first mishna of tractate Nazir that it does not teach all of them, i.e., all of the cases listed above besides nazirite vows, and what is different with regard to the first mishna of tractate Nedarim that it teaches all of them and not merely the case of vows, which is the subject directly relevant to this tractate?

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื ื“ืจ ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืชื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื•

The Gemara answers that due to the fact that vows and oaths are written next to each other in the Torah in the verse: โ€œWhen a man takes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oathโ€ (Numbers 30:3), the mishna teaches these two cases, i.e., substitutes for the language of vows and oaths. And since it taught two of the cases, it taught all of them.

ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื‘ืชืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื ื“ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™ืชืกืจ ื—ืคืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ื—ืจืžื™ื ื“ืžื™ืชืกืจ ื—ืคืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืงืืกืจ ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืžืŸ ื—ืคืฆื

The Gemara asks: If so, let the mishna teach the halakha with regard to substitutes for the language of oaths immediately after the case of substitutes for the language of vows. The Gemara answers: Since it taught the case of vows, whereby an object becomes forbidden to one, it taught also the case of dedications, whereby an object becomes forbidden to one. This is to the exclusion of an oath, whereby one prohibits himself from making use of an object. In the case of an oath, unlike a vow or a dedication, one prohibits himself from performing a particular action rather than declaring an object to be forbidden.

ืคืชื— ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื›ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ืžืคืจืฉ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื•ื“ืจ ืื ื™ ืžืžืš ื•ืชื• ื™ื“ื•ืช ืื™ื ืฉื™

ยง The Gemara asks a question with regard to the style of the mishna: The mishna began with the case of substitutes when it stated: All substitutes for the language of vows are like vows, and it then immediately explains the halakha with regard to intimations of vows, as the next line addresses a case of one who says to his fellow: I am avowed from you. And furthermore, did the tanna forget to mention intimations of vows? Why doesnโ€™t the mishna state that intimations of vows are considered vows before it gives examples of intimations?

ืื™ื™ืจื™ ื‘ื”ื•ืŸ ื•ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื

The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing with them, i.e., intimations of vows, and the text of the mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: All substitutes for the language of vows are like vows, and intimations of vows are like vows. The mishna then continues by giving examples of intimations of vows.

ื•ืœื™ืคืจื•ืฉ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื

The Gemara asks: Let the mishna explain the case of substitutes for the language of vows first, i.e., before it gives examples of intimations, just as the basic halakha of substitutes for the language of vows was mentioned first. In fact, it is not until later (10a) that the mishna provides examples of substitutes for the language of vows.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืคืจืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืžื” ืžื“ืœื™ืงื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื“ืœื™ืงื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื“ืœื™ืงื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ

The Gemara answers: The general style of the Mishna is that the subject with which it concludes is the one that it explains first, as in that which we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 20b): With what may one light the Shabbat lamp and with what may one not light it? One may not light with cedar bast, etc. The mishna provides examples of items one may not use to light the Shabbat lamp, which was the concluding phrase of the mishnaโ€™s introductory question, rather than beginning with examples of what one may use to light the Shabbat lamp.

ื‘ืžื” ื˜ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืžื” ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื ืชืฆื ืืฉื”

Similarly, another mishna (Shabbat 47b) states: In what may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and in what may one not insulate it? One may not insulate it, etc. A third example of this style is in the following mishna (Shabbat 57a): With what items may a woman go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what items may she not go out? A woman may not go out with strings of wool and other adornments that she may take off and carry.

ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืคืชื— ืœื ืžืคืจืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื ื•ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื ื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ ื ื•ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžื ื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื ื•ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื ื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ

The Gemara challenges this explanation: And is it true that wherever it begins, i.e., whichever topic the mishna mentions first, it does not explain first? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Bava Batra 108a): There are some relatives who inherit and bequeath, e.g., a father and a son, who inherit property from each other, and there are those who inherit but do not bequeath, e.g., a son and his mother; and these are the ones who inherit and bequeath, etc. This mishna provides examples of the opening line of the introductory statement before providing examples of the concluding line of the introductory statement.

