Search

Nedarim 56

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

English
עברית
podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




Summary

Today’s learning is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom group in honor of Miriam Kerzner. “Nearly every late night from Toronto, Canada, she joins us for the daily Daf Yomi. Miriam has inspired us, showing through example how a commitment to lifelong learning and Jewish values can be expressed at any age. We’ve missed your quiet presence and look forward to your rejoining us very soon! With love from the Hadran Zoom Family.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi Oxman in memory of Bubaleh on her 4th yahrzeit. “You’d love this masechet, it’s about the importance of keeping your words. One of your core values. Miss you mucho!”

Today’s daf is dedicated for the refuah of Gidon ben Sima.

If one vows from the house, does that include the attic? What about the reverse? A comparison is made to laws of leprosy in the house. Can one distinguish between the cases? Why? Another comparison is made to laws of sales. Can these actually be compared? If one vows from using a bed, is a dargash permitted? What about the reverse? What is a dargash? Ulla suggests it is a good luck bed. However several difficulties are raised against this explanation. Some of the difficulties are resolved. Rav Tachlifa suggests a different explanation – that it is a leather bed. What is the difference then between a bed and a dargash? The difference lies in the way the leather is tied onto the wooden base. If one vows against entering into the city, does that include the techum (2,000 cubits outside the city) of the city or the ibur (70 and 2/3 cubits outside the city) of the city? If one vows against entering into the house, is the doorway outside the line of the door considered part of the house? We derive from verses in Yehoshua and the Torah that the ibur is considered part of the city but the techum is not. The Mishna’s ruling on the doorway is questioned by laws of leprosy of the house. However, the comparison is not relevant as laws of leprosy are unique based on derivation from the verses, which would have no bearing on definitions of what is considered outside the house for laws of vows.

Today’s daily daf tools:

Nedarim 56

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבַּיִת — מוּתָּר בַּעֲלִיָּיה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עֲלִיָּיה בִּכְלַל הַבַּיִת. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן עֲלִיָּיה — מוּתָּר בְּבַיִת.

MISHNA: For one who vows that a house is forbidden to him, entry is permitted for him in the upper story of the house; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An upper story is included in the house, and therefore, entry is prohibited there as well. However, for one who vows that an upper story is forbidden to him, entry is permitted in the house, as the ground floor is not included in the upper story.

גְּמָ׳ מַאן תְּנָא ״בְּבֵית״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיָּצִיעַ, ״בְּבֵית״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאִי רַבָּנַן, הָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: עֲלִיָּיה בִּכְלַל הַבַּיִת, לְמָה לִי קְרָא ״בְּבֵית״ לְרִיבּוּיָא?

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught with regard to the halakhot of leprosy that in the verse “it appears to me as it were a plague in the house” (Leviticus 14:35), the term “in the house” comes to include the gallery, a half story above the ground floor, and “in the house” comes to include the upper story? Rav Ḥisda said: The tanna is Rabbi Meir, as, if the tanna were the Rabbis, didn’t the Rabbis say that a second story is included in the house? Why then do I need the verse containing the phrase “in the house” to include the second story?

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, בָּעֲיָא קְרָא. דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא ״בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם״ כְּתִיב. דִּמְחַבַּר בְּאַרְעָא — שְׁמֵיהּ בַּיִת, עֲלִיָּיה — הָא לָא מְחַבַּר בְּאַרְעָא.

Abaye said: Even if you would say that the tanna is the Rabbis, they too require a verse to include the second story in this case, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34), only that which is attached to the ground has the status of a house but with regard to a second story, that is not attached to the ground. Even according to the Rabbis, the verse is necessary to prevent the conclusion that the legal status of a second story is not that of a house with regard to leprosy.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: ״בַּיִת בְּבֵיתִי אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״ — מַרְאֵהוּ עֲלִיָּיה. טַעְמָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת שֶׁבְּבֵיתִי אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אֲבָל ״בַּיִת״ סְתָם — אֵינוֹ מַרְאֵהוּ עֲלִיָּיה. לֵימָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, מַאי ״עֲלִיָּיה״ — מְעוּלָּה שֶׁבַּבָּתִּים.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Ulla? If the seller says to the buyer: A house in my house I am selling to you, he may show the buyer that he purchased the second story [aliyya]. The Gemara infers: The reason is that the seller said to him: A house in my house I am selling to you. However, if he sold him a house, unspecified, he may not show him a second story. Let us say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who states that the second story is not included in the house. The Gemara rejects this claim: Even if you would say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the term aliyya in this context? It does not mean second story; it means the most outstanding of the houses. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Ulla that when one says a house in my house, he must show him the most outstanding part of his house. However, if he sold him a house without specification, he may show him a second story.

