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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 31, 2022 | 讜壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讙

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

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

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

Nedarim 6

Abaye holds that yadot (cut-off sentence) of a vow is considered a vow. The Gemara raises two difficulties against Abaye from braitot. The questions are each resolved in different manners. Rav Papa asks if yadot are effective in kiddushin, betrothal, or peah, designated a corner of your field for the poor. In what case is the question asked? No answer is given. Can we infer from the example brought for peah that one can make one’s entire field peah? Why is there deliberation regarding yadot for peah?

讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讛讜

as a man does not divorce the wife of his fellow, so it is obvious that he is writing the bill of divorce to his wife. However, did you hear them state generally that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations?

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注诇讬 讛专讬 讝讛 [注诇讬] 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讚 诇拽专讘谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita: If one says with regard to an object lying before him: It is upon me, or: This is hereby upon me, it is forbidden, because it is an intimation that he is rendering the object forbidden to himself like an offering. This baraita indicates that the reason it is forbidden is that he specifically said: Upon me. However, if he did not say: Upon me, no, it is not forbidden, because this expression is an ambiguous intimation. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye, who holds that even ambiguous intimations are valid intimations.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专 注诇讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讚讛驻拽专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讚爪讚拽讛 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讚 诇拽专讘谉 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: Abaye could have said to you that the reason it is forbidden is that he specifically said: Upon me. However, if he said: It is hereby, and did not say: Upon me, his statement is not considered an intimation of a vow at all, as he could have been saying: It is hereby ownerless property, or: It is hereby charity. The Gemara asks: But the baraita teaches that the object is forbidden because his statement is an intimation that he is rendering the object forbidden to himself like an offering. With regard to consecrating an offering, even the statement: This is, without the additional phrase: Upon me, is considered an intimation. Nevertheless, the baraita indicates that if one does not say: Upon me, the vow does not take effect. This must be because an ambiguous intimation is not a vow.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讚讚诇诪讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 拽讗诪专

Rather, say the following: The reason is that he specifically said: Upon me; consequently, he is prohibited from benefiting from the object, but another person is permitted to benefit from it. However, if he said: It is hereby, and did not add the expression: Upon me, both of them are prohibited from benefiting from it because perhaps he is saying: It is hereby consecrated property. In other words, there is concern that he may have actually consecrated the object rather than taking a vow that it is forbidden to him as though it were consecrated.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讟讗转 讛专讬 讝讜 讗砖诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讟讗转讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讗砖诪讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讞讜讬讘 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara raises an objection to this on the basis of the following baraita: If one says: This is hereby a sin-offering, or: This is hereby a guilt-offering, then even if he is liable to bring a sin-offering or guilt-offering he has said nothing, as this is an ambiguous intimation. However, if he said: This is hereby my sin-offering, or: This is hereby my guilt-offering, then if he was liable to bring that offering his statement takes effect, because this is an obvious intimation. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: Abaye could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that ambiguous intimations are not intimations. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it Abaye who said: I say that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: He retracted this statement and admitted that Rabbi Yehuda holds that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations.

讗诇讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But shall we say that just as Abaye retracted his statement that his opinion can be stated even according to Rabbi Yehuda, Rava, who said that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations, also retracted his initial statement and admitted that his opinion is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讙讟 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转

The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you: I say my statement even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis say that we do not require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce, as a man does not divorce the wife of his fellow, so it is obvious that he is writing the bill of divorce to his wife. However, generally we require obvious intimations.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 讬讚 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗讜 诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讜讗转 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 注爪诪谉 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讜讗转 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讗转 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讜转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讜讗转 讞讝讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讜诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讘讞讘讬专转讛

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Is there intimation for betrothal or not? Does betrothal take effect via an incomplete statement? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of such a case? If we say it is a case where one said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me, and he said to another woman: And you too, isn鈥檛 it obvious that this is betrothal itself, and it takes effect? Rather, it is a case where one said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me, and he said to another woman: And you. Do we say that he said the other woman: And you too are betrothed, and betrothal takes effect with regard to the other woman, or perhaps he said to the other woman: And you see that I am betrothing this woman, and betrothal does not take effect with regard to the other woman?