ื™ืฉ ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืืกื•ืจื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ืžื™ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ืžื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืืกื•ืจื•ืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืืกื•ืจื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ืžื™ื”ืŸ

Similarly, another mishna (Yevamot 84a) states: There are some women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin, i.e., their husbandโ€™s brothers if their husbands die childless. These cases include one where the yavam is the High Priest, who is prohibited from marrying a widow. There are other women who are permitted to their yevamin if their husbands die childless but forbidden to their husbands, e.g., if a High Priest betrothed a widow and his brother is a common priest. The mishna immediately provides the details of the first principle: And these are the women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin.

ื™ืฉ ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื•ืืœื• ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื™ืฉ ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื’ืฉื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืชื ื•ืคื” ืชื ื•ืคื” ื•ืœื ื”ื’ืฉื” ื•ืืœื• ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื’ืฉื”

Similarly, another mishna (Menaแธฅot 59a) states with regard to meal-offerings: There are some meal-offerings that require oil and frankincense and some that require oil but not frankincense. The mishna continues: And these are the ones that require oil and frankincense. Yet another mishna (Menaแธฅot 60a) states: There are meal-offerings that require bringing near, a ritual where the priests were required to carry the offering in their hands and bring it near the altar, and they do not require waving; other meal-offerings require waving but not bringing near. And these are the meal-offerings that require bringing near.

ื™ืฉ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื—ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื—ืœื” ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื—ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื›ื”ืŸ

Another mishna (Bekhorot 46a) states: There are some who are considered a firstborn with regard to receiving a double portion of inheritance, as they are the firstborn of their fathers, and they are not considered a firstborn with regard to a priest, i.e., with regard to the mitzva of redemption of the firstborn, which applies only to a womanโ€™s firstborn son. There are others who are considered a firstborn with regard to a priest and are not considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance. And who is considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance who is not a firstborn with regard to a priest? In each of these five cases, the mishna first explains the opening portion of its introductory statement and only then explains the second part of its introductory statement.

ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื•ื•ืฉื• ืœื™ื” ืžืคืจืฉ ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืคืชื— ื‘ืจื™ืฉื

The Gemara explains: In these cases, because there are many [avshu] categories, the mishna explains the statement with which it began first. However, when there are only two categories, the mishna first provides detail for the latter part of its opening statement.

ื•ื”ื ื‘ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื“ืœื ืื•ื•ืฉื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื™ื•ืฆื ื’ืžืœ

The Gemara asks: Didnโ€™t the mishna (Shabbat 51b) state: With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what may it not go out? This is a case that does not have many categories, and yet the mishna teaches: A camel may go out on Shabbat with an afsar, etc., which clarifies the opening portion of the mishnaโ€™s introductory statement.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • 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: 2-7 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what a Neder (vow) is and how one can obligate or prohibit something to themselves....
saraajevo haggadah written in barcelona

Met Him on a Monday and My Heart Stood Still

Whether you know it or not, in your journey through the daf ย Rashi is your best friend. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo...
intro

Introduction to Nedarim

ย ืœืข"ื ย  ืžืจืช ืื™ื™ื“ืœ ื‘ืŸ ื ืชืŸ ื•ืฉืจื” ืข"ื”   There are two types of nedarim (commonly translated as vows[1]) found in...
WhatsApp Image 2022-10-24 at 12.35.25 PM

Introduction to Masechet Nedarim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P9R268iRuY To listen: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/IntroNedarimEng.mp3

Nedarim 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 2

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื

MISHNA: When an individual takes a vow, he renders an object forbidden to himself or to others as though it were a sacrificial offering; this parallels the act of consecrating an offering, which also renders an item forbidden for personal use by means of a verbal declaration. The most direct expression of a vow is when an individual says: This object is forbidden to me, or to others, like an offering. Additionally, the mishna states that all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows. Consequently, if one states that an object is forbidden to him like a konam instead of like an offering [korban], the vow takes effect, as konam is a substitute term for the word korban (see 10a).