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמִּטָּה — מוּתָּר בַּדַּרְגֵּשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: דַּרְגֵּשׁ בִּכְלַל מִטָּה. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַדַּרְגֵּשׁ — מוּתָּר בַּמִּטָּה.

MISHNA: For one who vows that a bed is forbidden to him, it is permitted to lie in a dargash, which is not commonly called a bed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: A dargash is included in the category of a bed. Everyone agrees that for one who vows that a dargash is forbidden to him, it is permitted to lie in a bed.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי דַּרְגֵּשׁ? אָמַר עוּלָּא: עַרְסָא דְגַדָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְעוּלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: כְּשֶׁהֵן מַבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כׇּל הָעָם מְסוּבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵיסֵב עַל הַדַּרְגֵּשׁ. כּוּלָּהּ שַׁתָּא לָא יָתֵיב עֲלֵהּ, הָהוּא יוֹמָא יָתֵיב עֲלֵהּ? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבָּשָׂר וְיַיִן, דְּכוּלַּהּ שַׁתָּא אִי בָּעֵי — אָכֵיל, וְאִי בָּעֵי — לָא אָכֵיל, הָהוּא יוֹמָא אֲנַן יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ!

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is a dargash? Ulla said: It is a bed of good fortune, placed in the house as a fortuitous omen, and not designated for sleeping. The Rabbis said to Ulla: That which we learned in a mishna: When the people serve the king the meal of comfort after he buries a relative, all the people recline on the ground and the king reclines on a dargash during the meal. According to your explanation, during the entire year he does not sit on the bed; on that day of the funeral he sits on it? Ravina objects to the question of the Rabbis: This anomaly is just as it is with regard to meat and wine, as throughout the entire year if he wishes he eats them, and if he wishes he does not eat them; on that day of the funeral, we give him meat and wine in the meal of comfort.

אֶלָּא הָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: דַּרְגֵּשׁ לֹא הָיָה כּוֹפֵהוּ, אֶלָּא זוֹקְפוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ עַרְסָא דְגַדָּא הוּא, וְהָתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹפֶה אֶת מִטָּתוֹ — לֹא מִטָּתוֹ בִּלְבַד הוּא כּוֹפֶה, אֶלָּא כׇּל מִטּוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת הוּא כּוֹפֶה! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא,

Rather, this is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the custom of overturning the beds in the house of a mourner: With regard to a dargash in his house, the mourner would not overturn it, but he merely stands it on its side. And if you say that a dargash is a bed of fortune, isn’t it taught in a baraita: A mourner who is required to overturn his bed is required to overturn not only his own bed, but to overturn all of the beds that he has inside his house, even those not used for sleeping. Why, then, is he not required to overturn the dargash? The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not difficult;

מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמִּטָּה הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לְכֵלִים, דְּתַנְיָא: אִם הָיְתָה מִטָּה הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לְכֵלִים — אֵין צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹתָהּ.

this is just as it is with regard to the case of a bed designated exclusively for vessels, as it is taught in a baraita: If the bed in a mourner’s house was a bed designated for vessels and not for sleeping, one need not overturn it. The same is true with regard to the bed of fortune. Since it is not for sleeping, one need not overturn it.

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא — הָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: דַּרְגֵּשׁ — מַתִּיר קַרְבִּיטָיו וְהוּא נוֹפֵל מֵאֵלָיו. וְאִי דַּרְגֵּשׁ עַרְסָא דְגַדָּא הוּא, קַרְבִּיטִין מִי אִית לֵיהּ? כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: שְׁאֵילְתֵּיהּ לְהָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר מַעְרְבָא שְׁמֵיהּ, דַּהֲוָה שְׁכִיחַ בְּשׁוּקָא דְצַלָּעֵי, וְאָמַר לִי: מַאי דַּרְגֵּשׁ — עַרְסָא דְצַלָּא.

