Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Nedarim 2:1

ולית לרבי עקיבה כן. אית ליה כולה מתמן אית ליה. מיכן שאדם קובע עליו נזירות בתוך נזירותו. והלא הערכין והחרמין והתמורות והקדישות בפרשה היו ולא תנינן כינויי ערכין וכינוי תמורות והקדשות. ואילו תנינן מה הוינן מיתני ערפין ערצין ערקין. תמופה תמרנה תמוקה. הנדר הגזר הגרם ניחא כמאן דאמר סתם חרמים לבדק הבית. ברם כמאן דאמר סתם חרמים לכהנים. ולמה לא תנינן כינויי תרומה. ואילין תנינן מה הוינן מיתני תרופה תרוצה תרוקה. ר' יעקב בר אחא אמר איתפלגון ר' יוחנן ור' אלעזר דר' יוחנן אמר לוקין על האיסרות ר' אלעזר אומר אין לוקין. א"ר יעקב בר אחא כך משיב ר' יוחנן את ר' אלעזר על דעתך דאת אמר אין לוקין על האיסרות. והא תנינן המודר הנייה מחבירו ונכנס לבקרו לא יכנס. א"ר ירמיה שנייה היא תמן מפני דרכי שלום. ר' יוסי בעי אם מפני דרכי שלום אפילו בשבועות יהא מותר. ותנינן נדרים אסור ושבועות מותר. אי זה איסור ככר זה עלי כיום שמת בו אבא כיום שנהרג בו פלוני כיום שראיתי ירושלים חריבה זהו איסר שאמרה התורה. ר' בא בשם רבי יוחנן ורב תריהון אמרין והוא שיהא נדור באותו היום. ר' יוסי בעי אם בשיהא נדור באותו היום למה לי איסר וימר כאותו היום איסר זו שבועה מבטא זו שבועה. אם אומר את איסר זו שבועה חייב על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו. איסר זו שבועה ותמר אם אומר את כן. א"ר אלעזר תרין תניין אינון. א"ר ירמיה חד תניי הוא אמרו בלשון נדר את תופסו בלשון נדר. אמרו בלשון שבועה את תופסו בלשון שבועה.

Come and see, [let us test this hypothesis by implication from our mishnah]: "...from the time that the Kohanim go in to eat their terumah." It is [still close to] daytime. It is as soon as the stars come out!? [and the Tosefta says:] "...from the time when people usually go in to eat their bread on the eve of the Sabbath." That is an hour or two after nightfall! [These are obviously two very different times.] And yet you say: "These opinions are close enough to be equal!?" --Rabbi Yose said: "Let the problem be resolved [by claiming that the Tosefta refers only] to those small villages whose way is to go on up [home] while it is still day, to spare themselves from the animals." It teaches in a Baraita: "The one who recites [the Shema] before this has not fulfilled their obligation. If so, why do we recite it [before nightfall] in the synagogue? Rabbi Yose said: 'We do not recite it in the synagogue to fulfill its obligation. Rather, [we recite it] so that we may stand up in prayer after a word of Torah." Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Yirmiyah: "If there is doubt whether he made the blessings after his food or not, he should make the blessings [even though he may be doing it a second time]. For it is written (Deut. 8:10) 'And you shall eat, and you shall be satisfied, then you shall bless [the LORD your God...]' If there is doubt whether he prayed or not, he should not pray [as he may have already done so.]" But he disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan. For Rabbi Yohanan said: "If only a person could pray the entire day!" Why? For prayer is never a waste. If there is doubt whether he recited [Shema] or not, we may gather from this baraita: "The one who recites [the Shema] before this has not fulfilled their obligation." And is not before [nightfall] a time of doubt? And yet you say "he should recite [Shema]." This implies that if there is doubt whether he recited [Shema] or not, he should recite [Shema]. [From Tosefta 1:1] "The indicator of this is when the stars come out. And though there is no proof of it [from Scripture], there is a trace of it: (Neh. 4:21) '...we were doing the labor, and half of them were holding the spears from the break of dawn until the stars came out.' And he writes: '...it is guard-time for us by night and labor by day." How many stars should come out so that it becomes night? Rabbi Pinhas in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Papa: "One star, surely day. Two, doubt. Three, surely night." "...two doubt," [really]? But is it not written, "...until the stars came out!?" Rather, [the plural] "stars" indicates two! [Not three!]--The first one doesn't count. [An unattributed baraita:] "If he sees one star on the eve of the Sabbath and performs a creative task, he is exempt [from punishment]. Two, he brings a conditional guilt offering, Three, he brings a sin offering. On the departure of the Sabbath, if he sees on star and performs a creative task,

