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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 28, 2015 | 讬状讘 讘讗讘 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Nedarim 65

转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讬谉 诇讱 砖讘 诪爪专讬诐 讻讬 诪转讜 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讘诪讚讬谉 谞讚专转 诇讱 讜讛转专 谞讚专讱 讘诪讚讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讜讗诇 诪砖讛 讗讬谉 讗诇讛 讗诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘讗 讗转讜 讘讗诇讛

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:12): With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another, they dissolve the vow for him only in the presence of the one who is the subject of the vow. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Na岣an said: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses in Midian: Go, return to Egypt; for all the men are dead鈥 (Exodus 4:19). Rav Na岣an notes that the verse specifies where God spoke to Moses, and explains that God said to him: In Midian you vowed to Yitro that you would not return to Egypt, go and dissolve your vow in Midian. And where does it say that Moses vowed to Yitro? For it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses was content [vayo鈥檈l] to dwell with the man鈥 (Exodus 2:21). The word vayo鈥檈l is related to the word ala, and ala means nothing other than an oath, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he鈥rought him under an oath [ala]鈥 (Ezekiel 17:13), and the halakhot of dissolution of oaths are identical to those of dissolution of vows.

讜讙诐 讘诪诇讱 谞讘讜讻讚谞讗爪专 诪专讚 讗砖专 讛砖讘讬注讜 讘讗诇讛讬诐 (讞讬讬诐) 诪讗讬 诪专讚讜转讬讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 爪讚拽讬讛 诇谞讘讜讻讚谞讗爪专 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讻讬诇 讗专谞讘讗 讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘注 诇讬 讚诇讗 诪讙诇讬转 注讬诇讜讬 讜诇讗 转讬驻讜拽 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬砖转讘注

The Gemara cites another proof that one may dissolve such a vow or oath only in the presence of the party affect by the vow or oath. It states with regard to King Zedekiah: 鈥淎nd he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God鈥 (II聽Chronicles 36:13). The Gemara asks: What was his rebellion? The Gemara answers: Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit, and the latter was ashamed to be seen doing this. He said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not reveal my behavior and this matter will not emerge in public. Zedekiah took an oath to him.

诇住讜祝 讛讜讛 拽讗 诪爪讟注专 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬转砖讬诇 讗砖讘讜注转讬讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪注 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 讚拽讗 诪讘讝讬谉 诇讬讛 砖诇讞 讜讗讬讬转讬 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜爪讚拽讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 讞讝讬转讜谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 爪讚拽讬讛讜 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讗讬砖转讘注 讘砖诪讗 讚砖诪讬讗 讚诇讗 诪讙诇讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬转砖诇讬 讗砖讘讜注转讗

Later, Zedekiah was physically suffering, as he wanted to tell people what he had seen, but he could not do so due to his oath. He requested dissolution of his oath from the judges of the Sanhedrin, who dissolved it for him, and he publicly said what he had witnessed. Nebuchadnezzar heard that he was being ridiculed for his behavior. He sent for and brought the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah before him. He said to them: Did you see what Zedekiah has done? Did he not take an oath in the name of Heaven: That I will not reveal? They said to him: He requested dissolution of the oath.

[讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪转砖诇讬谉 讗砖讘讜注转讗] 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 讜讗转讜谉 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬转讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬转讜谉 诇爪讚拽讬讛讜 诪讬讚 讬砖讘讜 诇讗专抓 讬讚诪讜 讝拽谞讬 讘转 爪讬讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖砖诪讟讜 讻专讬诐 诪转讞转讬讛诐

He said to them: Can one request the dissolution of an oath? They said to him: Yes. He said to them: Must this be done in the presence of the person he took an oath to, or even not in his presence? They said to him: It must be dissolved in his presence. He said to them: And you, what did you do? What is the reason you did not say to Zedekiah that he can have his oath dissolved only in my presence? Immediately, they fulfilled the verse: 鈥淭hey sit upon the ground, and keep silence, the elders of the daughter of Zion鈥 (Lamentations 2:10). Rabbi Yitz岣k said: This means that they removed the cushions upon which they sat from underneath them, as a sign that they had erred in halakha.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谉 讻谞讜诇讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讻谞讜诇讚 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬转 砖讗讘讬讛 专注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪转 讗讜 砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 拽讜谞诐 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 砖讛讻诇讘 专注 讘转讜讻讜 讗讜 砖讛谞讞砖 讘转讜讻讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪转 讛讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞讛专讙 讛谞讞砖 讛专讬 讛谉 讻谞讜诇讚 讜讗讬谞讜 讻谞讜诇讚 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜

MISHNA: As a continuation of the opinion of the Rabbis in the previous mishna that they may not broach dissolution of a vow based on a new situation, Rabbi Meir says: There are matters that are, at first glance, like a new situation but are not in fact like a new situation, and the Rabbis do not concede to him. How so? For example, one said: Marrying so-and-so is konam for me, as her father is evil, and they told him that her father died, or that he repented. Or he said: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog inside it, or a snake inside it, and they told him that the dog died, or that the snake was killed. This is at first glance perceived like a new situation, and yet it is not in fact like a new situation, and this claim may be used to broach dissolution. But the Rabbis do not concede to him.

讙诪壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讛讻诇讘 讜讻讜壮 诪转 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞注砖讛 讻转讜诇讛 谞讚专讜 讘讚讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讘专 诪转 讜讻讘专 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Meir certain matters are similar to, but in fact do not constitute a new situation, such as a vow which states: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog there, where the halakha is that if the dog dies, it is not considered to be a new situation. The Gemara asks: Certainly death is a new situation. Rav Huna said: He is considered like one who makes his vow dependent on a matter. In other words, his vow is interpreted as conditional, that he will not enter the house as long as the dog is alive, for he explicitly stated that this was the reason for his vow. Therefore, when the dog dies, the vow is dissolved. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said it means that they say to him: The dog had already died, or: The father had already repented, before the vow, and it was a mistaken vow from the outset that never took effect.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讜砖讗 诇驻诇讜谞讬转 讻注讜专讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 谞讗讛 砖讞讜专讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 诇讘谞讛 拽爪专讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讗专讜讻讛 诪讜转专 讘讛 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讻注讜专讛 讜谞注砖转 谞讗讛 砖讞讜专讛 讜谞注砖转 诇讘谞讛 拽爪专讛 讜谞注砖转 讗专讜讻讛 讗诇讗 砖讛谞讚专 讟注讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 谞注砖讛 讻转讜诇讛 谞讚专讜 讘讚讘专 转谞讗 转讜诇讛 谞讚专讜 讘讚讘专 讜转谞讗 谞讚专 讟注讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻讘专 诪转 讜讻讘专 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪转谞讬 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 谞讚专 讟注讜转 拽砖讬讗

Rabbi Abba raised an objection from a later mishna (66a): If a one said: I will not marry ugly so-and-so as that is konam for me, and she is in fact beautiful, or if he called her black, and she is in fact white, or if he called her short, and she is in fact tall, he is permitted to her. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, or short and became tall, but rather, because the vow was mistaken from the outset. Granted, according to Rav Huna, who said that he is considered like one who makes his vow dependent on a matter, the mishna here taught the case of one who makes his vow dependent on a matter, and it taught there the case of a mistaken vow. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that the mishna here is referring to a situation where the dog had already died, or the father had already repented, why do I need the mishna to teach the halakha of a mistaken vow twice? The Gemara comments: This is difficult.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛讻转讜讘 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转 讬讜讚注 砖讗转讛 注讜讘专 注诇 诇讗 转拽诐 讜注诇 诇讗 转讟专 讜注诇 诇讗 转砖谞讗 讗转 讗讞讬讱 讘诇讘讘讱 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讜讞讬 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 砖讛讜讗 注谞讬 讜讗讬谉 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇驻专谞住讜 讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讻谉 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专

