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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 13, 2023 | 讻壮 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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

Nedarim 80

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated in honor of our daughter, Chani, upon finishing three and a half years of army service. We are proud of you daily for the dedication and hard work you have put in toward serving our country.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in memory of her father, Robert Stone, Yehuda Leib ben Naphtali Halevy marking eleven months since his death. 鈥淢ay his neshama have an aliya, b鈥檢chut our continued learning.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Wendy Proskin on the occasion of her daughter, Orli Zucker’s bat mitzvah this Shabbat, Parshat Shemot. 鈥淢ay you always be as brave as Shifrah and Puah. Thank you for being my chevruta! We love you, Mommy and Abba.鈥

The Gemara continues to detemine what the cases are in the Mishnah on which there is a debate “If I wash, if I don’t wash, if I adorn myself, if I don’t adorn myself.” Eventually, it is explained that the cases of “if I do” is where she vows “Konam to me the pleasure of washing/adornin myself, if I will wash/adorn myself today” and the cases of “if not…” is an oath – an oath that I will not wash/adorn myself. How can rabbis claim that washing is torture for the soul when on Yom Kippur you don’t receive a karet if you bathe? How can Rabbi Yosi say that refraining from bathing is not torture of the soul, when in Tosefta Bava Metzia in a different matter, he says that refraining from washing clothes is considered torture for the聽 soul to the extent that he puts the same weight on that as on water for surviving?

讜讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讛 拽讜谞诐 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 注诇讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 讗专讞抓 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讬驻专 诇讛 讚讛讬讻讬 转注讘讬讚 转专讞抓 诪转住专讗 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 注诇讛 诇讗 转专讞抓 讗讬转 诇讛 谞讬讜讜诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 专讞爪讛 讜诇谞讬讜讜诇 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉


But rather, explain that she said: The benefit of bathing is konam for me forever if I bathe. And it is due to that reason that he may nullify her vow, as what can she do if there is no nullification? If she bathes, the benefit of bathing is thereby forbidden to her. And if she does not bathe, she will suffer temporary disfigurement [nivvula]. And Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that this is not a vow of affliction, maintains that it is possible for her not to bathe, as we are not concerned about her disfigurement.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转谞讗讬 讝讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let the mishna teach like this: Rabbi Yosei says that this condition does not involve affliction, as the content of the vow itself is irrelevant, since she can fulfill the condition.


讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讛 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 注诇讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讛讬讜诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 谞讬讜讜诇 讚讞讚 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 谞讬讜讜诇


The Gemara offers another explanation: Rather, explain that she said: The benefit of bathing is konam for me forever if I bathe today. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that nothing will happen if she refrains from bathing today, as the disfigurement resulting from not bathing for one day is not called disfigurement.


砖谞讬转 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讛 转讬转住专 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 诇注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讛讬讜诐 诇诪讛 诇讛 讛驻专讛 转转住讞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专讛 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 注诇讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讘诪讬 诪砖专讛


The Gemara asks: You have adequately answered the expression: If I bathe, but as for the vow: If I do not bathe, what are the circumstances? If we say that she said: The benefit of bathing shall be forbidden to me forever if I do not bathe today, why does she need nullification at all? Let her bathe today and nothing will be forbidden. Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is referring to a case where she said: The benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I do not bathe in foul water in which flax was soaked. The husband can nullify this vow, as it will make her repulsive, which is a form of disfigurement.


讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 诇讗 讗转拽砖讟 讗诐 诇讗 讗转拽砖讟 讘谞驻讟 诇讻诇讜讱 讛讜讗


The Gemara raises an objection: In that case, you must similarly explain that which the tanna teaches: If I do not adorn myself, to mean: The benefit of adorning myself is forbidden to me forever if I do not do something repulsive, e.g., if I do not adorn myself with naphtha [neft]. But this cannot be, as such a substance is filthy and the term adornment cannot be applied to it at all.


