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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 21, 2023 | 讻状讞 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Nedarim 88 – Shabbat January 21

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday鈥檚 daf please click here.

The contradiction between Rabbi Meir in the Mishna and Rabbi Meir regarding a city of refuge is resolved by distinguishing between the cases and showing that the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir was derived specifically from the words in the verses of the Torah on that topic. If one vows to not let his son-in-law benefit from him, in what way can he give a gift to his daughter so that the son-in-law won’t benefit? The Mishna proscribes what to do according to Rabbi Meir’s approach who holds that whatever a woman accepts the right to use the item goes straight to her husband. Rav and Shmuel rule differently on this topic. A contradiction is brought against Rav from laws of eruv, but is resolved as a distinction is made between the cases. Ravina raises a question from a braita and Rav Ashi resolves it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 诪注谞讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜讛讻讗 诪注谞讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讙讘讬 专讜爪讞 讻转讬讘 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 讻诇 讚讘专 诪讬注诇 诇讬注专 讜住讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讘专 诪讬注诇 诇讬注专 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讜诪讗 诪讬注专 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 驻专讟 诇住讜诪讗

Rava said: There is no contradiction here, as the dispute with regard to an unintentional killing is based on divergent interpretations of the verse. Here, the ruling follows from the context of the verse, and there, the ruling follows from the context of the verse. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that with regard to the exile of an unintentional killer it is written: 鈥淎nd a man who goes into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), which serves to include anyone who is capable of entering a forest, and a blind person is also is capable of entering a forest. And if you say that the phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to include a blind person, this is already derived from the word 鈥渇orest,鈥 as he too can enter a forest. Rather, learn from it that the phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to exclude a blind person from the category of unintentional killers who are exiled to a city of refuge.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻转讬讘 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 讻诇 讚讘专 诪讬讚注 讜住讜诪讗 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬讚注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 驻专讟 诇住讜诪讗 诪讘诇讬 讚注转 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讜诪讗

By contrast, Rabbi Meir maintains: It is written in that same section: 鈥淥ne who strikes his neighbor without knowledge鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4), which indicates that the halakha applies to anyone who is capable of knowing the precise location of the people standing about him, but a blind person is not capable of knowing this. And if you say that the phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to exclude a blind person, this is already derived from the words 鈥渨ithout knowledge.鈥 Rather, learn from it that the phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to include a blind person in the halakha of exile, not to exclude him.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讚讬专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞转谞讜 讜讛讜讗 专讜爪讛 诇转转 诇讘转讜 诪注讜转 讗讜诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讛诪注讜转 讛讗诇讜 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讘注诇讬讱 专砖讜转 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讗转 谞讜砖讗转 讜谞讜转谞转 讘驻讬讱

MISHNA: With regard to one who vows that benefit from him is forbidden to his son-in-law, but he nevertheless wishes to give his daughter, i.e., the wife of that same son-in-law, money, then, though he cannot do so directly, as anything acquired by a woman belongs to her husband, he should say to her: This money is hereby given to you as a gift, provided that your husband has no rights to it, but the gift includes only that which you pick up and place in your mouth.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诪讛 砖讗转 谞讜砖讗转 讜谞讜转谞转 讘驻讬讱 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪讛 砖转专爪讬 注砖讬 拽谞讛 讬转讛讜谉 讘注诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 诪讛 砖转专爪讬 注砖讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 讬转讛讜谉 讘注诇 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗

GEMARA: Rav said that they taught this halakha only in a case where he actually said to her: That which you pick up and place in your mouth is yours. But if he said: Do as you please with the money, his stipulation is of no effect, and the husband acquires the money. And Shmuel says that even if he said: Do as you please with the money, the husband does not acquire it. Rabbi Zeira objects to this statement of Rav:

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讬讚 讗砖讛 讻讬讚 讘注诇讛

In accordance with whose opinion among the tanna鈥檌m does Rav鈥檚 halakha correspond? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said as a principle that the hand of a woman is like the hand of her husband. According to Rabbi Meir, a slave has no independent right of acquisition, and anything given to a slave belongs to his master even if it was stipulated otherwise (see Kiddushin 23b). Rav assumes that similarly, a married woman has no independent right of acquisition, but rather, anything that she attempts to acquire for herself is automatically acquired by her husband.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诪讝讻讛 诇讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 讗砖转讜

Rabbi Zeira continues: And raise a contradiction from an unattributed mishna (Eiruvin 73b), which presumably follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir: How does one merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway in order to permit its residents to carry on Shabbat from one courtyard to another in the same alley, if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his own food or wine and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, and the tanna therefore teaches that he may transfer possession to them even by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, whom he does not own, and likewise by means of his adult son or daughter, and similarly by means of his wife. These people may acquire the eiruv food on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 拽谞讛 讬转讛讜谉 讘注诇讛 注讬专讜讘 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 诪专砖讜转讬讛 讚讘注诇

