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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 1, 2022 | 讝壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • 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.

  • 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 for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 7

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her paternal grandmother鈥檚 yahrzeit, Esther bat Avraham.

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Meir Shapiro, the Daf Yomi visionary, on his 89th yahrzeit.

Rav Papa continues to ask whether yadot are effective for charity or for declaring one鈥檚 possessions ownerless. Ravina asks if yadot are effective when designating an area as a bathroom? Ravina was actually unsure in general whether designating an area as a bathroom is effective to forbid one from reciting kriat shema there. And then he deliberated that even if one were to say it is effective, were one to designate it with cut-off language (a yad), would it be effective as well. There is no answer to all the questions asked. Rabbi Akiva (in the Mishna) was inclined to rule stringently if one said 鈥淚 am menudeh to you,鈥 and treated it as a vow. Abaye claims that Rabbi Akiva would not give someone lashes if they broke this vow as the language of the Mishna indicates that he is not sure what the law is and therefore rules stringently, but one would therefore not get punished for it. In what wording exactly is there a dispute between him and the sages? Rav Papa and Rav Chisda disagree on this matter. Because they mentioned the language of ex-communication, the Gemara discusses several laws related to ex-communication. If one dissolves an ex-communication, do they do that in the presence of the person who was excommunicated or not? On what does it depend? He who uses God鈥檚 name in vain should be excommunicated. Some laws of ex-communication are derived from a story about a woman who uses God鈥檚 name in vain and was excommunicated, but they immediately dissolved the ex-communication. A scholar who has put himself into ex-communication can also dissolve his own ex-communication. This is proven from a case with Mar Zutra the Chasid.

诪注诪讱 讝讛 诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛

The verse states with regard to offerings: 鈥淲hen you shall take a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:22). With regard to the term 鈥渙f you鈥 the baraita states: This is a reference to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃.

讬砖 讬讚 诇爪讚拽讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讚 诇爪讚拽讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 讝讜讝讗 诇爪讚拽讛 讜讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讛讜讗 爪讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 爪讚拽讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 [诪讗讬] 讜讛讚讬谉 (谞诪讬) 诇谞驻拽讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪专 讜讚讘讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗住拽讬讛

搂 The Gemara asks: Is there intimation for charity or is there no intimation for charity? The Gemara clarifies the question: What are the circumstances of such a case? If we say that it is a case where one said: This dinar is for charity and this also, that itself is an explicit statement of donating to charity. Rather, it is a case where he said: This, and did not say: Also. What is his intention? Is he understood to be saying: This is also charity, or perhaps what is the meaning of: And this? He is saying that this coin is merely for general use, and he did not complete his statement.

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 讚讻转讬讘 讘驻讬讱 讝讜 爪讚拽讛 诪讛 拽专讘谞讜转 讬砖 诇讛谉 讬讚 讗祝 爪讚拽讛 讬砖 诇讛 讬讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讘诇 转讗讞专 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转拽砖

The Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: Do we say that since charity is juxtaposed to offerings, as it is written in a verse following the prohibition against delaying an offering: 鈥淭hat you have spoken with your mouth鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:24) and the Sages expounded that this is a reference to charity, therefore, just as there is intimation, i.e., intimation is effective, with regard to offerings, so too, there is intimation with regard to charity? Or perhaps it is only with regard to the prohibition: You shall not delay, that it is juxtaposed, but not with regard to other halakhot?

讬砖 讬讚 诇讛驻拽专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讬讚 诇讛驻拽专 讛讬讬谞讜 爪讚拽讛

The Gemara asks further: Is there intimation for rendering one鈥檚 property ownerless, or perhaps there is no intimation for rendering one鈥檚 property ownerless. Does an incomplete expression employed by an owner to relinquish property take effect or not? The Gemara notes: This is the same as the previous question with regard to charity, which is comparable to rendering one鈥檚 property ownerless for the benefit of the poor.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 拽讗诪专 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬砖 讬讚 诇爪讚拽讛 讚讗讬谉 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛 讛驻拽专 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 爪讚拽讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 爪讚拽讛 讚爪讚拽讛 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讛驻拽专 讘讬谉 诇注谞讬讬诐 讘讬谉 诇注砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara responds: This question is stated in the style of: If you say, as follows: If you say there is intimation for charity, as there is no partial analogy based on juxtaposition, do we say that rendering one鈥檚 property ownerless is the same as charity; or perhaps charity is different, as charity is suitable only for the poor, but ownerless property is suitable for both the poor and the wealthy, and therefore it cannot be derived from the halakha with regard to charity.

