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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 27, 2015 | 讟壮 讘住讬讜谉 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 3

Study Guide Nedarim 3


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

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讜讜拽讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 诪驻专砖 讛讛讜讗 讚驻转讞 讘专讬砖讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽 诪驻专砖 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讬讚讜转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗转讬讬谉 诪讚专砖讗 诪驻专砖 诇讛讜谉 讘专讬砖讗

Rather, the Mishna is not particular with regard to this matter, and there is no consistent pattern. Sometimes it explains first that subject with which it began, and sometimes it explains first that subject with which the introductory line in the mishna finished. And if you wish, say an alternate explanation of the order of the mishna here: With regard to intimations, since they are derived from the exposition of verses and are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, the tanna cherishes them and explains them first.

讜诇讬驻转讞 讛讚讬谉 讘专讬砖讗 诪讬驻转讞 驻转讞 讘讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖 讬讚讜转 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讚专砖讗

The Gemara asks: If so, let him begin the mishna with that, i.e., intimations, first. The Gemara answers: The tanna begins with substitutes for the language of vows, which are written in the Torah, in the first clause, and then explains intimations, which are derived from the exposition of verses.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讜谉 谞讻专讬诐 讛谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇砖讜谉 砖讘讚讜 诇讛谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 谞讜讚专 讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that substitutes for the language of vows are terms for vows in a foreign language. Consequently, they may be considered to have been written in the Torah, as vows are certainly valid regardless of the language in which they are expressed. However, according to the one who says that these substitute terms are simply language that the Sages invented for one to use in taking a vow so as to minimize using God鈥檚 name in expressing a vow, what can be said? These include novelties just as intimations do.

诪讬 拽转谞讬 讬讚讜转 讜诇讗讜 讞住讜专讬 拽讗 诪讞住专转 诇讛 讗拽讚讬诐 谞诪讬 讜转谞讬 讬讚讜转 讻诇 讬讚讜转 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 讜讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讬讚讜转 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 拽讜谞诐 拽讜谞讞 拽讜谞住

The Gemara responds: Does the mishna explicitly teach the halakha of intimations of vows? Do you not consider it incomplete, missing the phrase that mentions intimations? Once you are inserting this phrase into the mishna, you can also have it precede the clause about substitutes for the language of vows and teach the halakha of intimations at the beginning, so that the mishna reads as follows: All intimations of vows are like vows, and all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows. And these are intimations: One who says to his fellow: I am avowed from you, etc. And these are substitutes for the language of vows: Konam, kona岣, konas.

讜讬讚讜转 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇讛壮 讜转谞讬讗 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇注砖讜转 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 讜讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转

搂 Apropos the discussion of intimations of vows, the Gemara asks: And where are intimations of vows written, i.e., from where in the Torah is the halakha of intimations of vows derived? The Gemara explains that it is from the verse: 鈥淲hen a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite [nazir], to consecrate [lehazir] himself to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 6:2). And it was taught in a baraita that the doubled term nazir lehazir serves to render substitutes for the language of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, and intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讘谞讚专讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇讛壮 诪拽讬砖 谞讝讬专讜转 诇谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚专讬诐 诇谞讝讬专讜转 诪讛 谞讝讬专讜转 注砖讛 讘讜 讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 讗祝 谞讚专讬诐 注砖讛 讘讛诐 讬讚讜转 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐

I have derived only intimations of nazirite vows; from where do I derive intimations of general vows? The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.鈥 This verse juxtaposes nazirite vows to other vows and other vows to nazirite vows: Just as with regard to nazirite vows, the verse rendered intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, so too, with regard to vows, it rendered intimations of vows like vows.

讜诪讛 谞讚专讬诐 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 讜讘讘诇 转讗讞专 讗祝 谞讝讬专讜转 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 讜讘讘诇 转讗讞专 讜诪讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛讗讘 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬 讘转讜 讜讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬 讗砖转讜 讗祝 谞讝讬专讜转 讛讗讘 诪讬驻专 谞讝讬专讜转 讘转讜 讜讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讝讬专讜转 讗砖转讜