MISHNA: And Rabbi Meir further said: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with him from that which is written in the Torah, and they may say to him: Had you known that through your vow you are transgressing the prohibition 鈥測ou shall not take vengeance鈥 (Leviticus 19:18) and the prohibition 鈥渘or bear any grudge鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), and the prohibition 鈥測ou shall not hate your brother in your heart鈥 (Leviticus 19:17), and 鈥測ou shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), as well as 鈥渁nd your brother should live with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:36), as he, the one prohibited by the vow, is poor and now you are not able to provide him with a livelihood due to your vow, would you have vowed in that case? If he said in reply: Had I known that it is so, that my vow involved all these prohibitions, I would not have vowed; it is dissolved.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诇专讘谞谉 谞讬诪讗 讻诇 讚诪注谞讬 诇讗讜 注诇讬 谞驻讬诇 诪讗讬 讚诪讟讬 诇讬 诇驻专谞住讜 讘讛讚讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪驻专谞住谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞讜驻诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讜驻诇 诇讬讚讬 讙讘讗讬 转讞诇讛

GEMARA: Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina said to the Sages: But let the one who stated the vow say with regard to the last claim: All who become poor do not fall upon me; it is not my responsibility to provide for this specific poor person. What is placed upon me to provide for him together with everyone else, I will provide to him when I give money to those collecting for the communal charity fund. They said to him: I say that anyone who falls into poverty and requires assistance does not fall into the hands of the charity collector first. Rather, his descent begins when he encounters hard times, and it is at this stage that he may require individual, direct support to prevent him from plunging into a state of absolute poverty.

诪转谞讬壮 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讻转讜讘转 讗砖转讜

MISHNA: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with a man by raising the issue of his wife鈥檚 marriage contract. If one takes a vow that would require him to divorce his wife, e.g., he prohibits her from deriving benefit from him, his vow may be dissolved by asking him whether he had considered how difficult it would be to pay her marriage contract.

讜诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖谞讚专 诪讗砖转讜 讛谞讗讛 讜讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讚讬谞专讬诐 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讬讬讘讜 诇讬转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛谞讬讞 讗讘讗 谞讟诇 讗讞讬 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讜讗谞讬 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 诇讗 讚讬讛 砖转讟讜诇 讛讬讗 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗谞讬 诪讗转讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 诪讜讻专 砖注专 专讗砖讱 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讻谉 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 讜讛转讬专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The mishna relates: And an incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against his wife deriving benefit from him, and her marriage contract was worth four hundred dinars. And he came before Rabbi Akiva, and he obligated him to give her the payment of her marriage contract. He said to Rabbi Akiva: My teacher, my father left eight hundred dinars as our inheritance, of which my brother took four hundred and I took four hundred. Isn鈥檛 it enough for my wife to take two hundred and I will have two hundred? Rabbi Akiva said to him: Your claim is not accepted, as even if you sell the hair on your head, you must give her the full payment of her marriage contract. He said to him: Had I known that it was so, that I would have to give her all my property, I would not have vowed. And Rabbi Akiva permitted her to derive benefit from him.

讙诪壮 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪讬 诪砖转注讘讚讬 诇讻转讜讘讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽专拽注 砖讜讛 砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 讚讬谞专 讜讛拽转谞讬 砖注专 专讗砖讜 讜砖注专 专讗砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 诪讜讻专 砖注专 专讗砖讱 讜讗讜讻诇

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the comment made by Rabbi Akiva, that even if the man were to sell the hair on his head, he must pay her the full sum of her marriage contract: Is movable property mortgaged for the payment of a marriage contract? The Rabbis maintain that only land owned by the husband is mortgaged for the payment of a marriage contract, so why should he have to sell the hair on his head? Abaye said: He said that the father had left land worth eight hundred dinars, and he received four hundred dinars鈥 worth of land, so all of his land is equal in value to his wife鈥檚 marriage contract. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the mishna teaches that he must pay even from: The hair on his head, and the hair on his head is movable property. The Gemara answers: This is what he said: You must pay the marriage contract from the land even if you will need to sell the hair on your head and use the proceeds from the sale in order to eat, as you will have no other source of income.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

The Gemara poses a question: Should you conclude from the mishna that arrangements are not made with a creditor, but instead, the entire sum is collected immediately, without reaching an agreement with the husband鈥檚 creditors to leave him some money to support himself? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Rav Na岣an, son of Rabbi Yitz岣k, said:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 65