讘注讬 专讘讬谞讗 讬砖 讬讚 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讗讜 诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 讘讬转讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讛讜讗 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 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 讛讚讬谉 讚讗诪专 讜讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讗讬 讜讛讚讬谉 诇转砖诪讬砖讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪专

Ravina raised another dilemma: Is there intimation for designating a location as a bathroom or not? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that it is a case where one said: Let this structure be a bathroom and this one also, that second structure is certainly also a bathroom. Rather, it is a case where he said: And this, and he did not say: Also. What is his intention? Is the expression: And this, that he said, understood to mean: And this shall also be a bathroom? Or perhaps what is the meaning of: And this? He is saying that it is designated for general use rather than as a bathroom.

诪讻诇诇 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚讬砖 讝讬诪讜谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讝诪讬谞讜 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 诪讛讜 讛讝诪讬谞讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 诪讛讜 讝讬诪讜谉 诪讜注讬诇 讗讜 讗讬谉 讝讬诪讜谉 诪讜注讬诇

The Gemara comments: Can it be derived by inference that it is obvious to Ravina that there is designation for a bathroom, i.e., that if one explicitly designates a location as a bathroom, it attains that status even before it is used for that purpose, so that one may not bring sacred items to that location? Didn鈥檛 Ravina raise this as a dilemma? He asked: If one designated a particular location as a bathroom, what is the halakha? If one designated it as a bathhouse, what is the halakha? In other words, is designation effective to grant the location a particular status, or is designation not effective?

专讘讬谞讗 讞讚讗 诪讙讜 讞讚讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诪讜谉 诪讜注讬诇 讗讜 讗讬谉 讝讬诪讜谉 诪讜注讬诇 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬砖 讝讬诪讜谉 讬砖 讬讚 讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讚 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Ravina raised one dilemma within another dilemma: Is designation effective or is designation not effective? And if you say there is designation, i.e., designation is effective, is there intimation or is there not intimation, i.e., is designation via intimation effective? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma remains unresolved.

诪谞讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讚讗诐 讻谉 谞讬转谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞诪讬专

搂 It was taught in the mishna that if one said: I am ostracized from you, Rabbi Akiva was uncertain about the halakha but was inclined to rule stringently about this. Abaye said: Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to flogging that one is not flogged if he violates a vow that was expressed in this way. As, if so, if Rabbi Akiva held that one is liable to be flogged, let the mishna teach: Rabbi Akiva is stringent. The fact that it states: Rabbi Akiva was uncertain but was inclined to rule stringently, indicates that although Rabbi Akiva holds that one may not violate this vow, he concedes that one is not liable to be flogged if he does violate the vow.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘谞讚讬谞讗 诪讬谞讱 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 诪砖诪转谞讗 诪讬谞讱 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖专讬 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Pappa said: With regard to a vow that one expressed with the phrase: I am distanced [nadeina] from you, everyone agrees that he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other individual, as this is an intimation of a vow. If he employs the expression: I am excommunicated [meshamattena] from you everyone agrees that he is permitted to derive benefit from the other person, even though he meant to distance himself from the other individual, because this is not the terminology of a vow. With regard to what do they disagree?

讘诪谞讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讬砖谞讗 讚谞讬讚讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪砖诪转谞讗 讛讜讗

They disagree with regard to a case when the language one uses is: I am ostracized from you, as Rabbi Akiva holds that it is a language of distancing and therefore expresses a vow, and the Rabbis hold that it is a language of excommunication, and not the terminology with which people express vows.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪转谞讗 讘谞讻住讬讛 讚讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 讚讞砖 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽住讘专 讘诪砖诪转谞讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara comments: And Rav Pappa disagrees with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, as demonstrated in the following incident: There was a certain man who said: I am excommunicated from the property of the son of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He came before Rav 岣sda to ask whether this statement was effective in generating a prohibition or not. Rav 岣sda said to him: There is no one who, in practice, is concerned for that opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Apparently, Rav 岣sda holds that they also disagree with regard to the phrase: I am excommunicated from you. This indicates that the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m is not with regard to specific terms but with regard to the more general question of whether terms of ostracism or excommunication are terms that can also express vows.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讚讛讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 谞讚讛讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讜 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜

Rabbi Ila said that Rav said: If one ostracized another individual in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence. If one ostracized him not in his presence, one may dissolve it for him in his presence or not in his presence.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜诪注 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 诪驻讬 讞讘讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇谞讚讜转讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞讬讚讛讜 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬讛讗 讘谞讬讚讜讬 砖讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 诪爪讜讬讛 砖诐 注谞讬讜转 诪爪讜讬讛

Rav 岣nin said that Rav said: One who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him for doing so. And if he did not ostracize him, he himself, the listener, shall be ostracized, as wherever mention of God鈥檚 name in vain is common, poverty is also common there.