And just as with regard to vows, one who breaks his vow transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane (see Numbers 30:3), and if he does not fulfill his vow in time, he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay (see Deuteronomy 23:22), so too, with regard to nazirite vows, he transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, and the prohibition: You shall not delay. And furthermore, just as with regard to vows, a father may nullify the vows of his daughter and a husband may nullify the vows of his wife, as written explicitly in the passage concerning vows (Numbers, chapter 30), so too, with regard to nazirite vows, a father may nullify the nazirite vows of his daughter and a husband may nullify the nazirite vows of his wife.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 谞讚专讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 讜讛讬拽讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara questions this explanation: What is different with regard to nazirite vows, with regard to which it is written 鈥nazir lehazir,鈥 using the doubled term, when with regard to all vows as well it is written: 鈥淭o utter a vow [lindor neder],鈥 also using a doubled term? Why do I need the juxtaposition of all other vows to nazirite vows in order to derive that intimations of vows are like vows, when this can be derived from the doubled term with regard to general vows?

讗讬 讻转讘 谞讚专 诇谞讚专 讻讚讻转讘 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 讻讚拽讗诪专转 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讛讬拽讬砖讗 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara answers: If the Torah had written: A vow to utter [neder lindor], as it wrote with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淭he vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],鈥 it would be as you said, and there would be no need for the juxtaposition. Now that it is written: 鈥淭o utter a vow [lindor neder],鈥 it is possible to say that the Torah spoke in the language of men, and nothing can be derived from the phrase lindor neder, which is simply a common manner of speech.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛讗讬 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇讬讛 诇注砖讜转 讬讚讜转 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 讜诪拽讬砖 谞讝讬专讜转 诇谞讚专讬诐 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 讚专讬砖 诇讬讛 诪诇诪讚

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who holds that the Torah spoke in the language of men, but according to the one who does not hold that the Torah spoke in the language of men, any doubled term comes to teach something. What does he do with this phrase: 鈥淭o utter a vow [lindor neder]鈥? The Gemara answers: He expounds it to render intimations of vows like vows themselves. And the verse juxtaposes nazirite vows to other vows to teach that intimations of vows are like vows with regard to nazirite vows, and to teach the other halakhot mentioned above. With regard to the phrase: 鈥淭he vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],鈥 he expounds: This teaches

砖讛谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 讛谞讝讬专讜转

that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship. Consequently, if one became a nazirite and then again declared: I am hereby a nazirite, then when his term of naziriteship is completed he must observe a second term of naziriteship.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 讚专讬砖 诇注砖讜转 讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 砖讛谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 讛谞讝讬专讜转 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the Torah spoke in the language of men and therefore nothing can be derived from the phrase 鈥渢o utter a vow [lindor neder],鈥 and he expounds the phrase 鈥渢he vow of a nazirite to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir]鈥 to render intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, from where does he derive that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship? This works out well if he holds in accordance with the one who says that a term of naziriteship does not take effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship; however, if he holds in accordance with the one who says that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship, from where does he derive this halakha?

谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讬讝讜专 诪讗讬 诇讛讝讬专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: Let the verse say: To consecrate himself [lizor]. What is the reason the verse expressed this same idea with the word lehazir? Learn two halakhot from this: That intimations of nazirite vows are considered nazirite vows, and that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship.

讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬转 转谞讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讜转 诪谉 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 讜讗讬转 转谞讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诪谉 讻讻诇 讛讬爪讗 诪驻讬讜 讬注砖讛

The Gemara adds: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: There is a tanna who derives intimations of vows from the phrase 鈥渢o utter a vow [lindor neder],鈥 as he holds that the Torah did not speak in the language of men. And conversely, there is a tanna who holds that the Torah spoke in the language of men, and therefore derives this halakha of intimations from the verse: 鈥淗e shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth鈥 (Numbers 30:3). The inclusive formulation of this verse comes to include intimations of vows.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诪讛 谞讚专讬诐 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 讜讘诇 转讗讞专 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诇 讬讞诇 讚谞讚专讬诐 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻讻专 讝讜 讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜

The Master said in the baraita cited earlier: Just as with regard to vows, one who breaks his vow transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, and one who does not fulfill his vow in time transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, so too, the same is true with regard to nazirite vows. The Gemara asks: Granted, you can find a case where one transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, in the case of vows. For example, where one said: I will eat this loaf, and he does not eat it, he violates the prohibition: He shall not profane his word.