ื•ื—ืจืžื™ื ื›ื—ืจืžื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื›ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื•ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช

Similarly, substitutes for the language of dedications are like dedications, substitutes for the language of oaths are like oaths, and substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. Therefore, if one declared a แธฅerekh instead of a dedication [แธฅerem], a shevuta instead of an oath [shevua], or proclaimed that he was becoming a nazik instead of a nazirite [nazir], his statement takes effect.

ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ืจื• ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ืžืžืš ืžื•ืคืจืฉื ื™ ืžืžืš ืžืจื•ื—ืงื ื™ ืžืžืš ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ืืกื•ืจ

With regard to one who says to another: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you, and he then says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, even though he did not explicitly state that he is taking a vow or specify the nature of the vow, the object of his vow is nevertheless forbidden. His intention is understood based on his incomplete statement, known as an intimation of a vow, and his vow therefore takes effect.

ืžื ื•ื“ื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื” ื—ื•ื›ืš ื‘ื–ื” ืœื”ื—ืžื™ืจ

However, if he says: I am ostracized from you, which does not clearly declare any matter to be prohibited, Rabbi Akiva was uncertain about this halakha but was inclined to rule stringently about this and consider it a vow prohibiting the speaker from deriving benefit from his fellow.

ื’ืžืณ ื›ืœ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”ื• ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื•

GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows, substitutes for the language of dedications are like dedications, substitutes for the language of oaths are like oaths, and substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to the first mishna of tractate Nazir that it does not teach all of them, i.e., all of the cases listed above besides nazirite vows, and what is different with regard to the first mishna of tractate Nedarim that it teaches all of them and not merely the case of vows, which is the subject directly relevant to this tractate?

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื ื“ืจ ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืชื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืœื›ื•ืœื”ื•

The Gemara answers that due to the fact that vows and oaths are written next to each other in the Torah in the verse: โ€œWhen a man takes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oathโ€ (Numbers 30:3), the mishna teaches these two cases, i.e., substitutes for the language of vows and oaths. And since it taught two of the cases, it taught all of them.

ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื‘ืชืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื ื“ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™ืชืกืจ ื—ืคืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ื—ืจืžื™ื ื“ืžื™ืชืกืจ ื—ืคืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืงืืกืจ ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืžืŸ ื—ืคืฆื

The Gemara asks: If so, let the mishna teach the halakha with regard to substitutes for the language of oaths immediately after the case of substitutes for the language of vows. The Gemara answers: Since it taught the case of vows, whereby an object becomes forbidden to one, it taught also the case of dedications, whereby an object becomes forbidden to one. This is to the exclusion of an oath, whereby one prohibits himself from making use of an object. In the case of an oath, unlike a vow or a dedication, one prohibits himself from performing a particular action rather than declaring an object to be forbidden.

ืคืชื— ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื›ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ืžืคืจืฉ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื•ื“ืจ ืื ื™ ืžืžืš ื•ืชื• ื™ื“ื•ืช ืื™ื ืฉื™

ยง The Gemara asks a question with regard to the style of the mishna: The mishna began with the case of substitutes when it stated: All substitutes for the language of vows are like vows, and it then immediately explains the halakha with regard to intimations of vows, as the next line addresses a case of one who says to his fellow: I am avowed from you. And furthermore, did the tanna forget to mention intimations of vows? Why doesnโ€™t the mishna state that intimations of vows are considered vows before it gives examples of intimations?

ืื™ื™ืจื™ ื‘ื”ื•ืŸ ื•ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื

The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing with them, i.e., intimations of vows, and the text of the mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: All substitutes for the language of vows are like vows, and intimations of vows are like vows. The mishna then continues by giving examples of intimations of vows.

ื•ืœื™ืคืจื•ืฉ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื

The Gemara asks: Let the mishna explain the case of substitutes for the language of vows first, i.e., before it gives examples of intimations, just as the basic halakha of substitutes for the language of vows was mentioned first. In fact, it is not until later (10a) that the mishna provides examples of substitutes for the language of vows.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืคืจืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืžื” ืžื“ืœื™ืงื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื“ืœื™ืงื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื“ืœื™ืงื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ

The Gemara answers: The general style of the Mishna is that the subject with which it concludes is the one that it explains first, as in that which we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 20b): With what may one light the Shabbat lamp and with what may one not light it? One may not light with cedar bast, etc. The mishna provides examples of items one may not use to light the Shabbat lamp, which was the concluding phrase of the mishnaโ€™s introductory question, rather than beginning with examples of what one may use to light the Shabbat lamp.