Rather, if defining a dargash as a bed of fortune is difficult, this is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A mourner need not overturn a dargash; rather, he loosens the loops that connect the straps that support the bedding to the bedframe, and it collapses on its own. And if a dargash is a bed of fortune, does it have loops [karvitin]? When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: I asked one of the Sages about the meaning of dargash, and Rav Taḥalifa, from the West, was his name, who frequented the tanners’ market. And he said to me: What is a dargash? It is a leather bed.

אִיתְּמַר, אֵיזֶהוּ מִטָּה וְאֵיזֶהוּ דַּרְגֵּשׁ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִטָּה — מְסָרְגִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּבָּהּ, דַּרְגֵּשׁ — מְסָרְגִין אוֹתוֹ מִגּוּפוֹ. מֵיתִיבִי: כְּלֵי עֵץ מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה? הַמִּטָּה וְהָעֲרִיסָה — מִשֶּׁיְּשׁוּפֵם בְּעוֹר הַדָּג. וְאִי מִטָּה מִסְתָּרֶגֶת עַל גַּבָּהּ, לְמָה לִי שִׁיפַת עוֹר הַדָּג?

It was stated: Which is a bed and which is a dargash? Rabbi Yirmeya said: In a bed, one fastens the supporting straps over the bedframe; in a dargash, one fastens the straps through holes in the bedframe itself. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna in tractate Kelim (16:1): With regard to wooden vessels, from when are they considered finished vessels and susceptible to ritual impurity? A bed and a crib are susceptible from when he smooths them with the skin of a fish. And the objection is: If in a bed the straps are fastened over the bedframe, why do I need smoothing with the skin of a fish? The wood of the bedframe is obscured from view.

אֶלָּא הָא וְהָא מִגּוּפָן. מִטָּה — אַעוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּבִזְיָנֵי, דַּרְגֵּשׁ — אַעוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּאֲבַקְתָּא.

Rather, with regard to both this, a bed, and that, a dargash, one fastens the straps through holes in the bedframes themselves, and the difference between them is: In a bed, the straps are inserted and extracted through holes in the bedframe; in a dargash, the straps are inserted and extracted through loops attached to the bedframe, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that one loosens the loops and the bedding falls on its own.

אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַבִּי: מִטָּה שֶׁנַּקְלִיטֶיהָ יוֹצְאִין, זוֹקְפָהּ וְדַיּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: With regard to a bed whose two posts [nakliteha] protrude, rendering its overturning impossible, he stands it on its side, and that is sufficient for him. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to the overturning of a dargash.

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הָעִיר — מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס לִתְחוּמָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, וְאָסוּר לִיכָּנֵס לְעִיבּוּרָהּ. אֲבָל הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבַּיִת — אָסוּר מִן הָאֲגַף וְלִפְנִים.

MISHNA: For one who vows that the city is forbidden to him, it is permitted to enter the Shabbat boundary of that city, the two-thousand-cubit area surrounding the city, and it is prohibited to enter its outskirts, the seventy-cubit area adjacent to the city. However, for one who vows that a house is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to enter only from the doorstop and inward.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָלַן דְּעִיבּוּרָא דְמָתָא כְּמָתָא דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּירִיחוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, מַאי בִּירִיחוֹ? אִילֵּימָא בִּירִיחוֹ מַמָּשׁ, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וִירִיחוֹ סֹגֶרֶת וּמְסֻגֶּרֶת״! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּעִיבּוּרָהּ.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the legal status of the outskirts of a city are like that of the city itself? Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is as the verse states: “And it came to pass when Joshua was in Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked” (Joshua 5:13). What is the meaning of “in Jericho”? If we say that it means in Jericho proper, isn’t it written: “And Jericho was completely shut” (Joshua 6:1)? Rather, learn from here that Joshua was in the outskirts of the city. And although he was in the outskirts, the verse states that he was in Jericho.

אֵימָא אֲפִילּוּ בִּתְחוּמָהּ! הָא כְּתִיב בִּתְחוּמָהּ ״וּמַדֹּתֶם מִחוּץ לָעִיר״.

The Gemara asks: Say that the legal status of one located even in the Shabbat boundary of a city is like that of one inside the town itself, and perhaps although Joshua was merely within the Shabbat boundary, the verse characterizes him as being in Jericho. The Gemara rejects this: Isn’t it written with regard to the boundary of a city: “And you shall measure outside the city…two thousand cubits” (Numbers 35:5)? This indicates that the boundary of a city is considered outside the town and not part of the city itself.

הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבַּיִת — אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִן הָאֲגַף וְלִפְנִים. אֲבָל מִן הָאֲגַף וְלַחוּץ — לֹא. מֵתִיב רַב מָרִי: ״וְיָצָא הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַבַּיִת״, יָכוֹל יֵלֵךְ לְבֵיתוֹ וְיַסְגִּיר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת״. אִי אֶל פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת, יָכוֹל יַעֲמוֹד תַּחַת הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְיַסְגִּיר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַבַּיִת״, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִן הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ.

§ We learned in the mishna: For one who vows that a house is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to enter only from the doorstop and inward. The Gemara infers: However, from the doorstop outward, no, it is permitted to enter. Rav Mari raised an objection based on a verse written with regard to leprosy: “And the priest shall go out from the house to the entrance of the house, and he shall quarantine the house” (Leviticus 14:38). And the question was raised in the halakhic midrash: One might have thought that the priest may go to his house and quarantine the leprous house that he examined from there. Therefore, the verse states: “To the entrance of the house” (Leviticus 14:38). If he may go only to the entrance of the house, one might have thought that he may stand beneath the lintel and quarantine the house from there. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall go out from the house,” indicating that he may not quarantine the house until he goes out from the entire house.

הָא כֵּיצַד? עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְיַסְגִּיר. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הָלַךְ לְבֵיתוֹ וְהִסְגִּיר, אוֹ שֶׁעָמַד תַּחַת הַשָּׁקוֹף וְהִסְגִּיר, שֶׁהֶסְגֵּירוֹ מוּסְגָּר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִסְגִּיר אֶת הַבַּיִת״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. שָׁאנֵי גַּבֵּי בַּיִת, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִן הַבַּיִת״, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִן הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ.

How so? Ab initio, the priest stands outside, alongside the door jamb, and quarantines the house. And from where is it derived that if he went to his house and quarantined the house, or stood beneath the lintel and quarantined the house, that his quarantine is an effective quarantine after the fact? The verse states: “And he shall quarantine the house” (Leviticus 14:38), which means in any case. Apparently, the legal status of the area beneath the lintel is identical to the status inside the house, even if it is beyond the doorstop. The Gemara answers: It is different with regard to a leprous house, as it is written: “And the priest shall go out from the house,” indicating that he cannot quarantine the house until he goes out from the entire house.

Today’s daily daf tools:

Delve Deeper

Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Deb Engel

Los Angeles, United States

Jill Shames
Jill Shames

Jerusalem, Israel

I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!

Harriet Hartman
Harriet Hartman

Tzur Hadassah, Israel

I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)

Barbara-Goldschlag
Barbara Goldschlag

Silver Spring, MD, United States

I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!

Shira Jacobowitz
Shira Jacobowitz

Jerusalem, Israel

I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.

Adina Hagege
Adina Hagege

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!

Catriella-Freedman-jpeg
Catriella Freedman

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.

Beth Elster
Beth Elster

Irvine, United States

I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.

Jenifer Nech
Jenifer Nech

Houston, United States

I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!

Rochel Cheifetz
Rochel Cheifetz

Riverdale, NY, United States

I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.

Naomi Niederhoffer
Naomi Niederhoffer

Toronto, Canada

I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!

Dena Lehrman
Dena Lehrman

אפרת, Israel

My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.

Diana Bloom
Diana Bloom

Tampa, United States

What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.

Marian Frankston
Marian Frankston

Pennsylvania, United States

3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!

Lisa Kolodny
Lisa Kolodny

Raanana, Israel

I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!

Keren Carter
Keren Carter

Brentwood, California, United States

I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Dora Chana Haar

Oceanside NY, United States

In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).

Sara-Averick-photo-scaled
Sara Averick

Jerusalem, Israel

In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.

Reena Slovin
Reena Slovin

Worcester, United States

I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.

Rookie Billet
Rookie Billet

Jerusalem, Israel

Nedarim 56

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבַּיִת — מוּתָּר בַּעֲלִיָּיה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עֲלִיָּיה בִּכְלַל הַבַּיִת. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן עֲלִיָּיה — מוּתָּר בְּבַיִת.

MISHNA: For one who vows that a house is forbidden to him, entry is permitted for him in the upper story of the house; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An upper story is included in the house, and therefore, entry is prohibited there as well. However, for one who vows that an upper story is forbidden to him, entry is permitted in the house, as the ground floor is not included in the upper story.