讗诇讗 讘诇 讬讞诇 讚谞讝讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 讗讻诇 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讘诇 讬讗讻诇 砖转讛 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讘诇 讬砖转讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬诐

However, with regard to transgressing the prohibition: He shall not profane, in the case of nazirite vows, how can you find these circumstances? Once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is a nazirite as of that moment. If he then ate grapes, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not eat (see Numbers 6:4), and if he drank wine, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not drink (see Numbers 6:3). When would he ever become liable for violating the prohibition against profanation? Rava said: The prohibition against profanation serves to render him liable for violating two prohibitions. Consequently, if he eats grapes or drinks wine, he transgresses the relevant prohibition in addition to the prohibition against profanation.

讘诇 转讗讞专 讚谞讝讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 讗讻诇 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讘诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讗讜诪专 诇讻砖讗专爪讛 讗讛讗 谞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗诪专 讻砖讗专爪讛 诇讬讻讗 讘诇 转讗讞专

The Gemara further asks: With regard to violating the prohibition: You shall not delay, in the case of nazirite vows, how can you find these circumstances? Once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is a nazirite as of that moment. If he then ate grapes, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not eat. When would he ever become liable for violating the prohibition against delaying? The Gemara answers: It is when he specifically says: I will become a nazirite when I wish, in which case he does not become a nazirite immediately. The Gemara asks: But if he said: When I wish, there is no prohibition of: You shall not delay, as there is no particular time by which he must become a nazirite.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬驻讟专 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 注讚 砖讗讛讗 谞讝讬专 讚诪谉 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讙讬讟讬讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诪讬转转讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讬转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讬转

Rava said: It is, for example, when he said: I will not depart the world until I become a nazirite, as he is a nazirite from that time because he does not know when he will depart this world. This is just as it is in the case of a man who says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour before my death. If he is a priest and she is the daughter of a non-priest, she is prohibited from partaking of teruma immediately. Apparently, we say every moment that perhaps he is now dead and she is therefore already divorced. Here, too, with regard to naziriteship, he is a nazirite immediately, as we say that perhaps he is now about to die.

  • 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: 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....
intro

Introduction to Nedarim

聽诇注"谞聽 诪专转 讗讬讬讚诇 讘谉 谞转谉 讜砖专讛 注"讛   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
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 3: Two Routes to the Same Destination

The biblical source for the variety of statements that count as full or regular vows, developing the "hekesh," a linkage,...

Nedarim 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 3

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讜讜拽讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 诪驻专砖 讛讛讜讗 讚驻转讞 讘专讬砖讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽 诪驻专砖 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讬讚讜转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗转讬讬谉 诪讚专砖讗 诪驻专砖 诇讛讜谉 讘专讬砖讗

Rather, the Mishna is not particular with regard to this matter, and there is no consistent pattern. Sometimes it explains first that subject with which it began, and sometimes it explains first that subject with which the introductory line in the mishna finished. And if you wish, say an alternate explanation of the order of the mishna here: With regard to intimations, since they are derived from the exposition of verses and are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, the tanna cherishes them and explains them first.

讜诇讬驻转讞 讛讚讬谉 讘专讬砖讗 诪讬驻转讞 驻转讞 讘讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖 讬讚讜转 讚讗转讬讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讚专砖讗

The Gemara asks: If so, let him begin the mishna with that, i.e., intimations, first. The Gemara answers: The tanna begins with substitutes for the language of vows, which are written in the Torah, in the first clause, and then explains intimations, which are derived from the exposition of verses.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 诇砖讜谉 谞讻专讬诐 讛谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇砖讜谉 砖讘讚讜 诇讛谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 谞讜讚专 讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that substitutes for the language of vows are terms for vows in a foreign language. Consequently, they may be considered to have been written in the Torah, as vows are certainly valid regardless of the language in which they are expressed. However, according to the one who says that these substitute terms are simply language that the Sages invented for one to use in taking a vow so as to minimize using God鈥檚 name in expressing a vow, what can be said? These include novelties just as intimations do.

