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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 29, 2022 | ื”ืณ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

  • 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.

Nedarim 35

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of the marriage of their son Gilad to Noa Goldrich, today. “May they be zoche to build a Bayit Neeman b’Yisrael, in good health until 120.”

Today’s daf is sponsored byย Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her dear friend Helen Taylor whose yahrzeit is today and in honor of her dear friend Tova Kestenbaum whose son is getting married today.

If one says, “My loaf is forbidden to you,” and then gave it to them as a gift, Rava held that it was still forbidden to them. The Gemara brings a braita to raise a difficulty against Rava as it says there that if it was given to them as a gift, it is permitted. However, they resolve the difficulty by explaining the braita to be in a case where first it was given to someone else and then that person gave it to the other as a gift. In that case, since it didn’t belong to the original person at the time the gift was given, it was no longer included in the words of the vow. Rava asks Rav Nachman if the language of konam creates a situation that the item is like a sanctified item for the one forbidden and therefore if one accidentally benefits, would they be liable for meila? Rav Nachman proves from our Mishna that the answer is yes. However, the Gemara points out that it is a tannaitic debate. According to the understanding that there is meila for a konam, if one says, “My loaf will be forbidden to you,” and then gives it to them as a gift, upon who is the meila transgression? For the original owner, it was not forbidden and the one receiving the gift could claim that they certainly wouldn’t have wanted to receive the gift if they had known it was forbidden! Rav Ashi answers that while the receiver can claim they didn’t want it if that would only exclude them from laws of meila while receiving the gift but once they actually use it, they are no different from a person who didn’t know an item was sanctified and used it, who is liable for meila. The Mishna lists more actions one can do for another even if they are forbidden to benefit from the other – take truma and maaser for them with their knowledge, sacrifice bird offerings of zav, zava and a woman after childbirth, teach one midrash, halacha and agada, but not Torah, or teach their children Torah. The Gemara asks: When kohanim perform the sacrificial rites in the Temple are they operating as messengers of the one obligated to bring the sacrifice or as messengers of God? Can our Mishna be used to answer this question?

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉืื™ืœื ื™ ืคืจืชืš ืืžืจ ืœื• ืงื•ื ื ืคืจื” ืฉืื ื™ ืงื ื•ื™ ืœืš ื ื›ืกื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืื ื™ืฉ ืœื™ ืคืจื” ืืœื ื–ื• ื”ืฉืื™ืœื ื™ ืงืจื“ื•ืžืš ืืžืจ ืœื• ืงื•ื ื ืงืจื“ื•ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื™ ืฉืื ื™ ืงื ื•ื™ ื ื›ืกื™ ืขืœื™ ืื ื™ืฉ ืœื™ ืงืจื“ื•ื ืืœื ื–ื” ื•ื ืžืฆื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื• ืืกื•ืจ ืžืช ืื• ืฉื ืชื ื” ืœื• ื‘ืžืชื ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืชืจ


The Gemara raised an objection to Rava. If another person said to him: Lend me your cow, and the owner answered and said to him: Every cow that I purchased other than this one, which I need, is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to you if I have a cow other than this one, and in fact, he owns other cows; or if another said to him: Lend me your spade, and the owner of the spade said to him: Every spade that I have that I purchased is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to me if I have a spade other than this one, and it is discovered that he has another spade and the konam takes effect, then during the life of the one who vowed, the cow or the spade is forbidden to the subject of the vow. If the one who vowed died or if the cow or the spade was given to the subject of the vow as a gift, it is permitted. Apparently, the konam is in effect only as long as the property is in his possession.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ืฉื ื™ืชื ื” ืœื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ


Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Ika, said: It is referring to a case where it was given to the subject of the vow by another person. The one who vowed did not give him the gift directly. He sold or transferred the item to a third party, who gave it to the subject of the vow as a present. Since the property left the possession of its owner before it was given to the subject of the vow, the prohibition does not take effect upon it.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื ื™ืชื ื” ืœื• ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื ืชื ื” ืœื•


The Gemara states that Rav Ashi said: The language is also precise, as it teaches: That was given to him, and it is not taught: That he gave it to him. This indicates that this halakha applies specifically to a gift that was given to him by a third party, but not by the one who vowed.


ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื™ืฉ ืžืขื™ืœื” ื‘ืงื•ื ืžื•ืช ืื• ืœื


ยง Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naแธฅman: Is there liability for misuse of consecrated property in cases of konamot or not? Since the legal status of an item that was rendered a konam is like that of consecrated property in that it is forbidden to the one who one vowed, is it like consecrated property in every sense, including liability for misuse of consecrated property?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืฉื›ืจ ืชื™ืคื•ืœ ื”ื ืื” ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื›ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ืืฃ ืงื•ื ืžื•ืช ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื”


Rav Naแธฅman said to him: You learned this halakha from a mishna (33a): In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. That is to say, an item forbidden by a konam is like consecrated property. Just as with regard to consecrated property there is liability for misuse, so too with regard to konamot there is liability for misuse.


ื›ืชื ืื™ ืงื•ื ื ื›ื›ืจ ื–ื• ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืขืœ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื›ื›ืจ ื–ื• ืขืœื™ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืžืขืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœื ืžืขืœ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


The Gemara comments on this. This dilemma is like a dispute between tannaโ€™im. If one said: This loaf is konam to all like consecrated property, and he ate it, then, whether he ate it or whether another ate it, the one who ate it misused consecrated property. Therefore, since its status is that of consecrated property, it has the possibility of desanctification through redemption. If one said: This loaf is konam for me like consecrated property and he eats it, he misused consecrated property. If another eats it, he did not misuse consecrated property, as he said: To me. Therefore, it does not have the possibility of desanctification through redemption, since its status is not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืœื ืžืขืœ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื” ื‘ืงื•ื ืžื•ืช


And the Rabbis say: In the case of both vows taken in this manner and vows taken in that manner, no one misused consecrated property because there is no liability for misuse of consecrated objects in cases of konamot. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in konamot.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ื›ืจื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื•ื ืชื ื” ืœื• ื‘ืžืชื ื” ืžื™ ืžืขืœ ืœืžืขื•ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ืœื ืืกื™ืจื ืขืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื•ืœ ืžืงื‘ืœ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ื‘ืขื™ืชื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ื‘ืขื™ืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืงื‘ืœ ืžืขืœ ืœื›ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžืขื•ืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ืกื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืขืœ ืืฃ ื–ื” ืžื•ืขืœ


Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and he then gave it to him as a gift, which of them misused consecrated property? If you say: Let the one who gives the loaf be liable for misuse, why would he be liable; the loaf is not forbidden to him? If you say: Let the one who receives the loaf be liable for misuse, he can say: I wanted to receive a permitted item; I did not want to receive a forbidden item. Since the loaf is forbidden, if I accepted it from you, it was not my intention to do so. Rav Ashi said to him: The one who receives the loaf is liable for misuse when he utilizes the loaf, as the principle with regard to misuse is that anyone who utilizes consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, when he is under the impression that it is non-sacred, misuses consecrated property. This person who received the loaf also misuses consecrated property.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื•ืชื•ืจื ืืช ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ื•ืžืขืฉืจื•ืชื™ื• ืœื“ืขืชื• ื•ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืงื™ื ื™ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื™ื ื™ ื–ื‘ื•ืช ืงื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ืœื“ื•ืช ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื•ืืฉืžื•ืช ื•ืžืœืžื“ื• ืžื“ืจืฉ ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื•ืื’ื“ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื™ืœืžื“ื ื• ืžืงืจื ืื‘ืœ ืžืœืžื“ ื”ื•ื ืืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ืžืงืจื


MISHNA: The mishna proceeds to list other tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him. And he separates his teruma and his tithes, provided that it is with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the produce. And he sacrifices for him the bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons and turtledoves, of zavin (see Leviticus 15:13โ€“15); the bird nests of zavot (see Leviticus 15:28โ€“30); the bird nests of women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6โ€“8); sin-offerings; and guilt-offerings. And he teaches him midrash, halakhot, and aggadot, but he may not teach him Bible. However, he may teach his sons and daughters Bible.


ื’ืžืณ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื”ื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืื• ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ื ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืžื•ื“ืจ ื”ื ืื” ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื“ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ื”ื ืžื”ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ื ืฉืจื™ ืžืื™


GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these priests our agents or agents of Heaven when they perform the Temple service? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference whether they are our agents or Godโ€™s agents? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another. If you say that the priests are our agents, donโ€™t the priests provide benefit for the one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow, and therefore, sacrificing that personโ€™s offering is prohibited? And if you say that they are agents of Heaven, it is permitted. What is the status of priests?


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ืŸ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืงื™ื ื™ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืงื ืžื”ื ื™ ืœื™ื”


Come and hear proof to resolve the dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: And he sacrifices for him the bird nests of zavin, etc. The Gemara infers: If you say that the priests are our agents, the priests would thereby provide benefit to one for whom benefit from them is forbidden. Based on the ruling in the mishna, apparently, priests are agents of Heaven.


ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืืœื ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉืื ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื“ืขืช ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืœ ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืขืœ ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ื”ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื–ื‘ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ


The Gemara rejects the proof: And according to your reasoning, that the mishna holds that priests are agents of Heaven, let the mishna teach in general: He sacrifices for him offerings. Why did the mishna list these particular offerings? Rather, perforce, offerings brought by those lacking atonement are different from other offerings, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Everyone who brings an offering requires knowledge and intent in order to bring the offering, except for those lacking atonement, who bring the offering in order to complete their purification. This can be proven from the fact that a person brings a purification offering for his minor sons and daughters, although they lack halakhic intelligence, as it is stated: โ€œThis is the law of the zavโ€ (Leviticus 15:32). This apparently superfluous verse comes to teach that the halakhot of the zav apply to both an adult and a minor.


ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื™ืœื“ืช ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ืช ืœื™ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืฉืœืฉ ื ืฉื™ื ืžืฉืžืฉื•ืช ื‘ืžื•ืš ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื•ืžื ื™ืงื” ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉืžื ืชืชืขื‘ืจ ื•ืชืžื•ืช


The Gemara asks: However, if that is so according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, with regard to that which is written: โ€œThis is the law of a woman after childbirthโ€ (Leviticus 12:7), would he interpret that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both an adult and a minor? Is a minor capable of giving birth? But didnโ€™t Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Naแธฅman: It is permitted for three women to engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman; a minor may do so lest she conceive and die. Apparently, a minor is incapable of giving birth, as she would die first.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื™ืœื“ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืคืงื—ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืœ ืืฉืชื• ืฉื•ื˜ื”


The Gemara explains: That verse: โ€œThis is the law of a woman after childbirth,โ€ does not come to include a minor. Rather, it comes to teach that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both a halakhically competent woman and a woman who is an imbecile, as a man brings an offering for his wife who is an imbecile.


ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืฉื™ืจ ืขืœ ืืฉืชื• ื•ื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช


This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A man brings the offering of a wealthy person for his wife, as well as all offerings that she is obligated to bring. A wealthy woman after childbirth brings a lamb as a burnt-offering and a dove or turtledove as a sin-offering. A poor woman brings two turtledoves or two pigeons, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Even if the woman is poor, and based on her usufruct property, she would bring the offering of the poor; if her husband is wealthy, he brings the offering of a wealthy person on her behalf. And he must bring on her behalf all the offerings for which she is obligated.


ืฉื›ืš ื›ื•ืชื‘ ืœื” ื•ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ืš ืขืœื™ ืžืŸ ืงื“ืžืช ื“ื ื


The fact that he is obligated to bring a wealthy personโ€™s offering on her behalf is due to the fact that this is what he writes in her marriage contract: And responsibility to pay any financial obligations that you have incurred before this moment is incumbent upon me. Offerings that she is obligated to bring are included in those obligations, irrespective of her degree of halakhic competence. The offering of a woman after childbirth is one of the offerings brought by those lacking atonement. Therefore, even if priests are our agents, they may sacrifice the offering on behalf of the woman; since they may do so without her knowledge and intent, no agency is required. Therefore, there is no proof from the mishna that priests are agents of Heaven.


  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

  • 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.

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: 29-35 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing the power of the spoken word. When someone makes a vow against benefiting from...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 35: What Is the Role of a Kohen?

A dilemma posed to R. Nachman: when one swears off property, does that make the use of that property its...

Nedarim 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 35

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉืื™ืœื ื™ ืคืจืชืš ืืžืจ ืœื• ืงื•ื ื ืคืจื” ืฉืื ื™ ืงื ื•ื™ ืœืš ื ื›ืกื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืื ื™ืฉ ืœื™ ืคืจื” ืืœื ื–ื• ื”ืฉืื™ืœื ื™ ืงืจื“ื•ืžืš ืืžืจ ืœื• ืงื•ื ื ืงืจื“ื•ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื™ ืฉืื ื™ ืงื ื•ื™ ื ื›ืกื™ ืขืœื™ ืื ื™ืฉ ืœื™ ืงืจื“ื•ื ืืœื ื–ื” ื•ื ืžืฆื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื• ืืกื•ืจ ืžืช ืื• ืฉื ืชื ื” ืœื• ื‘ืžืชื ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืชืจ


The Gemara raised an objection to Rava. If another person said to him: Lend me your cow, and the owner answered and said to him: Every cow that I purchased other than this one, which I need, is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to you if I have a cow other than this one, and in fact, he owns other cows; or if another said to him: Lend me your spade, and the owner of the spade said to him: Every spade that I have that I purchased is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to me if I have a spade other than this one, and it is discovered that he has another spade and the konam takes effect, then during the life of the one who vowed, the cow or the spade is forbidden to the subject of the vow. If the one who vowed died or if the cow or the spade was given to the subject of the vow as a gift, it is permitted. Apparently, the konam is in effect only as long as the property is in his possession.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ืฉื ื™ืชื ื” ืœื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ


Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Ika, said: It is referring to a case where it was given to the subject of the vow by another person. The one who vowed did not give him the gift directly. He sold or transferred the item to a third party, who gave it to the subject of the vow as a present. Since the property left the possession of its owner before it was given to the subject of the vow, the prohibition does not take effect upon it.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื ื™ืชื ื” ืœื• ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื ืชื ื” ืœื•


The Gemara states that Rav Ashi said: The language is also precise, as it teaches: That was given to him, and it is not taught: That he gave it to him. This indicates that this halakha applies specifically to a gift that was given to him by a third party, but not by the one who vowed.


ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื™ืฉ ืžืขื™ืœื” ื‘ืงื•ื ืžื•ืช ืื• ืœื


ยง Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naแธฅman: Is there liability for misuse of consecrated property in cases of konamot or not? Since the legal status of an item that was rendered a konam is like that of consecrated property in that it is forbidden to the one who one vowed, is it like consecrated property in every sense, including liability for misuse of consecrated property?


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืฉื›ืจ ืชื™ืคื•ืœ ื”ื ืื” ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื›ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ืืฃ ืงื•ื ืžื•ืช ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื”


Rav Naแธฅman said to him: You learned this halakha from a mishna (33a): In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. That is to say, an item forbidden by a konam is like consecrated property. Just as with regard to consecrated property there is liability for misuse, so too with regard to konamot there is liability for misuse.


ื›ืชื ืื™ ืงื•ื ื ื›ื›ืจ ื–ื• ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืขืœ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื›ื›ืจ ื–ื• ืขืœื™ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืžืขืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœื ืžืขืœ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ


The Gemara comments on this. This dilemma is like a dispute between tannaโ€™im. If one said: This loaf is konam to all like consecrated property, and he ate it, then, whether he ate it or whether another ate it, the one who ate it misused consecrated property. Therefore, since its status is that of consecrated property, it has the possibility of desanctification through redemption. If one said: This loaf is konam for me like consecrated property and he eats it, he misused consecrated property. If another eats it, he did not misuse consecrated property, as he said: To me. Therefore, it does not have the possibility of desanctification through redemption, since its status is not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืœื ืžืขืœ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื” ื‘ืงื•ื ืžื•ืช


And the Rabbis say: In the case of both vows taken in this manner and vows taken in that manner, no one misused consecrated property because there is no liability for misuse of consecrated objects in cases of konamot. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in konamot.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ื›ืจื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื•ื ืชื ื” ืœื• ื‘ืžืชื ื” ืžื™ ืžืขืœ ืœืžืขื•ืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ืœื ืืกื™ืจื ืขืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื•ืœ ืžืงื‘ืœ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ื‘ืขื™ืชื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ื‘ืขื™ืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืงื‘ืœ ืžืขืœ ืœื›ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžืขื•ืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ืกื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืขืœ ืืฃ ื–ื” ืžื•ืขืœ


Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and he then gave it to him as a gift, which of them misused consecrated property? If you say: Let the one who gives the loaf be liable for misuse, why would he be liable; the loaf is not forbidden to him? If you say: Let the one who receives the loaf be liable for misuse, he can say: I wanted to receive a permitted item; I did not want to receive a forbidden item. Since the loaf is forbidden, if I accepted it from you, it was not my intention to do so. Rav Ashi said to him: The one who receives the loaf is liable for misuse when he utilizes the loaf, as the principle with regard to misuse is that anyone who utilizes consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, when he is under the impression that it is non-sacred, misuses consecrated property. This person who received the loaf also misuses consecrated property.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื•ืชื•ืจื ืืช ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ื•ืžืขืฉืจื•ืชื™ื• ืœื“ืขืชื• ื•ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืงื™ื ื™ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื™ื ื™ ื–ื‘ื•ืช ืงื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ืœื“ื•ืช ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื•ืืฉืžื•ืช ื•ืžืœืžื“ื• ืžื“ืจืฉ ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื•ืื’ื“ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื™ืœืžื“ื ื• ืžืงืจื ืื‘ืœ ืžืœืžื“ ื”ื•ื ืืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ืžืงืจื


MISHNA: The mishna proceeds to list other tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him. And he separates his teruma and his tithes, provided that it is with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the produce. And he sacrifices for him the bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons and turtledoves, of zavin (see Leviticus 15:13โ€“15); the bird nests of zavot (see Leviticus 15:28โ€“30); the bird nests of women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6โ€“8); sin-offerings; and guilt-offerings. And he teaches him midrash, halakhot, and aggadot, but he may not teach him Bible. However, he may teach his sons and daughters Bible.