גְּמָ׳ מַאן תְּנָא ״בְּבֵית״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיָּצִיעַ, ״בְּבֵית״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאִי רַבָּנַן, הָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: עֲלִיָּיה בִּכְלַל הַבַּיִת, לְמָה לִי קְרָא ״בְּבֵית״ לְרִיבּוּיָא?

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught with regard to the halakhot of leprosy that in the verse “it appears to me as it were a plague in the house” (Leviticus 14:35), the term “in the house” comes to include the gallery, a half story above the ground floor, and “in the house” comes to include the upper story? Rav Ḥisda said: The tanna is Rabbi Meir, as, if the tanna were the Rabbis, didn’t the Rabbis say that a second story is included in the house? Why then do I need the verse containing the phrase “in the house” to include the second story?

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, בָּעֲיָא קְרָא. דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא ״בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם״ כְּתִיב. דִּמְחַבַּר בְּאַרְעָא — שְׁמֵיהּ בַּיִת, עֲלִיָּיה — הָא לָא מְחַבַּר בְּאַרְעָא.

Abaye said: Even if you would say that the tanna is the Rabbis, they too require a verse to include the second story in this case, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34), only that which is attached to the ground has the status of a house but with regard to a second story, that is not attached to the ground. Even according to the Rabbis, the verse is necessary to prevent the conclusion that the legal status of a second story is not that of a house with regard to leprosy.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: ״בַּיִת בְּבֵיתִי אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״ — מַרְאֵהוּ עֲלִיָּיה. טַעְמָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת שֶׁבְּבֵיתִי אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אֲבָל ״בַּיִת״ סְתָם — אֵינוֹ מַרְאֵהוּ עֲלִיָּיה. לֵימָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, מַאי ״עֲלִיָּיה״ — מְעוּלָּה שֶׁבַּבָּתִּים.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Ulla? If the seller says to the buyer: A house in my house I am selling to you, he may show the buyer that he purchased the second story [aliyya]. The Gemara infers: The reason is that the seller said to him: A house in my house I am selling to you. However, if he sold him a house, unspecified, he may not show him a second story. Let us say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who states that the second story is not included in the house. The Gemara rejects this claim: Even if you would say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the term aliyya in this context? It does not mean second story; it means the most outstanding of the houses. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Ulla that when one says a house in my house, he must show him the most outstanding part of his house. However, if he sold him a house without specification, he may show him a second story.

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמִּטָּה — מוּתָּר בַּדַּרְגֵּשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: דַּרְגֵּשׁ בִּכְלַל מִטָּה. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַדַּרְגֵּשׁ — מוּתָּר בַּמִּטָּה.

MISHNA: For one who vows that a bed is forbidden to him, it is permitted to lie in a dargash, which is not commonly called a bed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: A dargash is included in the category of a bed. Everyone agrees that for one who vows that a dargash is forbidden to him, it is permitted to lie in a bed.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי דַּרְגֵּשׁ? אָמַר עוּלָּא: עַרְסָא דְגַדָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְעוּלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: כְּשֶׁהֵן מַבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כׇּל הָעָם מְסוּבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵיסֵב עַל הַדַּרְגֵּשׁ. כּוּלָּהּ שַׁתָּא לָא יָתֵיב עֲלֵהּ, הָהוּא יוֹמָא יָתֵיב עֲלֵהּ? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבָּשָׂר וְיַיִן, דְּכוּלַּהּ שַׁתָּא אִי בָּעֵי — אָכֵיל, וְאִי בָּעֵי — לָא אָכֵיל, הָהוּא יוֹמָא אֲנַן יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ!

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is a dargash? Ulla said: It is a bed of good fortune, placed in the house as a fortuitous omen, and not designated for sleeping. The Rabbis said to Ulla: That which we learned in a mishna: When the people serve the king the meal of comfort after he buries a relative, all the people recline on the ground and the king reclines on a dargash during the meal. According to your explanation, during the entire year he does not sit on the bed; on that day of the funeral he sits on it? Ravina objects to the question of the Rabbis: This anomaly is just as it is with regard to meat and wine, as throughout the entire year if he wishes he eats them, and if he wishes he does not eat them; on that day of the funeral, we give him meat and wine in the meal of comfort.