讗诪专 [ 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛] 讚讗诪专讛 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 诇注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讛讬讜诐 讜砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗专讞抓 讛谞讗转 拽讬砖讜讟 注诇讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 讗转拽砖讟 讛讬讜诐 讜砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗转拽砖讟


Rather, Rav Yehuda said that the mishna is referring to a case where she said: The benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I bathe today, and I take an oath that I will not bathe today. Through a combination of her vow and her oath she has rendered it prohibited for her to bathe forever. The situation is similar if she said: The benefit of adornment is forbidden to me forever if I adorn myself today, and I take an oath that I will not adorn myself today.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讜砖讘讜注讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讜砖讘讜注讜转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讘讜注讜转 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讚专讬诐 讚转谞谉 讻谞讚专讬 专砖注讬诐 谞讚专 讘谞讝讬专 讜讘拽专讘谉 讜讘砖讘讜注讛


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to this explanation, this tanna of the mishna should have taught: These are the vows and oaths that he can nullify. Rav Ashi said to him: Teach so in the mishna: These are the vows and oaths. And if you wish, say instead that oaths are also included in the category of vows. As we learned in a mishna (9a): If one said: Like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with respect to becoming a nazirite, and with regard to bringing an offering, and with regard to taking an oath. This shows that an oath can also be called a vow.


讜讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 专讞讬爪讛 讗讬转 讘讛 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讻讬 诇讗 专讞爪讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗住讜专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇讗 讘讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讜注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讘诇讘讚 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬 诇讗 专讞爪讛 讗讬讻讗 注谞讜讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讻讬 专讞抓 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讻专转


搂 The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, mean to say with regard to bathing that when she does not bathe it involves affliction? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita that states: Although one is prohibited from performing any of the five activities associated with affliction on Yom Kippur, i.e., eating or drinking, bathing, anointing, engaging in sexual intercourse, and wearing leather shoes, one is punished with karet only when one eats or drinks or performs prohibited labor alone. And if you say that when a woman does not bathe there is affliction, and for this reason a husband may nullify such a vow taken by his wife, then if one bathes on Yom Kippur, he should be liable to receive karet, in accordance with the verse 鈥淔or whatever person shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off [venikhreta] from his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:29), as he has failed to observe this form of affliction.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪注谞讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讙讘讬 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 转注谞讜 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 诪讬诇转讗 讚讬讚注 注讬谞讜讬讗 讛砖转讗 专讞讬爪讛 诇讗 讬讚注 注讬谞讜讬讗 讛砖转讗 讙讘讬 谞讚专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 谞讚专 讜讻诇 砖讘讜注转 讗住专 诇注谞讜转 谞驻砖 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讬 注谞讜讬 讜讻讬 诇讗 专讞爪讛 讗转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 注谞讜讬


Rava said: The meaning of the affliction in each case may be learned from the context of the verse. With regard to Yom Kippur, where it is written: 鈥淥n the tenth of the month you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), the reference is to a matter for which one knows and feels the affliction right now, on Yom Kippur itself, i.e., abstention from food and drink, which is felt within a short period of time. One who abstains from bathing, however, does not know and feel the affliction now, but only later. By contrast, with regard to vows, where it is written: 鈥淓very vow and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it鈥 (Numbers 30:14), the reference is to a matter that leads to affliction, and if she does not bathe for an extended period of time, it eventually leads to affliction.


讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注讬讬谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讞讬讬讛谉 讜讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讞讬讬讛谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讘讛诪转诐 [讜讘讛诪转 讗讞专讬诐 讘讛诪转诐] 拽讜讚诪转 诇讘讛诪转 讗讞专讬诐 讻讘讬住转谉 讜讻讘讬住转 讗讞专讬诐 讻讘讬住转谉 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻讘讬住转 讗讞专讬诐 讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讜讻讘讬住转谉 讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讻讘讬住转谉


搂 The Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei. It was taught in a baraita: In the case of a spring belonging to the residents of a city, if the water was needed for their own lives, i.e., the city鈥檚 residents required the spring for drinking water, and it was also needed for the lives of others, their own lives take precedence over the lives of others. Likewise, if the water was needed for their own animals and also for the animals of others, their own animals take precedence over the animals of others. And if the water was needed for their own laundry and also for the laundry of others, their own laundry takes precedence over the laundry of others. However, if the spring water was needed for the lives of others and their own laundry, the lives of others take precedence over their own laundry.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻讘讬住转谉 拽讜讚诪转 诇讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讛砖转讗 讻讘讬住讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讬砖 讘讛 爪注专


Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: Even their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, as the wearing of unlaundered clothes can eventually cause suffering and pose a danger. The Gemara clarifies the difficulty presented by this baraita: Now, if with regard to laundry, Rabbi Yosei said that refraining from laundering one鈥檚 clothes involves pain and affliction,

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 78-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a husband is silent about his wife鈥檚 vow. Does his silence signify...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 80: Defining Affliction

A study of self-affliction: what is "inui"? What needs to be prohibited from oneself? With bathing as the example. Also,...
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 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 80

讜讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讛 拽讜谞诐 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 注诇讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 讗专讞抓 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讬驻专 诇讛 讚讛讬讻讬 转注讘讬讚 转专讞抓 诪转住专讗 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 注诇讛 诇讗 转专讞抓 讗讬转 诇讛 谞讬讜讜诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 专讞爪讛 讜诇谞讬讜讜诇 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉


But rather, explain that she said: The benefit of bathing is konam for me forever if I bathe. And it is due to that reason that he may nullify her vow, as what can she do if there is no nullification? If she bathes, the benefit of bathing is thereby forbidden to her. And if she does not bathe, she will suffer temporary disfigurement [nivvula]. And Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that this is not a vow of affliction, maintains that it is possible for her not to bathe, as we are not concerned about her disfigurement.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转谞讗讬 讝讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let the mishna teach like this: Rabbi Yosei says that this condition does not involve affliction, as the content of the vow itself is irrelevant, since she can fulfill the condition.


讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讛 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 注诇讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讛讬讜诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 谞讬讜讜诇 讚讞讚 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 谞讬讜讜诇


The Gemara offers another explanation: Rather, explain that she said: The benefit of bathing is konam for me forever if I bathe today. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that nothing will happen if she refrains from bathing today, as the disfigurement resulting from not bathing for one day is not called disfigurement.


砖谞讬转 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讛 转讬转住专 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 诇注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讛讬讜诐 诇诪讛 诇讛 讛驻专讛 转转住讞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专讛 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 注诇讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讘诪讬 诪砖专讛


The Gemara asks: You have adequately answered the expression: If I bathe, but as for the vow: If I do not bathe, what are the circumstances? If we say that she said: The benefit of bathing shall be forbidden to me forever if I do not bathe today, why does she need nullification at all? Let her bathe today and nothing will be forbidden. Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is referring to a case where she said: The benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I do not bathe in foul water in which flax was soaked. The husband can nullify this vow, as it will make her repulsive, which is a form of disfigurement.


讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 诇讗 讗转拽砖讟 讗诐 诇讗 讗转拽砖讟 讘谞驻讟 诇讻诇讜讱 讛讜讗


The Gemara raises an objection: In that case, you must similarly explain that which the tanna teaches: If I do not adorn myself, to mean: The benefit of adorning myself is forbidden to me forever if I do not do something repulsive, e.g., if I do not adorn myself with naphtha [neft]. But this cannot be, as such a substance is filthy and the term adornment cannot be applied to it at all.


讗诪专 [ 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛] 讚讗诪专讛 讛谞讗转 专讞讬爪讛 诇注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讛讬讜诐 讜砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗专讞抓 讛谞讗转 拽讬砖讜讟 注诇讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诐 讗转拽砖讟 讛讬讜诐 讜砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗转拽砖讟


Rather, Rav Yehuda said that the mishna is referring to a case where she said: The benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I bathe today, and I take an oath that I will not bathe today. Through a combination of her vow and her oath she has rendered it prohibited for her to bathe forever. The situation is similar if she said: The benefit of adornment is forbidden to me forever if I adorn myself today, and I take an oath that I will not adorn myself today.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讜砖讘讜注讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讜砖讘讜注讜转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讘讜注讜转 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讚专讬诐 讚转谞谉 讻谞讚专讬 专砖注讬诐 谞讚专 讘谞讝讬专 讜讘拽专讘谉 讜讘砖讘讜注讛


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to this explanation, this tanna of the mishna should have taught: These are the vows and oaths that he can nullify. Rav Ashi said to him: Teach so in the mishna: These are the vows and oaths. And if you wish, say instead that oaths are also included in the category of vows. As we learned in a mishna (9a): If one said: Like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with respect to becoming a nazirite, and with regard to bringing an offering, and with regard to taking an oath. This shows that an oath can also be called a vow.


