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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 21, 2015 | 讚壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 28

讞讜抓 诪讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讘砖讘讜注讛

except for by taking of an oath, due to its more stringent nature. And Beit Hillel say: One may mislead them even by taking an oath.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘谞讚专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讚讬专讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讘诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讚讬专讜

Beit Shammai say: When negotiating with a robber, one should not initiate by taking a vow for him unless the robber does not believe his claim, in which case he may take a vow to reinforce his words. And Beit Hillel say: He may even initiate by taking a vow to him. Beit Shammai say: One may take a vow only about that which the robber compels him to take a vow but may not add to it. And Beit Hillel say: One may take a vow even about that which he does not compel him to take a vow.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诪讜专 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 讜讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 讜讘谞讬 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 讜讘谞讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉

The mishna explains the previous statement: How so? If the extortionist said to him that he should say: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife if the vow is not true, and he said: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife and my children, Beit Shammai say: His wife is permitted to benefit from him, since the extortionist demanded that he take that vow, but his children, whom he added of his own accord, are prohibited from benefiting from their father. And Beit Hillel say: Both these and those are permitted to benefit from him.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks, concerning the mishna鈥檚 statement that one may take a vow to tax collectors: But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., there is a halakhic principle that Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live? Since one must pay the tax determined by the kingdom, how did the Sages permit one to lie in order to avoid paying?

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讜讻住 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 讘诪讜讻住 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜

Rav 岣nnana said that Rav Kahana said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who has no fixed amount for collection established by the kingdom, but rather collects the tax arbitrarily. Therefore, this case is not included in the law of the kingdom. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who establishes himself as such independently and was not appointed by the kingdom.

砖讛谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讛讬讻讬 谞讚专 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘讗讜诪专 讬讗住专讜 驻讬专讜转 讛注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱

搂 The mishna states: He may also take a vow to them that his produce belongs to the house of the king, although it does not belong to the house of the king. The Gemara asks: How does he take a vow in this way? Rav Amram said that Rav said: This is a case where he said: The produce of the world should be forbidden to me if this produce does not belong to the house of the king.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讬讗住专讜 讗讬转住专讜 注诇讬讛 讻诇 驻讬专讬 注诇诪讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛讬讜诐 讗讬 讚讗诪专 讛讬讜诐 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讜讻住

The Gemara asks: Since he said that the produce of the world shall be forbidden to him, shouldn鈥檛 all the produce of the world is forbidden to him, as this produce did not belong to the house of the king? The Gemara answers: This is a case where he says: They shall be forbidden to me only today. The Gemara wonders: If he says: Today, the tax collector will not accept it as a vow, since it is not difficult to avoid eating produce for one day. Therefore, he may still be suspected of lying.

讘讗讜诪专 讘诇讘讜 讛讬讜诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜 住转诐 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘诇讘 讗讬谞谉 讚讘专讬诐 诇讙讘讬 讗讜谞住讬谉 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: This is a case where he says: Today, in his heart but verbalizes the vow in an unspecified manner. And although we hold that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters and are not taken into consideration, with regard to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control it is different, and he is permitted to rely on the mental stipulation that he added in order to limit the duration of the prohibition effected by the vow.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 讻讜壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讚讬专讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讚讬专讜 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 讜讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 讜讘谞讬 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 讜讘谞讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉

搂 The mishna states: Beit Shammai say that they may take a vow in such a case using every means of vowing except for an oath, while Beit Hillel say they may take a vow even using an oath. Beit Shammai say: One may vow only about that which the extortionist compels him to take a vow but may not add to it. And Beit Hillel say: One may take a vow even about that which he does not compel him to take a vow. How so? If the extortionist said to him that he should say: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife if the vow is not true, and he said: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife and my children, Beit Shammai say: His wife is permitted to benefit from him, since the extortionist demanded that he take that vow, but his children, whom he added of his own accord, are prohibited from benefiting from their father. And Beit Hillel say: Both these and those are permitted to benefit from him.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讛讗 讘谞讚专 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘谞讚专

Rav Huna said that a Sage taught: Beit Shammai say that one may not initiate by taking an oath to him unless the extortionist does not believe his claim, and Beit Hillel say: He may even initiate by taking an oath to him. The Gemara asks: A precise analysis of the wording indicates that according to Beit Shammai it is only by taking an oath to him that one may not initiate, but one may initiate by taking a vow to him. Rav Huna asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: He may not initiate by taking a vow to him?

讜转讜 诪讬驻转讞 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讗 诪讬讚专 谞讚专 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 谞讜讚专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讘砖讘讜注讛

Rav Huna asks another question: And furthermore, a precise analysis of the wording indicates that he may not initiate by taking an oath to him, but he may certainly vow with an oath if the tax collector insists on it; but didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: They may take a vow in such a case using every means of vowing in order to mislead them except for by taking an oath, which indicates that one may not take an oath even if he does not initiate with one?

转谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘谞讚专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转谞讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇

The Gemara resolves the contradiction: The mishna taught the halakha that pertains to a vow to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that one may not initiate even with a vow. However, the baraita taught the halakha that pertains to an oath to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel, who maintain that initiating even with an oath is permitted. It is apparent that according to Beit Shammai one may not initiate with a vow and may not take an oath at all. Therefore, the baraita cannot be used to infer Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion concerning oaths.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘砖讘讜注讛

Rav Ashi said the following to resolve the contradiction: This is what it is teaching: The baraita does not refer to a vow taken in the case of robbers or tax collectors. Rather, the dispute focuses on an entirely different topic: Beit Shammai say that there is no allowance for a request for dissolution of an oath, and the statement: He may not initiate, relates to a halakhic authority who seeks an opening to dissolve an oath. And Beit Hillel say there is an allowance for a request for dissolution of an oath.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 谞讟讬注讜转 讛讗诇讜 拽专讘谉 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 谞拽爪爪讜转 讟诇讬转 讝讜 拽专讘谉 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 谞砖专驻转 讬砖 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讛专讬 谞讟讬注讜转 讛讗诇讜 拽专讘谉 注讚 砖讬拽爪爪讜 讟诇讬转 讝讜 拽专讘谉 注讚 砖转砖专祝

MISHNA: If one sees his property in danger of being destroyed, and takes a vow stating, for example: These saplings are like an offering if they are not cut down, or: This garment is like an offering if it is not burned, these items are consecrated if the saplings remain standing or if the garment is not burned. In addition, they are subject to the possibility of redemption just as other items consecrated for maintenance of the Temple may be redeemed. But if one said: These saplings are like an offering until they are cut down, or: This garment is like an offering until it is burned,

讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉

then they are not subject to the possibility of redemption.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬转谞讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讜讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讜转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉 转谞讗 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 讬砖 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the language of the mishna: Why does the mishna utilize the wording: They have redemption and they do not have redemption? Let the mishna teach: They are consecrated and they are not consecrated, since the primary novelty is that they are consecrated, but not completely. The Gemara answers: Since it wanted to teach in the latter clause the phrase: They are not subject to the possibility of redemption, which cannot be expressed as: They are not consecrated, as they are consecrated, it taught also the first clause using the language: They are subject to the possibility of redemption.

讛讬讻讬 谞讚专 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讘讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 谞拽爪爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜注讘专 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 谞拽爪爪讜 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讬拽讗 谞驻讬砖讗

The Gemara elaborates: How did he take a vow? What was the precise language that he used? Ameimar said: Where he says: These saplings are like an offering if they are not cut down today, and the day passed and they were not cut down. The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need to say that they are consecrated? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that his vow takes effect? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where there is a great strong wind and he thought that they would be uprooted by the wind.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 讟诇讬转 讜讟诇讬转 诇砖专讬驻讛 拽讬讬诪讗 [讗讬谉] 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诇讬拽讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讬拽讗 谞驻讬砖讗 讜住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讬转谞爪诇谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗 谞讚专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this taught together with the case of a garment, indicating that the two are equivalent, and is a garment ready for burning, i.e., is it assumed that it will burn? The Gemara answers: Yes, in a case where there is a fire. The Gemara explains: Here also there is a great strong wind, and it enters your mind that one raised in his mind the possibility that the saplings will not be saved, and due to that reason he took a vow. Since in any event he assumes he will lose the saplings, perhaps he did not really intend to consecrate them. The mishna teaches us that in spite of this it is still considered a vow.

讛专讬 谞讟讬注讜转 讛讗诇讜 拽专讘谉 讻讜壮 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗诪专 讘专 驻讚讗 驻讚讗谉 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讜讚砖讜转 驻讚讗谉 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讜讚砖讜转 注讚 砖讬拽爪爪讜 谞拽爪爪讜 驻讜讚谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讜讚讬讜 讜注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞拽爪爪讜 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 驻讜讚谉

搂 The mishna states that if he said: These saplings are like an offering until they are cut down, they are not subject to the possibility of redemption. The Gemara asks: And are they not subject to redemption forever? Bar Padda said: If he redeemed them, they become consecrated again, as they have not yet been cut down. If he redeemed them again, they become consecrated again, until they are cut down. Once they are cut down, he redeems them once and it is sufficient. And Ulla said: Once they are cut down one does not need to redeem them again because they are no longer consecrated.

  • 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: 21-28 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will focus on four types of vows that are automatically void. These include vows meant to motivate...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 28: The Promises Made in Dire Straits

A new mishnah! Taking a vow to protect yourself from thugs who you feel are putting you in danger, and...
tax collectors office pieter brueghel the younger

Taxman

As Benjamin Franklin famously said, in this world nothing is certain except death and taxes. And, one might add, hatred...