אֶלָּא הָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: דַּרְגֵּשׁ לֹא הָיָה כּוֹפֵהוּ, אֶלָּא זוֹקְפוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ עַרְסָא דְגַדָּא הוּא, וְהָתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹפֶה אֶת מִטָּתוֹ — לֹא מִטָּתוֹ בִּלְבַד הוּא כּוֹפֶה, אֶלָּא כׇּל מִטּוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת הוּא כּוֹפֶה! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא,

Rather, this is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the custom of overturning the beds in the house of a mourner: With regard to a dargash in his house, the mourner would not overturn it, but he merely stands it on its side. And if you say that a dargash is a bed of fortune, isn’t it taught in a baraita: A mourner who is required to overturn his bed is required to overturn not only his own bed, but to overturn all of the beds that he has inside his house, even those not used for sleeping. Why, then, is he not required to overturn the dargash? The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not difficult;

מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמִּטָּה הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לְכֵלִים, דְּתַנְיָא: אִם הָיְתָה מִטָּה הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לְכֵלִים — אֵין צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹתָהּ.

this is just as it is with regard to the case of a bed designated exclusively for vessels, as it is taught in a baraita: If the bed in a mourner’s house was a bed designated for vessels and not for sleeping, one need not overturn it. The same is true with regard to the bed of fortune. Since it is not for sleeping, one need not overturn it.

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא — הָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: דַּרְגֵּשׁ — מַתִּיר קַרְבִּיטָיו וְהוּא נוֹפֵל מֵאֵלָיו. וְאִי דַּרְגֵּשׁ עַרְסָא דְגַדָּא הוּא, קַרְבִּיטִין מִי אִית לֵיהּ? כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: שְׁאֵילְתֵּיהּ לְהָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר מַעְרְבָא שְׁמֵיהּ, דַּהֲוָה שְׁכִיחַ בְּשׁוּקָא דְצַלָּעֵי, וְאָמַר לִי: מַאי דַּרְגֵּשׁ — עַרְסָא דְצַלָּא.

Rather, if defining a dargash as a bed of fortune is difficult, this is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A mourner need not overturn a dargash; rather, he loosens the loops that connect the straps that support the bedding to the bedframe, and it collapses on its own. And if a dargash is a bed of fortune, does it have loops [karvitin]? When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: I asked one of the Sages about the meaning of dargash, and Rav Taḥalifa, from the West, was his name, who frequented the tanners’ market. And he said to me: What is a dargash? It is a leather bed.

אִיתְּמַר, אֵיזֶהוּ מִטָּה וְאֵיזֶהוּ דַּרְגֵּשׁ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִטָּה — מְסָרְגִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּבָּהּ, דַּרְגֵּשׁ — מְסָרְגִין אוֹתוֹ מִגּוּפוֹ. מֵיתִיבִי: כְּלֵי עֵץ מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה? הַמִּטָּה וְהָעֲרִיסָה — מִשֶּׁיְּשׁוּפֵם בְּעוֹר הַדָּג. וְאִי מִטָּה מִסְתָּרֶגֶת עַל גַּבָּהּ, לְמָה לִי שִׁיפַת עוֹר הַדָּג?

It was stated: Which is a bed and which is a dargash? Rabbi Yirmeya said: In a bed, one fastens the supporting straps over the bedframe; in a dargash, one fastens the straps through holes in the bedframe itself. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna in tractate Kelim (16:1): With regard to wooden vessels, from when are they considered finished vessels and susceptible to ritual impurity? A bed and a crib are susceptible from when he smooths them with the skin of a fish. And the objection is: If in a bed the straps are fastened over the bedframe, why do I need smoothing with the skin of a fish? The wood of the bedframe is obscured from view.

אֶלָּא הָא וְהָא מִגּוּפָן. מִטָּה — אַעוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּבִזְיָנֵי, דַּרְגֵּשׁ — אַעוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּאֲבַקְתָּא.

Rather, with regard to both this, a bed, and that, a dargash, one fastens the straps through holes in the bedframes themselves, and the difference between them is: In a bed, the straps are inserted and extracted through holes in the bedframe; in a dargash, the straps are inserted and extracted through loops attached to the bedframe, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that one loosens the loops and the bedding falls on its own.

אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַבִּי: מִטָּה שֶׁנַּקְלִיטֶיהָ יוֹצְאִין, זוֹקְפָהּ וְדַיּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: With regard to a bed whose two posts [nakliteha] protrude, rendering its overturning impossible, he stands it on its side, and that is sufficient for him. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to the overturning of a dargash.