讜注谞讬讜转 讻诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诪转讜 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞转谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 注讬谞讬讛诐 讗讜 诪讬转讛 讗讜 注讜谞讬

And poverty is so harsh that it is considered like death, as it is stated: 鈥淔or all the men are dead who sought your life鈥 (Exodus 4:19). The Sages had a tradition that Dathan and Abiram had sought to have Moses killed in Egypt and that they were the men referred to in the quoted verse (see 64b). They were still alive at that time but had become impoverished. And additionally, it is taught in a baraita: Wherever it says that the Sages set their eyes on a particular individual, the result was either death or poverty. This also indicates that death and poverty are equivalent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诪注讛 诇讛讱 讗讬转转讗 讚讗驻拽讛 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 诇讘讟诇讛 砖诪转讛 讜砖专讗 诇讛 诇讗诇转专 讘讗驻讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛砖讜诪注 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 诪驻讬 讞讘讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇谞讚讜转讜 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讬讚讛讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 谞讬讚讜讬 诇讛驻专讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Abba said: I was standing before Rav Huna, and he heard a certain woman utter a mention of the name of God in vain. He excommunicated her and immediately dissolved the excommunication for her in her presence. The Gemara comments: Learn three things from this. Learn from this that one who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him; and learn from this that if one ostracized another in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence; and learn from this that there is nothing, i.e., no minimum time that must pass, between ostracism and nullification of the ostracism.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 诪谞讚讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜诪讬驻专 诇注爪诪讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讘讜砖 诪转讬专 注爪诪讜 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar can ostracize himself, and he can nullify the ostracism for himself. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he can nullify the ostracism for himself, just as he is able to do for others? The Gemara answers: It states this lest you say, as per the popular maxim: A prisoner cannot free himself from prison, and since he is ostracized he cannot dissolve the ostracism for himself; therefore it teaches us that he can do so.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讬 讛讗 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讞住讬讚讗 讻讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讘专 讘讬 专讘 砖诪转讗 诪砖诪讬转 谞驻砖讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诪砖诪转 讘专 讘讬 专讘 讜讻讬 注讬讬诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 砖专讬 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讚专 砖专讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where a Torah scholar might ostracize himself? It is like that case involving Mar Zutra 岣sida. When a student in the academy was liable to receive excommunication, Mar Zutra 岣sida would first excommunicate himself and then he would excommunicate the student of Torah. And when he would enter his home, he would dissolve the excommunication for himself and then dissolve the excommunication for the student.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

  • 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.

  • 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 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....
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 7: A Halakhic Bathroom and a Reversed Excommunication

When an utterance of a statement take effect to have impact on the halakhic status of a thing, and how...
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 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 7

诪注诪讱 讝讛 诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛

The verse states with regard to offerings: 鈥淲hen you shall take a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:22). With regard to the term 鈥渙f you鈥 the baraita states: This is a reference to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃.

讬砖 讬讚 诇爪讚拽讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讚 诇爪讚拽讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 讝讜讝讗 诇爪讚拽讛 讜讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讛讜讗 爪讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 爪讚拽讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 [诪讗讬] 讜讛讚讬谉 (谞诪讬) 诇谞驻拽讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪专 讜讚讘讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗住拽讬讛

搂 The Gemara asks: Is there intimation for charity or is there no intimation for charity? The Gemara clarifies the question: What are the circumstances of such a case? If we say that it is a case where one said: This dinar is for charity and this also, that itself is an explicit statement of donating to charity. Rather, it is a case where he said: This, and did not say: Also. What is his intention? Is he understood to be saying: This is also charity, or perhaps what is the meaning of: And this? He is saying that this coin is merely for general use, and he did not complete his statement.