讜诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗 诪讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讬 住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讛讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬砖 讬讚 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讞讚讗 诪讙讜 诪讗讬 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬

The Gemara asks: Did Rav Pappa raise this as a dilemma? But from the fact that Rav Pappa said to Abaye in a case concerning betrothal (see Kiddushin 5b): Does Shmuel hold that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations, it can be proven by inference that Rav Pappa holds that there is intimation for betrothal. The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa spoke to Abaye about one of the opinions that Shmuel held. Shmuel had ruled that even an ambiguous intimation was sufficient in the case of betrothal, and Rav Pappa questioned this ruling without expressing his own opinion that even obvious intimations are not valid with regard to betrothal.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 讬讚 诇驻讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讚 诇驻讗讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 讗讜讙讬讗 诇讬讛讜讬 驻讗讛 讜讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讛讬讗 驻讬讗讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讜讛讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 谞诪讬 诪讗讬

Rav Pappa raised another dilemma: Is there intimation for pe鈥檃, the produce in the corner of a field that must be left for the poor, or is there no intimation for pe鈥檃? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say it is a case where one said: This furrow [ugeya] shall be pe鈥檃 and this one too, this is a full-fledged declaration of pe鈥檃. The Gemara explains: He raises the dilemma with regard to a case where he said: And this, and he did not say: And this one too, and therefore his statement can be interpreted to mean that this other furrow should remain his and not be included in the pe鈥檃 (Tosafot). What is the halakha in this case?

诪讻诇诇 讚讻讬 讗诪专 砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 转讬讛讜讬 驻讗讛 讛讜讬讗 驻讗讛

The Gemara interrupts this train of thought and wonders: Does this prove by inference that in a case where one said: The entire field shall be pe鈥檃, it would all be rendered pe鈥檃? The case must be one where the first furrow was large enough to serve as pe鈥檃 for the entire field, because if that were not the case, it would be clear that he meant that the second furrow should also be pe鈥檃. Consequently, it is clear from Rav Pappa鈥檚 question that one can designate as pe鈥檃 a larger portion of the field than one is absolutely required to designate.

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 专讜爪讛 诇注砖讜转 讻诇 砖讚讛讜 驻讗讛 注讜砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻讗转 砖讚讱

The Gemara answers: Yes, and it is taught in the following baraita: From where is it derived that if one wants to render his entire field pe鈥檃, he may do so? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not wholly reap the corner of your field鈥 (Leviticus 19:9). This is expounded to mean that the entirety of 鈥測our field鈥 may be designated as the 鈥渃orner鈥 that is left for the poor.

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转拽砖 诇拽专讘谞讜转 诪讛 拽专讘谞讜转 讬砖 诇讛诐 讬讚 讗祝 驻讗讛 讬砖 诇讛 讬讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇讘诇 转讗讞专 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转拽砖 讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转拽砖 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara returns to its discussion of Rav Pappa鈥檚 dilemma. Do we say that since pe鈥檃 is juxtaposed to offerings, just as offerings have intimation, so too, pe鈥檃 has intimation? Or perhaps when pe鈥檃 is juxtaposed to offerings, it is juxtaposed to indicate only that it is subject to the prohibition: You shall not delay? The Gemara clarifies: And where is it juxtaposed? As it is taught in a baraita:

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

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 2-7 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what a Neder (vow) is and how one can obligate or prohibit something to themselves....
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

Nedarim 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 6

讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讛讜

as a man does not divorce the wife of his fellow, so it is obvious that he is writing the bill of divorce to his wife. However, did you hear them state generally that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations?

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注诇讬 讛专讬 讝讛 [注诇讬] 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讚 诇拽专讘谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita: If one says with regard to an object lying before him: It is upon me, or: This is hereby upon me, it is forbidden, because it is an intimation that he is rendering the object forbidden to himself like an offering. This baraita indicates that the reason it is forbidden is that he specifically said: Upon me. However, if he did not say: Upon me, no, it is not forbidden, because this expression is an ambiguous intimation. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye, who holds that even ambiguous intimations are valid intimations.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专 注诇讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讚讛驻拽专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讚爪讚拽讛 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讚 诇拽专讘谉 拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: Abaye could have said to you that the reason it is forbidden is that he specifically said: Upon me. However, if he said: It is hereby, and did not say: Upon me, his statement is not considered an intimation of a vow at all, as he could have been saying: It is hereby ownerless property, or: It is hereby charity. The Gemara asks: But the baraita teaches that the object is forbidden because his statement is an intimation that he is rendering the object forbidden to himself like an offering. With regard to consecrating an offering, even the statement: This is, without the additional phrase: Upon me, is considered an intimation. Nevertheless, the baraita indicates that if one does not say: Upon me, the vow does not take effect. This must be because an ambiguous intimation is not a vow.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讚讚诇诪讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 拽讗诪专

Rather, say the following: The reason is that he specifically said: Upon me; consequently, he is prohibited from benefiting from the object, but another person is permitted to benefit from it. However, if he said: It is hereby, and did not add the expression: Upon me, both of them are prohibited from benefiting from it because perhaps he is saying: It is hereby consecrated property. In other words, there is concern that he may have actually consecrated the object rather than taking a vow that it is forbidden to him as though it were consecrated.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讟讗转 讛专讬 讝讜 讗砖诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讟讗转讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讗砖诪讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讞讜讬讘 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara raises an objection to this on the basis of the following baraita: If one says: This is hereby a sin-offering, or: This is hereby a guilt-offering, then even if he is liable to bring a sin-offering or guilt-offering he has said nothing, as this is an ambiguous intimation. However, if he said: This is hereby my sin-offering, or: This is hereby my guilt-offering, then if he was liable to bring that offering his statement takes effect, because this is an obvious intimation. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: Abaye could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that ambiguous intimations are not intimations. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it Abaye who said: I say that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: He retracted this statement and admitted that Rabbi Yehuda holds that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations.