ื‘ืžื” ื˜ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืžื” ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื ืชืฆื ืืฉื”

Similarly, another mishna (Shabbat 47b) states: In what may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and in what may one not insulate it? One may not insulate it, etc. A third example of this style is in the following mishna (Shabbat 57a): With what items may a woman go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what items may she not go out? A woman may not go out with strings of wool and other adornments that she may take off and carry.

ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืคืชื— ืœื ืžืคืจืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื ื•ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื ื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ ื ื•ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžื ื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ื ื•ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื ื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ

The Gemara challenges this explanation: And is it true that wherever it begins, i.e., whichever topic the mishna mentions first, it does not explain first? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Bava Batra 108a): There are some relatives who inherit and bequeath, e.g., a father and a son, who inherit property from each other, and there are those who inherit but do not bequeath, e.g., a son and his mother; and these are the ones who inherit and bequeath, etc. This mishna provides examples of the opening line of the introductory statement before providing examples of the concluding line of the introductory statement.

ื™ืฉ ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืืกื•ืจื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ืžื™ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ืžื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืืกื•ืจื•ืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืืœื• ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืืกื•ืจื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ืžื™ื”ืŸ

Similarly, another mishna (Yevamot 84a) states: There are some women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin, i.e., their husbandโ€™s brothers if their husbands die childless. These cases include one where the yavam is the High Priest, who is prohibited from marrying a widow. There are other women who are permitted to their yevamin if their husbands die childless but forbidden to their husbands, e.g., if a High Priest betrothed a widow and his brother is a common priest. The mishna immediately provides the details of the first principle: And these are the women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin.

ื™ืฉ ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื•ืืœื• ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื™ืฉ ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื’ืฉื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืชื ื•ืคื” ืชื ื•ืคื” ื•ืœื ื”ื’ืฉื” ื•ืืœื• ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื’ืฉื”

Similarly, another mishna (Menaแธฅot 59a) states with regard to meal-offerings: There are some meal-offerings that require oil and frankincense and some that require oil but not frankincense. The mishna continues: And these are the ones that require oil and frankincense. Yet another mishna (Menaแธฅot 60a) states: There are meal-offerings that require bringing near, a ritual where the priests were required to carry the offering in their hands and bring it near the altar, and they do not require waving; other meal-offerings require waving but not bringing near. And these are the meal-offerings that require bringing near.

ื™ืฉ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื—ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื—ืœื” ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื ื—ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืœื›ื”ืŸ

Another mishna (Bekhorot 46a) states: There are some who are considered a firstborn with regard to receiving a double portion of inheritance, as they are the firstborn of their fathers, and they are not considered a firstborn with regard to a priest, i.e., with regard to the mitzva of redemption of the firstborn, which applies only to a womanโ€™s firstborn son. There are others who are considered a firstborn with regard to a priest and are not considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance. And who is considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance who is not a firstborn with regard to a priest? In each of these five cases, the mishna first explains the opening portion of its introductory statement and only then explains the second part of its introductory statement.

ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื•ื•ืฉื• ืœื™ื” ืžืคืจืฉ ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืคืชื— ื‘ืจื™ืฉื

The Gemara explains: In these cases, because there are many [avshu] categories, the mishna explains the statement with which it began first. However, when there are only two categories, the mishna first provides detail for the latter part of its opening statement.

ื•ื”ื ื‘ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื•ื‘ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื“ืœื ืื•ื•ืฉื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื™ื•ืฆื ื’ืžืœ

The Gemara asks: Didnโ€™t the mishna (Shabbat 51b) state: With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what may it not go out? This is a case that does not have many categories, and yet the mishna teaches: A camel may go out on Shabbat with an afsar, etc., which clarifies the opening portion of the mishnaโ€™s introductory statement.

Scroll To Top