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 讚讻转讬讘 讘驻讬讱 讝讜 爪讚拽讛 诪讛 拽专讘谞讜转 讬砖 诇讛谉 讬讚 讗祝 爪讚拽讛 讬砖 诇讛 讬讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讘诇 转讗讞专 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转拽砖

The Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: Do we say that since charity is juxtaposed to offerings, as it is written in a verse following the prohibition against delaying an offering: 鈥淭hat you have spoken with your mouth鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:24) and the Sages expounded that this is a reference to charity, therefore, just as there is intimation, i.e., intimation is effective, with regard to offerings, so too, there is intimation with regard to charity? Or perhaps it is only with regard to the prohibition: You shall not delay, that it is juxtaposed, but not with regard to other halakhot?

讬砖 讬讚 诇讛驻拽专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讬讚 诇讛驻拽专 讛讬讬谞讜 爪讚拽讛

The Gemara asks further: Is there intimation for rendering one鈥檚 property ownerless, or perhaps there is no intimation for rendering one鈥檚 property ownerless. Does an incomplete expression employed by an owner to relinquish property take effect or not? The Gemara notes: This is the same as the previous question with regard to charity, which is comparable to rendering one鈥檚 property ownerless for the benefit of the poor.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 拽讗诪专 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬砖 讬讚 诇爪讚拽讛 讚讗讬谉 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛 讛驻拽专 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 爪讚拽讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 爪讚拽讛 讚爪讚拽讛 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讛驻拽专 讘讬谉 诇注谞讬讬诐 讘讬谉 诇注砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara responds: This question is stated in the style of: If you say, as follows: If you say there is intimation for charity, as there is no partial analogy based on juxtaposition, do we say that rendering one鈥檚 property ownerless is the same as charity; or perhaps charity is different, as charity is suitable only for the poor, but ownerless property is suitable for both the poor and the wealthy, and therefore it cannot be derived from the halakha with regard to charity.

讘注讬 专讘讬谞讗 讬砖 讬讚 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讗讜 诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 讘讬转讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讛讜讗 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 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 讛讚讬谉 讚讗诪专 讜讛讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讗讬 讜讛讚讬谉 诇转砖诪讬砖讗 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪专

Ravina raised another dilemma: Is there intimation for designating a location as a bathroom or not? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that it is a case where one said: Let this structure be a bathroom and this one also, that second structure is certainly also a bathroom. Rather, it is a case where he said: And this, and he did not say: Also. What is his intention? Is the expression: And this, that he said, understood to mean: And this shall also be a bathroom? Or perhaps what is the meaning of: And this? He is saying that it is designated for general use rather than as a bathroom.

诪讻诇诇 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚讬砖 讝讬诪讜谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讝诪讬谞讜 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 诪讛讜 讛讝诪讬谞讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 诪讛讜 讝讬诪讜谉 诪讜注讬诇 讗讜 讗讬谉 讝讬诪讜谉 诪讜注讬诇

The Gemara comments: Can it be derived by inference that it is obvious to Ravina that there is designation for a bathroom, i.e., that if one explicitly designates a location as a bathroom, it attains that status even before it is used for that purpose, so that one may not bring sacred items to that location? Didn鈥檛 Ravina raise this as a dilemma? He asked: If one designated a particular location as a bathroom, what is the halakha? If one designated it as a bathhouse, what is the halakha? In other words, is designation effective to grant the location a particular status, or is designation not effective?

专讘讬谞讗 讞讚讗 诪讙讜 讞讚讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诪讜谉 诪讜注讬诇 讗讜 讗讬谉 讝讬诪讜谉 诪讜注讬诇 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬砖 讝讬诪讜谉 讬砖 讬讚 讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讚 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Ravina raised one dilemma within another dilemma: Is designation effective or is designation not effective? And if you say there is designation, i.e., designation is effective, is there intimation or is there not intimation, i.e., is designation via intimation effective? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma remains unresolved.

诪谞讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讚讗诐 讻谉 谞讬转谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞诪讬专

搂 It was taught in the mishna that if one said: I am ostracized from you, Rabbi Akiva was uncertain about the halakha but was inclined to rule stringently about this. Abaye said: Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to flogging that one is not flogged if he violates a vow that was expressed in this way. As, if so, if Rabbi Akiva held that one is liable to be flogged, let the mishna teach: Rabbi Akiva is stringent. The fact that it states: Rabbi Akiva was uncertain but was inclined to rule stringently, indicates that although Rabbi Akiva holds that one may not violate this vow, he concedes that one is not liable to be flogged if he does violate the vow.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘谞讚讬谞讗 诪讬谞讱 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 诪砖诪转谞讗 诪讬谞讱 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖专讬 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Pappa said: With regard to a vow that one expressed with the phrase: I am distanced [nadeina] from you, everyone agrees that he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other individual, as this is an intimation of a vow. If he employs the expression: I am excommunicated [meshamattena] from you everyone agrees that he is permitted to derive benefit from the other person, even though he meant to distance himself from the other individual, because this is not the terminology of a vow. With regard to what do they disagree?