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar disagree, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, one whips for prohibitions36Somebody forbade something for himself without using the language either of vows or of oaths or any of the recognized substitute expressions. If he then breaks his own prohibition this falls under the biblical prohibition of “he shall not profane his word” (Num. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In Nazir 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in Nazir would remain unexplained.) and Rebbi Eleazar said, one does not whip36Somebody forbade something for himself without using the language either of vows or of oaths or any of the recognized substitute expressions. If he then breaks his own prohibition this falls under the biblical prohibition of “he shall not profane his word” (Num. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In Nazir 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in Nazir would remain unexplained.). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: According to you, who says one does not whip on prohibitions, did we not state37Mishnah 4:4: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him (when he is sick), he may stand but not sit down and heal him (but not his animals).” He cannot sit down because he would derive usufruct from the other’s possessions. The question makes sense only if R. Eleazar holds that transgressing the prohibition is prosecutable.: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him,” let him not enter38If transgressing a private prohibition is not prosecutable, one can explain the Mishnah as referring to a prohibition of usufruct, not a formal vow or oath. But if it is prosecutable as a formal vow, why permit to enter since the person entering will find shelter there from the sun in summer and the rain in winter?! Rebbi Jeremiah said, there is a difference there because of the ways of peace39“Ways of peace” are the obligations of interpersonal relationships necessary in a civilized society; in this case, visiting the sick.. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is because of the ways of peace, should he not also be permitted in case of an oath? But we have stated40Mishnah 2:2: “A vow that I shall not build a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab, that I will not wear phylacteries: vows are forbidden, oaths permitted, for one cannot swear to break religious obligations.” If somebody makes a vow that religious objects should be forbidden to him (as if they were dedicated sacrifices), he commits a twofold sin in making a frivolous vow and breaking biblical commandments, but what he did is done. But if he swears that he will not fulfill his religious obligations, the oath is invalid since, in the language of the Babli, “he already is under oath from Mount Sinai”, and a valid oath cannot be superseded by another oath. Since visiting the sick is a religious obligation, if the prohibition of usufruct is interpreted as an oath it should be nonexistent in the case of a visit to a sick person. No answer is given since practice follows R. Joḥanan.: “Vows are forbidden, oaths permitted.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

48A baraita similar to this one is quoted and explained in the Babli Šebuot 20a.“ ‘Prohibition’, is an oath. ‘Expression’49Num. 30:4: “If she be married to a man and her vows are on her or the expression of her lips which she forbade on herself.” Since “expression” is opposed to “vows”, it must refer to oaths. Similarly, “to express with one’s lips” is used for “to swear an oath” in Lev. 5:4; cf. Šebuot 20a., is an oath. If you say prohibition is an oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. If you say prohibition is50It seems that “not” has fallen out here. The two cases will be explained below. a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.” “Prohibition is an oath”, and you say “if you say so”?51First one states that ‘prohibition’ is an expression of an oath. Then one argues ‘if it is an oath’, ‘if it is not an oath’. This contradicts the first statement. Rebbi Eleazar said, these are two Tannaїm52The first two sentences have one author, the last two a different one.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is from one Tanna53The baraita, as one would reasonably expect, is from one author. But the implicit verb in the first two sentences should not be read as “is” but as “may be”.. If he said it in the language of a vow54That he forbids the object for himself. you catch him in the language of a vow. If he said it in the language of an oath55That he forbids himself the use of the object. Since “prohibition” is applied to both vows and oaths, the meaning of the word is determined by the syntax of the sentence in which it is used; cf. Note 4. you catch him in the language of an oath. If you say, prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath56Violating a vow is a prohibition which, if proved in court by two witnesses, might subject the perpetrator to punishment by whipping. Even if the violation was inadvertent, there never is a possibility of a sacrifice. But inadvertently violating an oath imposes on the perpetrator the duty to offer a reparation or a purification offering in the Temple, Lev. 5:1–13.. Rebbi Yose said, this comes only for five loaves57Multiple guilt (multiple sacrifices) are possible only for multiple objects of prohibitions, not for repeated prohibitions of the same object.. But for a single loaf, from the moment he mentioned “oath” for it, he made it a cadaver58If somebody made an oath to the effect that he would not eat a certain food, that food is forbidden to him as if it were cadaver meat, forbidden to any Jew.. Furthermore, he may want to have oaths apply to prohibited items, but oaths cannot apply to prohibitited items40Mishnah 2:2: “A vow that I shall not build a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab, that I will not wear phylacteries: vows are forbidden, oaths permitted, for one cannot swear to break religious obligations.” If somebody makes a vow that religious objects should be forbidden to him (as if they were dedicated sacrifices), he commits a twofold sin in making a frivolous vow and breaking biblical commandments, but what he did is done. But if he swears that he will not fulfill his religious obligations, the oath is invalid since, in the language of the Babli, “he already is under oath from Mount Sinai”, and a valid oath cannot be superseded by another oath. Since visiting the sick is a religious obligation, if the prohibition of usufruct is interpreted as an oath it should be nonexistent in the case of a visit to a sick person. No answer is given since practice follows R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it applies even to a single loaf. As we have stated59Tosephta Šebuot 2:4, referred to in Babli Šebuot 28b., “in that the past is more stringent than the future, if he said I did not eat, I did not eat, he is guilty for every statement60If he swore falsely that he had not eaten, he committed the sin of a false oath. Since that oath does not forbid anything, each statement stands on its own and subjects him to the punishment for swearing falsely.; I shall not eat, I shall not eat, he is guilty only once61The first oath established the prohibition; the following oaths are futile, forbidden in the Third Commandment, but not triggering any obligation of sacrifice..” Rebbi Yudan said62He explains the prior statement “If you say prohibition is not a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.”, only if he first mentioned “vow” and then mentioned “oath”. But if he mentioned oath and then vow, vows can apply to prohibitions but oaths cannot apply to prohibitions63Since vows are subject related, if he forbade himself the use of a loaf, he may later declare the loaf to have the status of qorbān, to add the prohibition of sacrilege to the prohibition of eating. But if he first declared the loaf to be qorbān, it is automatically forbidden to him and no oath can increase the degree of prohibition. Therefore, the oath following the vow is a futile oath..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full ChapterNext Verse