诪讬 拽转谞讬 讬讚讜转 讜诇讗讜 讞住讜专讬 拽讗 诪讞住专转 诇讛 讗拽讚讬诐 谞诪讬 讜转谞讬 讬讚讜转 讻诇 讬讚讜转 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 讜讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讬讚讜转 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 拽讜谞诐 拽讜谞讞 拽讜谞住

The Gemara responds: Does the mishna explicitly teach the halakha of intimations of vows? Do you not consider it incomplete, missing the phrase that mentions intimations? Once you are inserting this phrase into the mishna, you can also have it precede the clause about substitutes for the language of vows and teach the halakha of intimations at the beginning, so that the mishna reads as follows: All intimations of vows are like vows, and all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows. And these are intimations: One who says to his fellow: I am avowed from you, etc. And these are substitutes for the language of vows: Konam, kona岣, konas.

讜讬讚讜转 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇讛壮 讜转谞讬讗 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇注砖讜转 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 讜讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转

搂 Apropos the discussion of intimations of vows, the Gemara asks: And where are intimations of vows written, i.e., from where in the Torah is the halakha of intimations of vows derived? The Gemara explains that it is from the verse: 鈥淲hen a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite [nazir], to consecrate [lehazir] himself to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 6:2). And it was taught in a baraita that the doubled term nazir lehazir serves to render substitutes for the language of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, and intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讘谞讚专讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇讛壮 诪拽讬砖 谞讝讬专讜转 诇谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚专讬诐 诇谞讝讬专讜转 诪讛 谞讝讬专讜转 注砖讛 讘讜 讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 讗祝 谞讚专讬诐 注砖讛 讘讛诐 讬讚讜转 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐

I have derived only intimations of nazirite vows; from where do I derive intimations of general vows? The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.鈥 This verse juxtaposes nazirite vows to other vows and other vows to nazirite vows: Just as with regard to nazirite vows, the verse rendered intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, so too, with regard to vows, it rendered intimations of vows like vows.

讜诪讛 谞讚专讬诐 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 讜讘讘诇 转讗讞专 讗祝 谞讝讬专讜转 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 讜讘讘诇 转讗讞专 讜诪讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛讗讘 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬 讘转讜 讜讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬 讗砖转讜 讗祝 谞讝讬专讜转 讛讗讘 诪讬驻专 谞讝讬专讜转 讘转讜 讜讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讝讬专讜转 讗砖转讜

And just as with regard to vows, one who breaks his vow transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane (see Numbers 30:3), and if he does not fulfill his vow in time, he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay (see Deuteronomy 23:22), so too, with regard to nazirite vows, he transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, and the prohibition: You shall not delay. And furthermore, just as with regard to vows, a father may nullify the vows of his daughter and a husband may nullify the vows of his wife, as written explicitly in the passage concerning vows (Numbers, chapter 30), so too, with regard to nazirite vows, a father may nullify the nazirite vows of his daughter and a husband may nullify the nazirite vows of his wife.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 谞讚专讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 讜讛讬拽讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara questions this explanation: What is different with regard to nazirite vows, with regard to which it is written 鈥nazir lehazir,鈥 using the doubled term, when with regard to all vows as well it is written: 鈥淭o utter a vow [lindor neder],鈥 also using a doubled term? Why do I need the juxtaposition of all other vows to nazirite vows in order to derive that intimations of vows are like vows, when this can be derived from the doubled term with regard to general vows?

讗讬 讻转讘 谞讚专 诇谞讚专 讻讚讻转讘 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 讻讚拽讗诪专转 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讛讬拽讬砖讗 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara answers: If the Torah had written: A vow to utter [neder lindor], as it wrote with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淭he vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],鈥 it would be as you said, and there would be no need for the juxtaposition. Now that it is written: 鈥淭o utter a vow [lindor neder],鈥 it is possible to say that the Torah spoke in the language of men, and nothing can be derived from the phrase lindor neder, which is simply a common manner of speech.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛讗讬 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇讬讛 诇注砖讜转 讬讚讜转 谞讚专讬诐 讻谞讚专讬诐 讜诪拽讬砖 谞讝讬专讜转 诇谞讚专讬诐 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 讚专讬砖 诇讬讛 诪诇诪讚

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who holds that the Torah spoke in the language of men, but according to the one who does not hold that the Torah spoke in the language of men, any doubled term comes to teach something. What does he do with this phrase: 鈥淭o utter a vow [lindor neder]鈥? The Gemara answers: He expounds it to render intimations of vows like vows themselves. And the verse juxtaposes nazirite vows to other vows to teach that intimations of vows are like vows with regard to nazirite vows, and to teach the other halakhot mentioned above. With regard to the phrase: 鈥淭he vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],鈥 he expounds: This teaches

