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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 28, 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 3

Today’s daf is sponsored by Hannah and Michael Piotrkowski in loving memory of Tsina Tova bat Leib z”l, on the 52nd yahrzeit today.ย 
Today’s daf is sponsored by Geri Goldstein Guedalia in loving memory of Geriโ€™s mother, Helen Saipe, Tzippa Hinda bat Avraham vโ€™Devora, on the completion of 12 months of mourning. “May her neshama have an aliyah.”ย 
After rejecting the explanation that the Mishna always uses ABBA structure, two other suggestions are brought to explain why our Mishna is ABBA, even though some other Mishnayot are not. The first answer is that there are different styles of different Mishnayot. The second is that yadot came first as they are derived from a drasha and laws learned from drashot come first as they are beloved upon the sages. After raising questions against the second answer, they reject the premise of the question and reread the Mishna in a way that the structure is ABAB. From where in the Torah are yadot derived? There are three different sources brought, which somewhat depend on what one holds regarding the language of the Torah – was it written in the language that people speak or not? According to one of the interpretations, it is derived as appears in a braita from the juxtaposition of neder and nazir in a verse in the Torah. Other laws as well as derived from this juxtaposition – some from vows to nazir and some from nazir to vows. The Gemara delves into the cases in this braita – raising questions on some of them, such as, what is a case where one profanes a nazirite vow? What is a case where one delays a nazirite vow?

ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ื•ื•ืงื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืžืคืจืฉ ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืคืชื— ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžืคืจืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื™ื“ื•ืช ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืชื™ื™ืŸ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืžืคืจืฉ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื

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.

ื•ืœื™ืคืชื— ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืžื™ืคืชื— ืคืชื— ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžืคืจืฉ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื“ืืชื™ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจืฉื

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.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ื›ืจื™ื ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื‘ื“ื• ืœื”ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื ื•ื“ืจ ื‘ื• ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

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 Godโ€™s name in expressing a vow, what can be said? These include novelties just as intimations do.

ืžื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื•ืœืื• ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืงื ืžื—ืกืจืช ืœื” ืืงื“ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื•ืชื ื™ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืงื•ื ื ืงื•ื ื— ืงื•ื ืก

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, konaแธฅ, konas.

ื•ื™ื“ื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืคืœื ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ืณ ื•ืชื ื™ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช

ยง 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: โ€œWhen a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite [nazir], to consecrate [lehazir] himself to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 6:2). And it was taught in a baraita that the doubled term โ€œnazir lehazirโ€ serves to render substitutes for the language of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, and intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows.

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื ื“ืจื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืคืœื ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ืณ ืžืงื™ืฉ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ืจื™ื ืœื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžื” ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืืฃ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื”ื ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื

I have derived only intimations of nazirite vows; from where do I derive intimations of general vows? The verse states: โ€œWhen a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.โ€ 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.

ื•ืžื” ื ื“ืจื™ื ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื•ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ืืฃ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื•ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื•ืžื” ื ื“ืจื™ื ื”ืื‘ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ื‘ืชื• ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ืืฃ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืื‘ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ืชื• ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืืฉืชื•

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.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื•ื”ื™ืงื™ืฉื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara questions this explanation: What is different with regard to nazirite vows, with regard to which it is written โ€œnazir lehazir,โ€ using the doubled term, when with regard to all vows as well it is written: โ€œTo utter a vow [lindor neder],โ€ 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?

ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื ื“ืจ ืœื ื“ืจ ื›ื“ื›ืชื‘ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ื›ื“ืงืืžืจืช ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื™ืงื™ืฉื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

The Gemara answers: If the Torah had written: A vow to utter [neder lindor], as it wrote with regard to a nazirite: โ€œThe vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],โ€ it would be as you said, and there would be no need for the juxtaposition. Now that it is written: โ€œTo utter a vow [lindor neder],โ€ 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.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื”ืื™ ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ืžืงื™ืฉ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ื“ืจื™ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืžืœืžื“

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: โ€œTo utter a vow [lindor neder]โ€? 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: โ€œThe vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],โ€ he expounds: This teaches

ืฉื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ืœ ืขืœ ื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ืœ ืขืœ ื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ืœ ืขืœ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ืœ ืขืœ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžื ื ืœื™ื”

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 โ€œto utter a vow [lindor neder],โ€ and he expounds the phrase โ€œthe vow of a nazirite to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir]โ€ 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?

ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ืœื™ื–ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

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.

ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืช ืชื ื ื“ืžืคื™ืง ืœื™ื” ืœื™ื“ื•ืช ืžืŸ ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื•ืื™ืช ืชื ื ื“ืžืคื™ืง ืœื™ื” ืžืŸ ื›ื›ืœ ื”ื™ืฆื ืžืคื™ื• ื™ืขืฉื”

The Gemara adds: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: There is a tanna who derives intimations of vows from the phrase โ€œto utter a vow [lindor neder],โ€ 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: โ€œHe shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouthโ€ (Numbers 30:3). The inclusive formulation of this verse comes to include intimations of vows.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื ื“ืจื™ื ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื•ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื“ื ื“ืจื™ื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื›ืจ ื–ื• ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืœื ืื›ืœื” ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื•

ยง 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.