讗诇讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But shall we say that just as Abaye retracted his statement that his opinion can be stated even according to Rabbi Yehuda, Rava, who said that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations, also retracted his initial statement and admitted that his opinion is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讙讟 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转

The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you: I say my statement even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis say that we do not require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce, as a man does not divorce the wife of his fellow, so it is obvious that he is writing the bill of divorce to his wife. However, generally we require obvious intimations.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 讬讚 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗讜 诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讜讗转 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 注爪诪谉 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讜讗转 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讗转 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讜转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讜讗转 讞讝讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讜诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讘讞讘讬专转讛

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Is there intimation for betrothal or not? Does betrothal take effect via an incomplete statement? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of such a case? If we say it is a case where one said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me, and he said to another woman: And you too, isn鈥檛 it obvious that this is betrothal itself, and it takes effect? Rather, it is a case where one said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me, and he said to another woman: And you. Do we say that he said the other woman: And you too are betrothed, and betrothal takes effect with regard to the other woman, or perhaps he said to the other woman: And you see that I am betrothing this woman, and betrothal does not take effect with regard to the other woman?

讜诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗 诪讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讬 住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讛讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬砖 讬讚 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讞讚讗 诪讙讜 诪讗讬 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬

The Gemara asks: Did Rav Pappa raise this as a dilemma? But from the fact that Rav Pappa said to Abaye in a case concerning betrothal (see Kiddushin 5b): Does Shmuel hold that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations, it can be proven by inference that Rav Pappa holds that there is intimation for betrothal. The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa spoke to Abaye about one of the opinions that Shmuel held. Shmuel had ruled that even an ambiguous intimation was sufficient in the case of betrothal, and Rav Pappa questioned this ruling without expressing his own opinion that even obvious intimations are not valid with regard to betrothal.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 讬讚 诇驻讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讚 诇驻讗讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 讗讜讙讬讗 诇讬讛讜讬 驻讗讛 讜讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讛讬讗 驻讬讗讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讜讛讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 谞诪讬 诪讗讬

Rav Pappa raised another dilemma: Is there intimation for pe鈥檃, the produce in the corner of a field that must be left for the poor, or is there no intimation for pe鈥檃? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say it is a case where one said: This furrow [ugeya] shall be pe鈥檃 and this one too, this is a full-fledged declaration of pe鈥檃. The Gemara explains: He raises the dilemma with regard to a case where he said: And this, and he did not say: And this one too, and therefore his statement can be interpreted to mean that this other furrow should remain his and not be included in the pe鈥檃 (Tosafot). What is the halakha in this case?

诪讻诇诇 讚讻讬 讗诪专 砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 转讬讛讜讬 驻讗讛 讛讜讬讗 驻讗讛

The Gemara interrupts this train of thought and wonders: Does this prove by inference that in a case where one said: The entire field shall be pe鈥檃, it would all be rendered pe鈥檃? The case must be one where the first furrow was large enough to serve as pe鈥檃 for the entire field, because if that were not the case, it would be clear that he meant that the second furrow should also be pe鈥檃. Consequently, it is clear from Rav Pappa鈥檚 question that one can designate as pe鈥檃 a larger portion of the field than one is absolutely required to designate.

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 专讜爪讛 诇注砖讜转 讻诇 砖讚讛讜 驻讗讛 注讜砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻讗转 砖讚讱

The Gemara answers: Yes, and it is taught in the following baraita: From where is it derived that if one wants to render his entire field pe鈥檃, he may do so? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not wholly reap the corner of your field鈥 (Leviticus 19:9). This is expounded to mean that the entirety of 鈥測our field鈥 may be designated as the 鈥渃orner鈥 that is left for the poor.

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转拽砖 诇拽专讘谞讜转 诪讛 拽专讘谞讜转 讬砖 诇讛诐 讬讚 讗祝 驻讗讛 讬砖 诇讛 讬讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇讘诇 转讗讞专 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转拽砖 讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转拽砖 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara returns to its discussion of Rav Pappa鈥檚 dilemma. Do we say that since pe鈥檃 is juxtaposed to offerings, just as offerings have intimation, so too, pe鈥檃 has intimation? Or perhaps when pe鈥檃 is juxtaposed to offerings, it is juxtaposed to indicate only that it is subject to the prohibition: You shall not delay? The Gemara clarifies: And where is it juxtaposed? As it is taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top