转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讬谉 诇讱 砖讘 诪爪专讬诐 讻讬 诪转讜 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讘诪讚讬谉 谞讚专转 诇讱 讜讛转专 谞讚专讱 讘诪讚讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讜讗诇 诪砖讛 讗讬谉 讗诇讛 讗诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘讗 讗转讜 讘讗诇讛

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:12): With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another, they dissolve the vow for him only in the presence of the one who is the subject of the vow. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Na岣an said: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses in Midian: Go, return to Egypt; for all the men are dead鈥 (Exodus 4:19). Rav Na岣an notes that the verse specifies where God spoke to Moses, and explains that God said to him: In Midian you vowed to Yitro that you would not return to Egypt, go and dissolve your vow in Midian. And where does it say that Moses vowed to Yitro? For it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses was content [vayo鈥檈l] to dwell with the man鈥 (Exodus 2:21). The word vayo鈥檈l is related to the word ala, and ala means nothing other than an oath, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he鈥rought him under an oath [ala]鈥 (Ezekiel 17:13), and the halakhot of dissolution of oaths are identical to those of dissolution of vows.

讜讙诐 讘诪诇讱 谞讘讜讻讚谞讗爪专 诪专讚 讗砖专 讛砖讘讬注讜 讘讗诇讛讬诐 (讞讬讬诐) 诪讗讬 诪专讚讜转讬讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 爪讚拽讬讛 诇谞讘讜讻讚谞讗爪专 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讻讬诇 讗专谞讘讗 讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘注 诇讬 讚诇讗 诪讙诇讬转 注讬诇讜讬 讜诇讗 转讬驻讜拽 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬砖转讘注

The Gemara cites another proof that one may dissolve such a vow or oath only in the presence of the party affect by the vow or oath. It states with regard to King Zedekiah: 鈥淎nd he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God鈥 (II聽Chronicles 36:13). The Gemara asks: What was his rebellion? The Gemara answers: Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit, and the latter was ashamed to be seen doing this. He said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not reveal my behavior and this matter will not emerge in public. Zedekiah took an oath to him.

诇住讜祝 讛讜讛 拽讗 诪爪讟注专 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬转砖讬诇 讗砖讘讜注转讬讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪注 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 讚拽讗 诪讘讝讬谉 诇讬讛 砖诇讞 讜讗讬讬转讬 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜爪讚拽讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 讞讝讬转讜谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 爪讚拽讬讛讜 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讗讬砖转讘注 讘砖诪讗 讚砖诪讬讗 讚诇讗 诪讙诇讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬转砖诇讬 讗砖讘讜注转讗

Later, Zedekiah was physically suffering, as he wanted to tell people what he had seen, but he could not do so due to his oath. He requested dissolution of his oath from the judges of the Sanhedrin, who dissolved it for him, and he publicly said what he had witnessed. Nebuchadnezzar heard that he was being ridiculed for his behavior. He sent for and brought the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah before him. He said to them: Did you see what Zedekiah has done? Did he not take an oath in the name of Heaven: That I will not reveal? They said to him: He requested dissolution of the oath.

[讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪转砖诇讬谉 讗砖讘讜注转讗] 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 讜讗转讜谉 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬转讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬转讜谉 诇爪讚拽讬讛讜 诪讬讚 讬砖讘讜 诇讗专抓 讬讚诪讜 讝拽谞讬 讘转 爪讬讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖砖诪讟讜 讻专讬诐 诪转讞转讬讛诐

He said to them: Can one request the dissolution of an oath? They said to him: Yes. He said to them: Must this be done in the presence of the person he took an oath to, or even not in his presence? They said to him: It must be dissolved in his presence. He said to them: And you, what did you do? What is the reason you did not say to Zedekiah that he can have his oath dissolved only in my presence? Immediately, they fulfilled the verse: 鈥淭hey sit upon the ground, and keep silence, the elders of the daughter of Zion鈥 (Lamentations 2:10). Rabbi Yitz岣k said: This means that they removed the cushions upon which they sat from underneath them, as a sign that they had erred in halakha.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谉 讻谞讜诇讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讻谞讜诇讚 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬转 砖讗讘讬讛 专注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪转 讗讜 砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 拽讜谞诐 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 砖讛讻诇讘 专注 讘转讜讻讜 讗讜 砖讛谞讞砖 讘转讜讻讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪转 讛讻诇讘 讗讜 砖谞讛专讙 讛谞讞砖 讛专讬 讛谉 讻谞讜诇讚 讜讗讬谞讜 讻谞讜诇讚 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜

MISHNA: As a continuation of the opinion of the Rabbis in the previous mishna that they may not broach dissolution of a vow based on a new situation, Rabbi Meir says: There are matters that are, at first glance, like a new situation but are not in fact like a new situation, and the Rabbis do not concede to him. How so? For example, one said: Marrying so-and-so is konam for me, as her father is evil, and they told him that her father died, or that he repented. Or he said: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog inside it, or a snake inside it, and they told him that the dog died, or that the snake was killed. This is at first glance perceived like a new situation, and yet it is not in fact like a new situation, and this claim may be used to broach dissolution. But the Rabbis do not concede to him.

讙诪壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讝讛 砖讛讻诇讘 讜讻讜壮 诪转 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞注砖讛 讻转讜诇讛 谞讚专讜 讘讚讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讘专 诪转 讜讻讘专 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Meir certain matters are similar to, but in fact do not constitute a new situation, such as a vow which states: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog there, where the halakha is that if the dog dies, it is not considered to be a new situation. The Gemara asks: Certainly death is a new situation. Rav Huna said: He is considered like one who makes his vow dependent on a matter. In other words, his vow is interpreted as conditional, that he will not enter the house as long as the dog is alive, for he explicitly stated that this was the reason for his vow. Therefore, when the dog dies, the vow is dissolved. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said it means that they say to him: The dog had already died, or: The father had already repented, before the vow, and it was a mistaken vow from the outset that never took effect.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讜砖讗 诇驻诇讜谞讬转 讻注讜专讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 谞讗讛 砖讞讜专讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 诇讘谞讛 拽爪专讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讗专讜讻讛 诪讜转专 讘讛 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讻注讜专讛 讜谞注砖转 谞讗讛 砖讞讜专讛 讜谞注砖转 诇讘谞讛 拽爪专讛 讜谞注砖转 讗专讜讻讛 讗诇讗 砖讛谞讚专 讟注讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 谞注砖讛 讻转讜诇讛 谞讚专讜 讘讚讘专 转谞讗 转讜诇讛 谞讚专讜 讘讚讘专 讜转谞讗 谞讚专 讟注讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻讘专 诪转 讜讻讘专 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪转谞讬 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 谞讚专 讟注讜转 拽砖讬讗

Rabbi Abba raised an objection from a later mishna (66a): If a one said: I will not marry ugly so-and-so as that is konam for me, and she is in fact beautiful, or if he called her black, and she is in fact white, or if he called her short, and she is in fact tall, he is permitted to her. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, or short and became tall, but rather, because the vow was mistaken from the outset. Granted, according to Rav Huna, who said that he is considered like one who makes his vow dependent on a matter, the mishna here taught the case of one who makes his vow dependent on a matter, and it taught there the case of a mistaken vow. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that the mishna here is referring to a situation where the dog had already died, or the father had already repented, why do I need the mishna to teach the halakha of a mistaken vow twice? The Gemara comments: This is difficult.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛讻转讜讘 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转 讬讜讚注 砖讗转讛 注讜讘专 注诇 诇讗 转拽诐 讜注诇 诇讗 转讟专 讜注诇 诇讗 转砖谞讗 讗转 讗讞讬讱 讘诇讘讘讱 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讜讞讬 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 砖讛讜讗 注谞讬 讜讗讬谉 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇驻专谞住讜 讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讻谉 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专