Rabbi Zeira states the contradiction: And if you say that a woman鈥檚 husband acquires anything given to her, the eiruv food has consequently not left the husband鈥檚 domain when he gives it to his wife, for anything she acquires belongs to him. Rather, it can be seen from here that Rabbi Meir does not extend his principle from a slave to a married woman, in opposition of the ruling of Rav.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬讚 讗砖讛 讻讬讚 讘注诇讛 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇注谞讬谉 砖讬转讜祝 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讝讻讜转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛 讝讻讬讗

Rava said in response: Even though Rabbi Meir said that in general the hand of a woman is like the hand of her husband, in accordance with the ruling of Rav, Rabbi Meir nevertheless concedes with regard to the merging of alleyways that since it is her aim to acquire the eiruv food for others from the hand of her husband, and not to acquire it for herself, she can acquire it from him for this purpose.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讜 砖讝讻讬谉 诇讛谉 [注诇 讬讚讬] 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 讝讻讬谉 诇讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 讜讗砖转讜

Ravina raised an objection to Rav Ashi from the following baraita: These are the people who can acquire eiruv food on behalf of others: The eiruv food can be acquired by means of his adult son or daughter, and by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant. And these are the people who cannot acquire an eiruv on behalf of others: The eiruv food cannot be acquired by means of his minor son or daughter, or by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, or by means of his wife. This indicates that a married woman does not have an independent right of acquisition to acquire the eiruv food on behalf of others, in opposition to the ruling of the mishna.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讬砖 诇讛 讞爪专 讘讗讜转讜 诪讘讜讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讙讜 讚讝讻讬讗 诇谞驻砖讛 讝讻讬讗 诇讗讞专讬谞讬

Rather, Rav Ashi said: In the mishna in Eiruvin, we are dealing with a woman who possesses a courtyard of her own in that alleyway, i.e., it is a case where the husband had earlier stipulated that she should have property of her own, to which he renounces all his rights. As, since she acquires the eiruv food for herself by virtue of the courtyard that she owns in that alleyway, she likewise acquires it for others.

诪转谞讬壮 讜谞讚专 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讬拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖讗转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

MISHNA: The Torah states: 鈥淏ut every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her鈥 (Numbers 30:10). How so? If a widow or divorced woman said: I am hereby a nazirite after thirty days, then even if she was married within thirty days, her new husband cannot nullify her vow.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Nedarim 88: Can a Blind Man See?

When the sages contradict their own opinions, specifically via a parallel case if inadvertent homicide and a blind person, as...

Nedarim 88 – Shabbat January 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 88 – Shabbat January 21

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 诪注谞讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜讛讻讗 诪注谞讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讙讘讬 专讜爪讞 讻转讬讘 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 讻诇 讚讘专 诪讬注诇 诇讬注专 讜住讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讘专 诪讬注诇 诇讬注专 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讜诪讗 诪讬注专 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 驻专讟 诇住讜诪讗

Rava said: There is no contradiction here, as the dispute with regard to an unintentional killing is based on divergent interpretations of the verse. Here, the ruling follows from the context of the verse, and there, the ruling follows from the context of the verse. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that with regard to the exile of an unintentional killer it is written: 鈥淎nd a man who goes into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), which serves to include anyone who is capable of entering a forest, and a blind person is also is capable of entering a forest. And if you say that the phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to include a blind person, this is already derived from the word 鈥渇orest,鈥 as he too can enter a forest. Rather, learn from it that the phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to exclude a blind person from the category of unintentional killers who are exiled to a city of refuge.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻转讬讘 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 讻诇 讚讘专 诪讬讚注 讜住讜诪讗 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬讚注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 驻专讟 诇住讜诪讗 诪讘诇讬 讚注转 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讜诪讗

By contrast, Rabbi Meir maintains: It is written in that same section: 鈥淥ne who strikes his neighbor without knowledge鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4), which indicates that the halakha applies to anyone who is capable of knowing the precise location of the people standing about him, but a blind person is not capable of knowing this. And if you say that the phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to exclude a blind person, this is already derived from the words 鈥渨ithout knowledge.鈥 Rather, learn from it that the phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to include a blind person in the halakha of exile, not to exclude him.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讚讬专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞转谞讜 讜讛讜讗 专讜爪讛 诇转转 诇讘转讜 诪注讜转 讗讜诪专 诇讛 讛专讬 讛诪注讜转 讛讗诇讜 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讘注诇讬讱 专砖讜转 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讗转 谞讜砖讗转 讜谞讜转谞转 讘驻讬讱