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הָעִיר — מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס לִתְחוּמָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, וְאָסוּר לִיכָּנֵס לְעִיבּוּרָהּ. אֲבָל הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבַּיִת — אָסוּר מִן הָאֲגַף וְלִפְנִים.

MISHNA: For one who vows that the city is forbidden to him, it is permitted to enter the Shabbat boundary of that city, the two-thousand-cubit area surrounding the city, and it is prohibited to enter its outskirts, the seventy-cubit area adjacent to the city. However, for one who vows that a house is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to enter only from the doorstop and inward.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָלַן דְּעִיבּוּרָא דְמָתָא כְּמָתָא דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּירִיחוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, מַאי בִּירִיחוֹ? אִילֵּימָא בִּירִיחוֹ מַמָּשׁ, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וִירִיחוֹ סֹגֶרֶת וּמְסֻגֶּרֶת״! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּעִיבּוּרָהּ.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the legal status of the outskirts of a city are like that of the city itself? Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is as the verse states: “And it came to pass when Joshua was in Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked” (Joshua 5:13). What is the meaning of “in Jericho”? If we say that it means in Jericho proper, isn’t it written: “And Jericho was completely shut” (Joshua 6:1)? Rather, learn from here that Joshua was in the outskirts of the city. And although he was in the outskirts, the verse states that he was in Jericho.

אֵימָא אֲפִילּוּ בִּתְחוּמָהּ! הָא כְּתִיב בִּתְחוּמָהּ ״וּמַדֹּתֶם מִחוּץ לָעִיר״.

The Gemara asks: Say that the legal status of one located even in the Shabbat boundary of a city is like that of one inside the town itself, and perhaps although Joshua was merely within the Shabbat boundary, the verse characterizes him as being in Jericho. The Gemara rejects this: Isn’t it written with regard to the boundary of a city: “And you shall measure outside the city…two thousand cubits” (Numbers 35:5)? This indicates that the boundary of a city is considered outside the town and not part of the city itself.

הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבַּיִת — אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִן הָאֲגַף וְלִפְנִים. אֲבָל מִן הָאֲגַף וְלַחוּץ — לֹא. מֵתִיב רַב מָרִי: ״וְיָצָא הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַבַּיִת״, יָכוֹל יֵלֵךְ לְבֵיתוֹ וְיַסְגִּיר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת״. אִי אֶל פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת, יָכוֹל יַעֲמוֹד תַּחַת הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְיַסְגִּיר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַבַּיִת״, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִן הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ.

§ We learned in the mishna: For one who vows that a house is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to enter only from the doorstop and inward. The Gemara infers: However, from the doorstop outward, no, it is permitted to enter. Rav Mari raised an objection based on a verse written with regard to leprosy: “And the priest shall go out from the house to the entrance of the house, and he shall quarantine the house” (Leviticus 14:38). And the question was raised in the halakhic midrash: One might have thought that the priest may go to his house and quarantine the leprous house that he examined from there. Therefore, the verse states: “To the entrance of the house” (Leviticus 14:38). If he may go only to the entrance of the house, one might have thought that he may stand beneath the lintel and quarantine the house from there. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall go out from the house,” indicating that he may not quarantine the house until he goes out from the entire house.

הָא כֵּיצַד? עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְיַסְגִּיר. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הָלַךְ לְבֵיתוֹ וְהִסְגִּיר, אוֹ שֶׁעָמַד תַּחַת הַשָּׁקוֹף וְהִסְגִּיר, שֶׁהֶסְגֵּירוֹ מוּסְגָּר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִסְגִּיר אֶת הַבַּיִת״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. שָׁאנֵי גַּבֵּי בַּיִת, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִן הַבַּיִת״, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִן הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ.

How so? Ab initio, the priest stands outside, alongside the door jamb, and quarantines the house. And from where is it derived that if he went to his house and quarantined the house, or stood beneath the lintel and quarantined the house, that his quarantine is an effective quarantine after the fact? The verse states: “And he shall quarantine the house” (Leviticus 14:38), which means in any case. Apparently, the legal status of the area beneath the lintel is identical to the status inside the house, even if it is beyond the doorstop. The Gemara answers: It is different with regard to a leprous house, as it is written: “And the priest shall go out from the house,” indicating that he cannot quarantine the house until he goes out from the entire house.

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete