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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 26, 2015 | 讞壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Nedarim 2

Study Guide Nedarim 2


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐

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).

讜讞专诪讬诐 讻讞专诪讬诐 讜砖讘讜注讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转 讜谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转

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 岣rekh instead of a dedication [岣rem], a shevuta instead of an oath [shevua], or proclaimed that he was becoming a nazik instead of a nazirite [nazir], his statement takes effect.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘专讜 诪讜讚专谞讬 诪诪讱 诪讜驻专砖谞讬 诪诪讱 诪专讜讞拽谞讬 诪诪讱 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讗住讜专

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.

诪谞讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讛 讞讜讻讱 讘讝讛 诇讛讞诪讬专

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.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讚专讬诐 讚拽转谞讬 诇讻讜诇讛讜

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?

诪砖讜诐 讚谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讻转讬讘讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 转谞讬 转专转讬谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讬 转专转讬谉 转谞讬 诇讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara answers that due to the fact that vows and oaths are written next to each other in the Torah in the verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath鈥 (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.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讘转专 谞讚专讬诐 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 谞讚专讬诐 讚诪讬转住专 讞驻爪讗 注诇讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讞专诪讬诐 讚诪讬转住专 讞驻爪讗 注诇讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 砖讘讜注讛 讚拽讗住专 谞驻砖讬讛 诪谉 讞驻爪讗

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.

驻转讞 讘讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讻诇 讻谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讜诪驻专砖 讬讚讜转 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 诪诪讱 讜转讜 讬讚讜转 讗讬谞砖讬

搂 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 doesn鈥檛 the mishna state that intimations of vows are considered vows before it gives examples of intimations?

讗讬讬专讬 讘讛讜谉 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 讜讬讚讜转 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐

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.

讜诇讬驻专讜砖 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪驻专砖 讘专讬砖讗 讻讚转谞谉 讘诪讛 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讻讜壮

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 mishna鈥檚 introductory question, rather than beginning with examples of what one may use to light the Shabbat lamp.

讘诪讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讻讜壮 讘诪讛 讗砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛

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.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻转讞 诇讗 诪驻专砖 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛转谞谉 讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜讗诇讜 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉

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 didn鈥檛 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.

讬砖 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉

Similarly, another mishna (Yevamot 84a) states: There are some women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin, i.e., their husband鈥檚 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.

讬砖 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗诇讜 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讬砖 讟注讜谞讜转 讛讙砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 转谞讜驻讛 转谞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讛讙砖讛 讜讗诇讜 讟注讜谞讜转 讛讙砖讛

Similarly, another mishna (Mena岣t 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 (Mena岣t 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.

讬砖 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉

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 woman鈥檚 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.

讛诇讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讜讜砖讜 诇讬讛 诪驻专砖 讛讛讜讗 讚驻转讞 讘专讬砖讗

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.

讜讛讗 讘诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讚诇讗 讗讜讜砖讗 讜拽转谞讬 讬讜爪讗 讙诪诇

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 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 mishna鈥檚 introductory statement.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 2

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐

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).

讜讞专诪讬诐 讻讞专诪讬诐 讜砖讘讜注讜转 讻砖讘讜注讜转 讜谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转

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 岣rekh instead of a dedication [岣rem], a shevuta instead of an oath [shevua], or proclaimed that he was becoming a nazik instead of a nazirite [nazir], his statement takes effect.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘专讜 诪讜讚专谞讬 诪诪讱 诪讜驻专砖谞讬 诪诪讱 诪专讜讞拽谞讬 诪诪讱 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讗住讜专

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.

诪谞讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讛 讞讜讻讱 讘讝讛 诇讛讞诪讬专

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.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讚专讬诐 讚拽转谞讬 诇讻讜诇讛讜

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?

诪砖讜诐 讚谞讚专 讜砖讘讜注讛 讻转讬讘讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 转谞讬 转专转讬谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讬 转专转讬谉 转谞讬 诇讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara answers that due to the fact that vows and oaths are written next to each other in the Torah in the verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath鈥 (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.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讻讬谞讜讬讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讘转专 谞讚专讬诐 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 谞讚专讬诐 讚诪讬转住专 讞驻爪讗 注诇讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讞专诪讬诐 讚诪讬转住专 讞驻爪讗 注诇讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 砖讘讜注讛 讚拽讗住专 谞驻砖讬讛 诪谉 讞驻爪讗

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.

驻转讞 讘讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讻诇 讻谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讜诪驻专砖 讬讚讜转 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 诪诪讱 讜转讜 讬讚讜转 讗讬谞砖讬

搂 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 doesn鈥檛 the mishna state that intimations of vows are considered vows before it gives examples of intimations?

讗讬讬专讬 讘讛讜谉 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 讜讬讚讜转 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐

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.

讜诇讬驻专讜砖 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪驻专砖 讘专讬砖讗 讻讚转谞谉 讘诪讛 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讻讜壮

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 mishna鈥檚 introductory question, rather than beginning with examples of what one may use to light the Shabbat lamp.

讘诪讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讻讜壮 讘诪讛 讗砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛

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.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻转讞 诇讗 诪驻专砖 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛转谞谉 讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜讗诇讜 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉

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 didn鈥檛 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.

讬砖 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉

Similarly, another mishna (Yevamot 84a) states: There are some women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin, i.e., their husband鈥檚 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.

讬砖 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗诇讜 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讬砖 讟注讜谞讜转 讛讙砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 转谞讜驻讛 转谞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讛讙砖讛 讜讗诇讜 讟注讜谞讜转 讛讙砖讛

Similarly, another mishna (Mena岣t 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 (Mena岣t 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.

讬砖 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉

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 woman鈥檚 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.

讛诇讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讜讜砖讜 诇讬讛 诪驻专砖 讛讛讜讗 讚驻转讞 讘专讬砖讗

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.

讜讛讗 讘诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讚诇讗 讗讜讜砖讗 讜拽转谞讬 讬讜爪讗 讙诪诇

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 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 mishna鈥檚 introductory statement.

Scroll To Top