ื’ืžืณ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื”ื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืื• ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ื ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืžื•ื“ืจ ื”ื ืื” ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื“ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ื”ื ืžื”ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืืกื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ืฉืžื™ื ืฉืจื™ ืžืื™


GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these priests our agents or agents of Heaven when they perform the Temple service? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference whether they are our agents or Godโ€™s agents? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another. If you say that the priests are our agents, donโ€™t the priests provide benefit for the one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow, and therefore, sacrificing that personโ€™s offering is prohibited? And if you say that they are agents of Heaven, it is permitted. What is the status of priests?


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ืŸ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืงื™ื ื™ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืงื ืžื”ื ื™ ืœื™ื”


Come and hear proof to resolve the dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: And he sacrifices for him the bird nests of zavin, etc. The Gemara infers: If you say that the priests are our agents, the priests would thereby provide benefit to one for whom benefit from them is forbidden. Based on the ruling in the mishna, apparently, priests are agents of Heaven.


ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืืœื ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉืื ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื“ืขืช ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืœ ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ืขืœ ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ื”ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื–ื‘ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ


The Gemara rejects the proof: And according to your reasoning, that the mishna holds that priests are agents of Heaven, let the mishna teach in general: He sacrifices for him offerings. Why did the mishna list these particular offerings? Rather, perforce, offerings brought by those lacking atonement are different from other offerings, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Everyone who brings an offering requires knowledge and intent in order to bring the offering, except for those lacking atonement, who bring the offering in order to complete their purification. This can be proven from the fact that a person brings a purification offering for his minor sons and daughters, although they lack halakhic intelligence, as it is stated: โ€œThis is the law of the zavโ€ (Leviticus 15:32). This apparently superfluous verse comes to teach that the halakhot of the zav apply to both an adult and a minor.


ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื™ืœื“ืช ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ืช ืœื™ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืฉืœืฉ ื ืฉื™ื ืžืฉืžืฉื•ืช ื‘ืžื•ืš ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื•ืžื ื™ืงื” ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉืžื ืชืชืขื‘ืจ ื•ืชืžื•ืช


The Gemara asks: However, if that is so according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, with regard to that which is written: โ€œThis is the law of a woman after childbirthโ€ (Leviticus 12:7), would he interpret that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both an adult and a minor? Is a minor capable of giving birth? But didnโ€™t Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Naแธฅman: It is permitted for three women to engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman; a minor may do so lest she conceive and die. Apparently, a minor is incapable of giving birth, as she would die first.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื™ืœื“ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืคืงื—ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืœ ืืฉืชื• ืฉื•ื˜ื”


The Gemara explains: That verse: โ€œThis is the law of a woman after childbirth,โ€ does not come to include a minor. Rather, it comes to teach that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both a halakhically competent woman and a woman who is an imbecile, as a man brings an offering for his wife who is an imbecile.


ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืฉื™ืจ ืขืœ ืืฉืชื• ื•ื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช


This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A man brings the offering of a wealthy person for his wife, as well as all offerings that she is obligated to bring. A wealthy woman after childbirth brings a lamb as a burnt-offering and a dove or turtledove as a sin-offering. A poor woman brings two turtledoves or two pigeons, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Even if the woman is poor, and based on her usufruct property, she would bring the offering of the poor; if her husband is wealthy, he brings the offering of a wealthy person on her behalf. And he must bring on her behalf all the offerings for which she is obligated.


ืฉื›ืš ื›ื•ืชื‘ ืœื” ื•ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ืš ืขืœื™ ืžืŸ ืงื“ืžืช ื“ื ื


The fact that he is obligated to bring a wealthy personโ€™s offering on her behalf is due to the fact that this is what he writes in her marriage contract: And responsibility to pay any financial obligations that you have incurred before this moment is incumbent upon me. Offerings that she is obligated to bring are included in those obligations, irrespective of her degree of halakhic competence. The offering of a woman after childbirth is one of the offerings brought by those lacking atonement. Therefore, even if priests are our agents, they may sacrifice the offering on behalf of the woman; since they may do so without her knowledge and intent, no agency is required. Therefore, there is no proof from the mishna that priests are agents of Heaven.


Scroll To Top