MISHNA: With regard to one who vows that benefit from him is forbidden to his son-in-law, but he nevertheless wishes to give his daughter, i.e., the wife of that same son-in-law, money, then, though he cannot do so directly, as anything acquired by a woman belongs to her husband, he should say to her: This money is hereby given to you as a gift, provided that your husband has no rights to it, but the gift includes only that which you pick up and place in your mouth.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诪讛 砖讗转 谞讜砖讗转 讜谞讜转谞转 讘驻讬讱 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪讛 砖转专爪讬 注砖讬 拽谞讛 讬转讛讜谉 讘注诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 诪讛 砖转专爪讬 注砖讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 讬转讛讜谉 讘注诇 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗

GEMARA: Rav said that they taught this halakha only in a case where he actually said to her: That which you pick up and place in your mouth is yours. But if he said: Do as you please with the money, his stipulation is of no effect, and the husband acquires the money. And Shmuel says that even if he said: Do as you please with the money, the husband does not acquire it. Rabbi Zeira objects to this statement of Rav:

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讬讚 讗砖讛 讻讬讚 讘注诇讛

In accordance with whose opinion among the tanna鈥檌m does Rav鈥檚 halakha correspond? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said as a principle that the hand of a woman is like the hand of her husband. According to Rabbi Meir, a slave has no independent right of acquisition, and anything given to a slave belongs to his master even if it was stipulated otherwise (see Kiddushin 23b). Rav assumes that similarly, a married woman has no independent right of acquisition, but rather, anything that she attempts to acquire for herself is automatically acquired by her husband.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诪讝讻讛 诇讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 讗砖转讜

Rabbi Zeira continues: And raise a contradiction from an unattributed mishna (Eiruvin 73b), which presumably follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir: How does one merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway in order to permit its residents to carry on Shabbat from one courtyard to another in the same alley, if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his own food or wine and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, and the tanna therefore teaches that he may transfer possession to them even by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, whom he does not own, and likewise by means of his adult son or daughter, and similarly by means of his wife. These people may acquire the eiruv food on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 拽谞讛 讬转讛讜谉 讘注诇讛 注讬专讜讘 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 诪专砖讜转讬讛 讚讘注诇

Rabbi Zeira states the contradiction: And if you say that a woman鈥檚 husband acquires anything given to her, the eiruv food has consequently not left the husband鈥檚 domain when he gives it to his wife, for anything she acquires belongs to him. Rather, it can be seen from here that Rabbi Meir does not extend his principle from a slave to a married woman, in opposition of the ruling of Rav.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬讚 讗砖讛 讻讬讚 讘注诇讛 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇注谞讬谉 砖讬转讜祝 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讝讻讜转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗 诪讬讚 讘注诇讛 讝讻讬讗

Rava said in response: Even though Rabbi Meir said that in general the hand of a woman is like the hand of her husband, in accordance with the ruling of Rav, Rabbi Meir nevertheless concedes with regard to the merging of alleyways that since it is her aim to acquire the eiruv food for others from the hand of her husband, and not to acquire it for herself, she can acquire it from him for this purpose.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讜 砖讝讻讬谉 诇讛谉 [注诇 讬讚讬] 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 讝讻讬谉 诇讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 讜讗砖转讜

Ravina raised an objection to Rav Ashi from the following baraita: These are the people who can acquire eiruv food on behalf of others: The eiruv food can be acquired by means of his adult son or daughter, and by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant. And these are the people who cannot acquire an eiruv on behalf of others: The eiruv food cannot be acquired by means of his minor son or daughter, or by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, or by means of his wife. This indicates that a married woman does not have an independent right of acquisition to acquire the eiruv food on behalf of others, in opposition to the ruling of the mishna.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讬砖 诇讛 讞爪专 讘讗讜转讜 诪讘讜讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讙讜 讚讝讻讬讗 诇谞驻砖讛 讝讻讬讗 诇讗讞专讬谞讬

Rather, Rav Ashi said: In the mishna in Eiruvin, we are dealing with a woman who possesses a courtyard of her own in that alleyway, i.e., it is a case where the husband had earlier stipulated that she should have property of her own, to which he renounces all his rights. As, since she acquires the eiruv food for herself by virtue of the courtyard that she owns in that alleyway, she likewise acquires it for others.

诪转谞讬壮 讜谞讚专 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讬拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖讗转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

MISHNA: The Torah states: 鈥淏ut every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her鈥 (Numbers 30:10). How so? If a widow or divorced woman said: I am hereby a nazirite after thirty days, then even if she was married within thirty days, her new husband cannot nullify her vow.

Scroll To Top