ืืœื ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื“ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืื›ืœ ืงื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ืื›ืœ ืฉืชื” ืงื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ืฉืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ื

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.

ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื“ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืื›ืœ ืงื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœื›ืฉืืจืฆื” ืื”ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืืจืฆื” ืœื™ื›ื ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืื™ืคื˜ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืขื“ ืฉืื”ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืžืŸ ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืงื•ื“ื ืžื™ืชืชื™ ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืžื™ื“ ืืœืžื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉืขืชื ื•ืฉืขืชื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžื™ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื™ืช

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.

  • 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....
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
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

ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ื•ื•ืงื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืžืคืจืฉ ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืคืชื— ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžืคืจืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื™ื“ื•ืช ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืชื™ื™ืŸ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืžืคืจืฉ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื

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.

ื•ืœื™ืคืชื— ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืžื™ืคืชื— ืคืชื— ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžืคืจืฉ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื“ืืชื™ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจืฉื

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.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ื›ืจื™ื ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื‘ื“ื• ืœื”ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื ื•ื“ืจ ื‘ื• ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

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 Godโ€™s name in expressing a vow, what can be said? These include novelties just as intimations do.

ืžื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื•ืœืื• ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืงื ืžื—ืกืจืช ืœื” ืืงื“ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื•ืชื ื™ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืงื•ื ื ืงื•ื ื— ืงื•ื ืก

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, konaแธฅ, konas.

ื•ื™ื“ื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืคืœื ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ืณ ื•ืชื ื™ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช

ยง 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: โ€œWhen a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite [nazir], to consecrate [lehazir] himself to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 6:2). And it was taught in a baraita that the doubled term โ€œnazir lehazirโ€ serves to render substitutes for the language of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, and intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows.

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื ื“ืจื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืคืœื ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ืณ ืžืงื™ืฉ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ืจื™ื ืœื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžื” ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืืฃ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื”ื ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื

I have derived only intimations of nazirite vows; from where do I derive intimations of general vows? The verse states: โ€œWhen a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.โ€ 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.

ื•ืžื” ื ื“ืจื™ื ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื•ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ืืฃ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื•ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื•ืžื” ื ื“ืจื™ื ื”ืื‘ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ื‘ืชื• ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ืืฃ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืื‘ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ืชื• ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืืฉืชื•

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.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื•ื”ื™ืงื™ืฉื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara questions this explanation: What is different with regard to nazirite vows, with regard to which it is written โ€œnazir lehazir,โ€ using the doubled term, when with regard to all vows as well it is written: โ€œTo utter a vow [lindor neder],โ€ 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?

ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื ื“ืจ ืœื ื“ืจ ื›ื“ื›ืชื‘ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ื›ื“ืงืืžืจืช ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื™ืงื™ืฉื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

The Gemara answers: If the Torah had written: A vow to utter [neder lindor], as it wrote with regard to a nazirite: โ€œThe vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],โ€ it would be as you said, and there would be no need for the juxtaposition. Now that it is written: โ€œTo utter a vow [lindor neder],โ€ 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.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื”ืื™ ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื“ืจื™ื ื›ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ืžืงื™ืฉ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ื“ืจื™ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืžืœืžื“

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: โ€œTo utter a vow [lindor neder]โ€? 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: โ€œThe vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],โ€ he expounds: This teaches

ืฉื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ืœ ืขืœ ื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ืœ ืขืœ ื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ืœ ืขืœ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ืœ ืขืœ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžื ื ืœื™ื”

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 โ€œto utter a vow [lindor neder],โ€ and he expounds the phrase โ€œthe vow of a nazirite to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir]โ€ 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?

ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ืœื™ื–ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

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.

ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืช ืชื ื ื“ืžืคื™ืง ืœื™ื” ืœื™ื“ื•ืช ืžืŸ ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื•ืื™ืช ืชื ื ื“ืžืคื™ืง ืœื™ื” ืžืŸ ื›ื›ืœ ื”ื™ืฆื ืžืคื™ื• ื™ืขืฉื”

The Gemara adds: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: There is a tanna who derives intimations of vows from the phrase โ€œto utter a vow [lindor neder],โ€ 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: โ€œHe shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouthโ€ (Numbers 30:3). The inclusive formulation of this verse comes to include intimations of vows.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื ื“ืจื™ื ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื•ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื“ื ื“ืจื™ื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื›ืจ ื–ื• ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืœื ืื›ืœื” ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื•

ยง 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.

ืืœื ื‘ืœ ื™ื—ืœ ื“ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืื›ืœ ืงื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ืื›ืœ ืฉืชื” ืงื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ืฉืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื‘ื•ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ื

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.

ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื“ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืื›ืœ ืงื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืœื›ืฉืืจืฆื” ืื”ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืืจืฆื” ืœื™ื›ื ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืื™ืคื˜ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืขื“ ืฉืื”ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืžืŸ ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืงื•ื“ื ืžื™ืชืชื™ ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืžื™ื“ ืืœืžื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉืขืชื ื•ืฉืขืชื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžื™ื™ืช ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื™ืช

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