讘诪谞讜讚讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讬砖谞讗 讚谞讬讚讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪砖诪转谞讗 讛讜讗

They disagree with regard to a case when the language one uses is: I am ostracized from you, as Rabbi Akiva holds that it is a language of distancing and therefore expresses a vow, and the Rabbis hold that it is a language of excommunication, and not the terminology with which people express vows.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪转谞讗 讘谞讻住讬讛 讚讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 讚讞砖 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽住讘专 讘诪砖诪转谞讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara comments: And Rav Pappa disagrees with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, as demonstrated in the following incident: There was a certain man who said: I am excommunicated from the property of the son of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He came before Rav 岣sda to ask whether this statement was effective in generating a prohibition or not. Rav 岣sda said to him: There is no one who, in practice, is concerned for that opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Apparently, Rav 岣sda holds that they also disagree with regard to the phrase: I am excommunicated from you. This indicates that the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m is not with regard to specific terms but with regard to the more general question of whether terms of ostracism or excommunication are terms that can also express vows.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讚讛讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 谞讚讛讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讜 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜

Rabbi Ila said that Rav said: If one ostracized another individual in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence. If one ostracized him not in his presence, one may dissolve it for him in his presence or not in his presence.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜诪注 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 诪驻讬 讞讘讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇谞讚讜转讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞讬讚讛讜 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬讛讗 讘谞讬讚讜讬 砖讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 诪爪讜讬讛 砖诐 注谞讬讜转 诪爪讜讬讛

Rav 岣nin said that Rav said: One who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him for doing so. And if he did not ostracize him, he himself, the listener, shall be ostracized, as wherever mention of God鈥檚 name in vain is common, poverty is also common there.

讜注谞讬讜转 讻诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诪转讜 讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞转谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 注讬谞讬讛诐 讗讜 诪讬转讛 讗讜 注讜谞讬

And poverty is so harsh that it is considered like death, as it is stated: 鈥淔or all the men are dead who sought your life鈥 (Exodus 4:19). The Sages had a tradition that Dathan and Abiram had sought to have Moses killed in Egypt and that they were the men referred to in the quoted verse (see 64b). They were still alive at that time but had become impoverished. And additionally, it is taught in a baraita: Wherever it says that the Sages set their eyes on a particular individual, the result was either death or poverty. This also indicates that death and poverty are equivalent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诪注讛 诇讛讱 讗讬转转讗 讚讗驻拽讛 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 诇讘讟诇讛 砖诪转讛 讜砖专讗 诇讛 诇讗诇转专 讘讗驻讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛砖讜诪注 讛讝讻专转 讛砖诐 诪驻讬 讞讘讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇谞讚讜转讜 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讬讚讛讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 谞讬讚讜讬 诇讛驻专讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Abba said: I was standing before Rav Huna, and he heard a certain woman utter a mention of the name of God in vain. He excommunicated her and immediately dissolved the excommunication for her in her presence. The Gemara comments: Learn three things from this. Learn from this that one who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him; and learn from this that if one ostracized another in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence; and learn from this that there is nothing, i.e., no minimum time that must pass, between ostracism and nullification of the ostracism.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 诪谞讚讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜诪讬驻专 诇注爪诪讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讘讜砖 诪转讬专 注爪诪讜 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar can ostracize himself, and he can nullify the ostracism for himself. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he can nullify the ostracism for himself, just as he is able to do for others? The Gemara answers: It states this lest you say, as per the popular maxim: A prisoner cannot free himself from prison, and since he is ostracized he cannot dissolve the ostracism for himself; therefore it teaches us that he can do so.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讬 讛讗 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讞住讬讚讗 讻讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讘专 讘讬 专讘 砖诪转讗 诪砖诪讬转 谞驻砖讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诪砖诪转 讘专 讘讬 专讘 讜讻讬 注讬讬诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 砖专讬 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讚专 砖专讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where a Torah scholar might ostracize himself? It is like that case involving Mar Zutra 岣sida. When a student in the academy was liable to receive excommunication, Mar Zutra 岣sida would first excommunicate himself and then he would excommunicate the student of Torah. And when he would enter his home, he would dissolve the excommunication for himself and then dissolve the excommunication for the student.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘

And Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

Scroll To Top