讜讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 专讞讬爪讛 讗讬转 讘讛 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讻讬 诇讗 专讞爪讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗住讜专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇讗 讘讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讜注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讘诇讘讚 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬 诇讗 专讞爪讛 讗讬讻讗 注谞讜讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讻讬 专讞抓 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讻专转


搂 The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, mean to say with regard to bathing that when she does not bathe it involves affliction? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita that states: Although one is prohibited from performing any of the five activities associated with affliction on Yom Kippur, i.e., eating or drinking, bathing, anointing, engaging in sexual intercourse, and wearing leather shoes, one is punished with karet only when one eats or drinks or performs prohibited labor alone. And if you say that when a woman does not bathe there is affliction, and for this reason a husband may nullify such a vow taken by his wife, then if one bathes on Yom Kippur, he should be liable to receive karet, in accordance with the verse 鈥淔or whatever person shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off [venikhreta] from his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:29), as he has failed to observe this form of affliction.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪注谞讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讙讘讬 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 转注谞讜 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 诪讬诇转讗 讚讬讚注 注讬谞讜讬讗 讛砖转讗 专讞讬爪讛 诇讗 讬讚注 注讬谞讜讬讗 讛砖转讗 讙讘讬 谞讚专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 谞讚专 讜讻诇 砖讘讜注转 讗住专 诇注谞讜转 谞驻砖 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讬 注谞讜讬 讜讻讬 诇讗 专讞爪讛 讗转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 注谞讜讬


Rava said: The meaning of the affliction in each case may be learned from the context of the verse. With regard to Yom Kippur, where it is written: 鈥淥n the tenth of the month you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), the reference is to a matter for which one knows and feels the affliction right now, on Yom Kippur itself, i.e., abstention from food and drink, which is felt within a short period of time. One who abstains from bathing, however, does not know and feel the affliction now, but only later. By contrast, with regard to vows, where it is written: 鈥淓very vow and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it鈥 (Numbers 30:14), the reference is to a matter that leads to affliction, and if she does not bathe for an extended period of time, it eventually leads to affliction.


讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注讬讬谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讞讬讬讛谉 讜讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讞讬讬讛谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讘讛诪转诐 [讜讘讛诪转 讗讞专讬诐 讘讛诪转诐] 拽讜讚诪转 诇讘讛诪转 讗讞专讬诐 讻讘讬住转谉 讜讻讘讬住转 讗讞专讬诐 讻讘讬住转谉 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻讘讬住转 讗讞专讬诐 讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讜讻讘讬住转谉 讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讻讘讬住转谉


搂 The Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei. It was taught in a baraita: In the case of a spring belonging to the residents of a city, if the water was needed for their own lives, i.e., the city鈥檚 residents required the spring for drinking water, and it was also needed for the lives of others, their own lives take precedence over the lives of others. Likewise, if the water was needed for their own animals and also for the animals of others, their own animals take precedence over the animals of others. And if the water was needed for their own laundry and also for the laundry of others, their own laundry takes precedence over the laundry of others. However, if the spring water was needed for the lives of others and their own laundry, the lives of others take precedence over their own laundry.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻讘讬住转谉 拽讜讚诪转 诇讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 讛砖转讗 讻讘讬住讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讬砖 讘讛 爪注专


Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: Even their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, as the wearing of unlaundered clothes can eventually cause suffering and pose a danger. The Gemara clarifies the difficulty presented by this baraita: Now, if with regard to laundry, Rabbi Yosei said that refraining from laundering one鈥檚 clothes involves pain and affliction,

Scroll To Top