砖讛谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 讛谞讝讬专讜转

that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship. Consequently, if one became a nazirite and then again declared: I am hereby a nazirite, then when his term of naziriteship is completed he must observe a second term of naziriteship.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 讚专讬砖 诇注砖讜转 讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 砖讛谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 讛谞讝讬专讜转 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the Torah spoke in the language of men and therefore nothing can be derived from the phrase 鈥渢o utter a vow [lindor neder],鈥 and he expounds the phrase 鈥渢he vow of a nazirite to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir]鈥 to render intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, from where does he derive that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship? This works out well if he holds in accordance with the one who says that a term of naziriteship does not take effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship; however, if he holds in accordance with the one who says that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship, from where does he derive this halakha?

谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讬讝讜专 诪讗讬 诇讛讝讬专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: Let the verse say: To consecrate himself [lizor]. What is the reason the verse expressed this same idea with the word lehazir? Learn two halakhot from this: That intimations of nazirite vows are considered nazirite vows, and that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship.

讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬转 转谞讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讜转 诪谉 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 讜讗讬转 转谞讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诪谉 讻讻诇 讛讬爪讗 诪驻讬讜 讬注砖讛

The Gemara adds: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: There is a tanna who derives intimations of vows from the phrase 鈥渢o utter a vow [lindor neder],鈥 as he holds that the Torah did not speak in the language of men. And conversely, there is a tanna who holds that the Torah spoke in the language of men, and therefore derives this halakha of intimations from the verse: 鈥淗e shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth鈥 (Numbers 30:3). The inclusive formulation of this verse comes to include intimations of vows.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诪讛 谞讚专讬诐 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 讜讘诇 转讗讞专 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诇 讬讞诇 讚谞讚专讬诐 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻讻专 讝讜 讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜

The Master said in the baraita cited earlier: Just as with regard to vows, one who breaks his vow transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, and one who does not fulfill his vow in time transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, so too, the same is true with regard to nazirite vows. The Gemara asks: Granted, you can find a case where one transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, in the case of vows. For example, where one said: I will eat this loaf, and he does not eat it, he violates the prohibition: He shall not profane his word.

讗诇讗 讘诇 讬讞诇 讚谞讝讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 讗讻诇 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讘诇 讬讗讻诇 砖转讛 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讘诇 讬砖转讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬诐

However, with regard to transgressing the prohibition: He shall not profane, in the case of nazirite vows, how can you find these circumstances? Once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is a nazirite as of that moment. If he then ate grapes, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not eat (see Numbers 6:4), and if he drank wine, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not drink (see Numbers 6:3). When would he ever become liable for violating the prohibition against profanation? Rava said: The prohibition against profanation serves to render him liable for violating two prohibitions. Consequently, if he eats grapes or drinks wine, he transgresses the relevant prohibition in addition to the prohibition against profanation.

讘诇 转讗讞专 讚谞讝讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 讗讻诇 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讘诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讗讜诪专 诇讻砖讗专爪讛 讗讛讗 谞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗诪专 讻砖讗专爪讛 诇讬讻讗 讘诇 转讗讞专

The Gemara further asks: With regard to violating the prohibition: You shall not delay, in the case of nazirite vows, how can you find these circumstances? Once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is a nazirite as of that moment. If he then ate grapes, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not eat. When would he ever become liable for violating the prohibition against delaying? The Gemara answers: It is when he specifically says: I will become a nazirite when I wish, in which case he does not become a nazirite immediately. The Gemara asks: But if he said: When I wish, there is no prohibition of: You shall not delay, as there is no particular time by which he must become a nazirite.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬驻讟专 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 注讚 砖讗讛讗 谞讝讬专 讚诪谉 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讙讬讟讬讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诪讬转转讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讬转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讬转

Rava said: It is, for example, when he said: I will not depart the world until I become a nazirite, as he is a nazirite from that time because he does not know when he will depart this world. This is just as it is in the case of a man who says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour before my death. If he is a priest and she is the daughter of a non-priest, she is prohibited from partaking of teruma immediately. Apparently, we say every moment that perhaps he is now dead and she is therefore already divorced. Here, too, with regard to naziriteship, he is a nazirite immediately, as we say that perhaps he is now about to die.

Scroll To Top