MISHNA: And Rabbi Meir further said: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with him from that which is written in the Torah, and they may say to him: Had you known that through your vow you are transgressing the prohibition 鈥測ou shall not take vengeance鈥 (Leviticus 19:18) and the prohibition 鈥渘or bear any grudge鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), and the prohibition 鈥測ou shall not hate your brother in your heart鈥 (Leviticus 19:17), and 鈥測ou shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), as well as 鈥渁nd your brother should live with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:36), as he, the one prohibited by the vow, is poor and now you are not able to provide him with a livelihood due to your vow, would you have vowed in that case? If he said in reply: Had I known that it is so, that my vow involved all these prohibitions, I would not have vowed; it is dissolved.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诇专讘谞谉 谞讬诪讗 讻诇 讚诪注谞讬 诇讗讜 注诇讬 谞驻讬诇 诪讗讬 讚诪讟讬 诇讬 诇驻专谞住讜 讘讛讚讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪驻专谞住谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞讜驻诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讜驻诇 诇讬讚讬 讙讘讗讬 转讞诇讛

GEMARA: Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina said to the Sages: But let the one who stated the vow say with regard to the last claim: All who become poor do not fall upon me; it is not my responsibility to provide for this specific poor person. What is placed upon me to provide for him together with everyone else, I will provide to him when I give money to those collecting for the communal charity fund. They said to him: I say that anyone who falls into poverty and requires assistance does not fall into the hands of the charity collector first. Rather, his descent begins when he encounters hard times, and it is at this stage that he may require individual, direct support to prevent him from plunging into a state of absolute poverty.

诪转谞讬壮 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讻转讜讘转 讗砖转讜

MISHNA: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with a man by raising the issue of his wife鈥檚 marriage contract. If one takes a vow that would require him to divorce his wife, e.g., he prohibits her from deriving benefit from him, his vow may be dissolved by asking him whether he had considered how difficult it would be to pay her marriage contract.

讜诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖谞讚专 诪讗砖转讜 讛谞讗讛 讜讛讬转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讚讬谞专讬诐 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讬讬讘讜 诇讬转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛谞讬讞 讗讘讗 谞讟诇 讗讞讬 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讜讗谞讬 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 诇讗 讚讬讛 砖转讟讜诇 讛讬讗 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗谞讬 诪讗转讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 诪讜讻专 砖注专 专讗砖讱 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讻谉 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 讜讛转讬专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The mishna relates: And an incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against his wife deriving benefit from him, and her marriage contract was worth four hundred dinars. And he came before Rabbi Akiva, and he obligated him to give her the payment of her marriage contract. He said to Rabbi Akiva: My teacher, my father left eight hundred dinars as our inheritance, of which my brother took four hundred and I took four hundred. Isn鈥檛 it enough for my wife to take two hundred and I will have two hundred? Rabbi Akiva said to him: Your claim is not accepted, as even if you sell the hair on your head, you must give her the full payment of her marriage contract. He said to him: Had I known that it was so, that I would have to give her all my property, I would not have vowed. And Rabbi Akiva permitted her to derive benefit from him.

讙诪壮 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪讬 诪砖转注讘讚讬 诇讻转讜讘讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽专拽注 砖讜讛 砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 讚讬谞专 讜讛拽转谞讬 砖注专 专讗砖讜 讜砖注专 专讗砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 诪讜讻专 砖注专 专讗砖讱 讜讗讜讻诇

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the comment made by Rabbi Akiva, that even if the man were to sell the hair on his head, he must pay her the full sum of her marriage contract: Is movable property mortgaged for the payment of a marriage contract? The Rabbis maintain that only land owned by the husband is mortgaged for the payment of a marriage contract, so why should he have to sell the hair on his head? Abaye said: He said that the father had left land worth eight hundred dinars, and he received four hundred dinars鈥 worth of land, so all of his land is equal in value to his wife鈥檚 marriage contract. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the mishna teaches that he must pay even from: The hair on his head, and the hair on his head is movable property. The Gemara answers: This is what he said: You must pay the marriage contract from the land even if you will need to sell the hair on your head and use the proceeds from the sale in order to eat, as you will have no other source of income.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

The Gemara poses a question: Should you conclude from the mishna that arrangements are not made with a creditor, but instead, the entire sum is collected immediately, without reaching an agreement with the husband鈥檚 creditors to leave him some money to support himself? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Rav Na岣an, son of Rabbi Yitz岣k, said:

Scroll To Top