Nedarim 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 28

讞讜抓 诪讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讘砖讘讜注讛

except for by taking of an oath, due to its more stringent nature. And Beit Hillel say: One may mislead them even by taking an oath.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘谞讚专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讚讬专讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讘诪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讚讬专讜

Beit Shammai say: When negotiating with a robber, one should not initiate by taking a vow for him unless the robber does not believe his claim, in which case he may take a vow to reinforce his words. And Beit Hillel say: He may even initiate by taking a vow to him. Beit Shammai say: One may take a vow only about that which the robber compels him to take a vow but may not add to it. And Beit Hillel say: One may take a vow even about that which he does not compel him to take a vow.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诪讜专 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 讜讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 讜讘谞讬 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 讜讘谞讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉

The mishna explains the previous statement: How so? If the extortionist said to him that he should say: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife if the vow is not true, and he said: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife and my children, Beit Shammai say: His wife is permitted to benefit from him, since the extortionist demanded that he take that vow, but his children, whom he added of his own accord, are prohibited from benefiting from their father. And Beit Hillel say: Both these and those are permitted to benefit from him.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬谞讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讚讬谞讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks, concerning the mishna鈥檚 statement that one may take a vow to tax collectors: But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., there is a halakhic principle that Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live? Since one must pay the tax determined by the kingdom, how did the Sages permit one to lie in order to avoid paying?

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讜讻住 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 讘诪讜讻住 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜

Rav 岣nnana said that Rav Kahana said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who has no fixed amount for collection established by the kingdom, but rather collects the tax arbitrarily. Therefore, this case is not included in the law of the kingdom. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who establishes himself as such independently and was not appointed by the kingdom.

砖讛谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讛讬讻讬 谞讚专 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘讗讜诪专 讬讗住专讜 驻讬专讜转 讛注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱

搂 The mishna states: He may also take a vow to them that his produce belongs to the house of the king, although it does not belong to the house of the king. The Gemara asks: How does he take a vow in this way? Rav Amram said that Rav said: This is a case where he said: The produce of the world should be forbidden to me if this produce does not belong to the house of the king.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讬讗住专讜 讗讬转住专讜 注诇讬讛 讻诇 驻讬专讬 注诇诪讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛讬讜诐 讗讬 讚讗诪专 讛讬讜诐 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讜讻住

The Gemara asks: Since he said that the produce of the world shall be forbidden to him, shouldn鈥檛 all the produce of the world is forbidden to him, as this produce did not belong to the house of the king? The Gemara answers: This is a case where he says: They shall be forbidden to me only today. The Gemara wonders: If he says: Today, the tax collector will not accept it as a vow, since it is not difficult to avoid eating produce for one day. Therefore, he may still be suspected of lying.

讘讗讜诪专 讘诇讘讜 讛讬讜诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜 住转诐 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘诇讘 讗讬谞谉 讚讘专讬诐 诇讙讘讬 讗讜谞住讬谉 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: This is a case where he says: Today, in his heart but verbalizes the vow in an unspecified manner. And although we hold that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters and are not taken into consideration, with regard to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control it is different, and he is permitted to rely on the mental stipulation that he added in order to limit the duration of the prohibition effected by the vow.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 讻讜壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讚讬专讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讚讬专讜 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 讜讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讗砖转讬 讜讘谞讬 谞讛谞讬谉 诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 诪讜转专转 讜讘谞讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉

搂 The mishna states: Beit Shammai say that they may take a vow in such a case using every means of vowing except for an oath, while Beit Hillel say they may take a vow even using an oath. Beit Shammai say: One may vow only about that which the extortionist compels him to take a vow but may not add to it. And Beit Hillel say: One may take a vow even about that which he does not compel him to take a vow. How so? If the extortionist said to him that he should say: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife if the vow is not true, and he said: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife and my children, Beit Shammai say: His wife is permitted to benefit from him, since the extortionist demanded that he take that vow, but his children, whom he added of his own accord, are prohibited from benefiting from their father. And Beit Hillel say: Both these and those are permitted to benefit from him.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讛讗 讘谞讚专 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘谞讚专

Rav Huna said that a Sage taught: Beit Shammai say that one may not initiate by taking an oath to him unless the extortionist does not believe his claim, and Beit Hillel say: He may even initiate by taking an oath to him. The Gemara asks: A precise analysis of the wording indicates that according to Beit Shammai it is only by taking an oath to him that one may not initiate, but one may initiate by taking a vow to him. Rav Huna asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: He may not initiate by taking a vow to him?

讜转讜 诪讬驻转讞 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬驻转讞 诇讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讗 诪讬讚专 谞讚专 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 谞讜讚专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讘砖讘讜注讛

Rav Huna asks another question: And furthermore, a precise analysis of the wording indicates that he may not initiate by taking an oath to him, but he may certainly vow with an oath if the tax collector insists on it; but didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: They may take a vow in such a case using every means of vowing in order to mislead them except for by taking an oath, which indicates that one may not take an oath even if he does not initiate with one?

转谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘谞讚专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转谞讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇

The Gemara resolves the contradiction: The mishna taught the halakha that pertains to a vow to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that one may not initiate even with a vow. However, the baraita taught the halakha that pertains to an oath to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel, who maintain that initiating even with an oath is permitted. It is apparent that according to Beit Shammai one may not initiate with a vow and may not take an oath at all. Therefore, the baraita cannot be used to infer Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion concerning oaths.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘砖讘讜注讛

Rav Ashi said the following to resolve the contradiction: This is what it is teaching: The baraita does not refer to a vow taken in the case of robbers or tax collectors. Rather, the dispute focuses on an entirely different topic: Beit Shammai say that there is no allowance for a request for dissolution of an oath, and the statement: He may not initiate, relates to a halakhic authority who seeks an opening to dissolve an oath. And Beit Hillel say there is an allowance for a request for dissolution of an oath.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 谞讟讬注讜转 讛讗诇讜 拽专讘谉 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 谞拽爪爪讜转 讟诇讬转 讝讜 拽专讘谉 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 谞砖专驻转 讬砖 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讛专讬 谞讟讬注讜转 讛讗诇讜 拽专讘谉 注讚 砖讬拽爪爪讜 讟诇讬转 讝讜 拽专讘谉 注讚 砖转砖专祝

MISHNA: If one sees his property in danger of being destroyed, and takes a vow stating, for example: These saplings are like an offering if they are not cut down, or: This garment is like an offering if it is not burned, these items are consecrated if the saplings remain standing or if the garment is not burned. In addition, they are subject to the possibility of redemption just as other items consecrated for maintenance of the Temple may be redeemed. But if one said: These saplings are like an offering until they are cut down, or: This garment is like an offering until it is burned,

讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉

then they are not subject to the possibility of redemption.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬转谞讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讜讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讜转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉 转谞讗 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 讬砖 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the language of the mishna: Why does the mishna utilize the wording: They have redemption and they do not have redemption? Let the mishna teach: They are consecrated and they are not consecrated, since the primary novelty is that they are consecrated, but not completely. The Gemara answers: Since it wanted to teach in the latter clause the phrase: They are not subject to the possibility of redemption, which cannot be expressed as: They are not consecrated, as they are consecrated, it taught also the first clause using the language: They are subject to the possibility of redemption.

讛讬讻讬 谞讚专 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讘讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 谞拽爪爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜注讘专 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 谞拽爪爪讜 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讬拽讗 谞驻讬砖讗

The Gemara elaborates: How did he take a vow? What was the precise language that he used? Ameimar said: Where he says: These saplings are like an offering if they are not cut down today, and the day passed and they were not cut down. The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need to say that they are consecrated? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that his vow takes effect? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where there is a great strong wind and he thought that they would be uprooted by the wind.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 讟诇讬转 讜讟诇讬转 诇砖专讬驻讛 拽讬讬诪讗 [讗讬谉] 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诇讬拽讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讬拽讗 谞驻讬砖讗 讜住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讬转谞爪诇谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗 谞讚专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this taught together with the case of a garment, indicating that the two are equivalent, and is a garment ready for burning, i.e., is it assumed that it will burn? The Gemara answers: Yes, in a case where there is a fire. The Gemara explains: Here also there is a great strong wind, and it enters your mind that one raised in his mind the possibility that the saplings will not be saved, and due to that reason he took a vow. Since in any event he assumes he will lose the saplings, perhaps he did not really intend to consecrate them. The mishna teaches us that in spite of this it is still considered a vow.

讛专讬 谞讟讬注讜转 讛讗诇讜 拽专讘谉 讻讜壮 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗诪专 讘专 驻讚讗 驻讚讗谉 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讜讚砖讜转 驻讚讗谉 讞讜讝专讜转 讜拽讜讚砖讜转 注讚 砖讬拽爪爪讜 谞拽爪爪讜 驻讜讚谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讜讚讬讜 讜注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞拽爪爪讜 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 驻讜讚谉

搂 The mishna states that if he said: These saplings are like an offering until they are cut down, they are not subject to the possibility of redemption. The Gemara asks: And are they not subject to redemption forever? Bar Padda said: If he redeemed them, they become consecrated again, as they have not yet been cut down. If he redeemed them again, they become consecrated again, until they are cut down. Once they are cut down, he redeems them once and it is sufficient. And Ulla said: Once they are cut down one does not need to redeem them again because they are no longer consecrated.

Scroll To Top