Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Nedarim 3:1

אסר הרי הוא על ידי את תופסו בלשון נדר. אסר ואיני טועמו את תופסו במקום שבועה. אם אומר את אסר מין שבועה חייב על כל איסר ואיסר ועל כל שבועה ושבועה. אמר רבי יוסי לא אתייא אלא בחמשה ככרין אבל בככר א' מכיון שהזכיר עליו שבועה עשאו כנגילה מיכן ואילך כמחייל שבועות על האיסרין ואין שבועות חלות על האסרין. אמר רבי חנניה אפי' בככר אחד אתייא היא כהדא דתני זה חומר לשעבר מלבא שאם אמר לא אכלתי לא אכלתי חב על כל א' וא'. לא אוכל לא אוכל אינו חב אלא אחת אם אומר את אין אסר מין שבועה חב על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו. אמר ר' יודן והוא שהזכיר נדר ואחר כך הזכיר שבועה. אבל אם הזכיר שבועה ואח"כ הזכיר נדר נדרין חלין על האיסרין ואין שבועות חלות על האיסרין. ר' יוסי פתר (במדבר ל׳:ג׳) לאסור אסר הרי הוא עלי אסור הרי עליו אסור אסור. שבועה הרי הוא עלי אסור הרי עליו בשבועה אסור. א"ר יודן בנדרים אסור ובשבועות מותר. אסר הרי עלי אסר הרי עליו אסר אסור. שבועה הרי עלי אסור שבועה הרי עליו מותר. מודר אני ממך ר' יוסי בן חנינה אמר שניהן אסורין זה בזה כמאן דאמר ואנא מינך. אמר הככר הזה גדור ממני ואנא מינה. הריני נדור מככר זה והוא ממני היא הימך היא ממך. אמר היא הרי אני לך היא הרי אני עליך היא הרי את לי היא הרי את עלי. תני כלוי אני ממך פרוש אני ממך. רבי ירמיה בעי ולמה לא תנינן נטול. אמר ר' יוסי ותניתה בסופה ונטולה אני מן היהודים. שאיני אוכל לך שאיני טועם לך. רבי לעזר בשם ר' הושעיה תופשין אותו משם יד לקרבן. ר' בון בר חייה בעי אם אמר לא אוכל לך תופשין אותו משם יד לשבועה. א"ר יוסה

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east; SIGN OF [GOD'S] ANGER3 WHY MAKE MENTION OF IT? THEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO HIM: I ALSO DID NOT SAY TO PRAY4 BUT TO MAKE MENTION [IN THE WORD] ‘HE CAUSETH THE WIND TO BLOW AND THE RAIN TO FALL’5 -IN ITS DUE SEASON. HE [R. JOSHUA] REPLIED TO HIM: IF THAT IS SO ONE SHOULD AT ALL TIMES MAKE MENTION OF IT. WE PRAY FOR RAIN ONLY CLOSE TO THE RAINY SEASON. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE LAST TO STEP BEFORE THE ARK6 ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FEAST MAKES MENTION, THE FIRST DOES NOT; ON THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER THE FIRST MAKES MENTION, THE LAST DOES NOT. GEMARA. What has the Tanna [in mind] when he teaches WHEN etc.?7 -The Tanna refers to [a Mishnah] elsewhere which teaches: We make mention of the Power of Rain in the [benediction of] the Revival of the Dead,8 and we pray for [rain] in the Benediction of the Years9 and [we insert] the Habdulah10 in [the benediction] ‘Thou favourest man with knowledge’.11 [With that passage in mind] the Tanna now teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain? Would it not have been more appropriate to teach it there, why did he leave it until now? — [Say] rather, because the Tanna had just completed [learning the Tractate] Rosh Hashanah12 where we have learnt: And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water. And, [as there] he taught: ‘And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water,’ therefore there he teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain. But let him teach: When do we [begin] to make mention of Rain: why, the Power of Rain?-R. Johanan said: Because Rain comes down by the Power [of God], as it is said, Who doeth great things und unsearchable, marvellous things without number.13 And it is [further] written, Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields.14 Where [in these verses is this idea] implied? — Rabbah b. Shila replied: It is derived from the analogous use of the word heker in verses treating of Creation. Here it is written, ‘Who doeth great things and unsearchable’. And there it is written, ‘Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, The Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out.15 And [of Creation] it is [also] written, Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains, Who art girded about with might.16 Whence do we know that mention of Rain is to be made in the Prayer?17 - It has been taught: To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart.18 What is Service of Heart? You must needs say, Prayer. And the verse following reads, That I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain.19 R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead. The Key of Rain, for It is written, The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,20 The Key of Childbirth, for it is written, And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

HALAKHAH: “Partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another,” etc. The rabbis say, every single [square] hand-breadth is common property of the partners. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, each one enters into what is his. If the courtyard was divided by pebbles6Greek ψῆφος. If at some time they decide to mark the borders between the domains belonging to the different houses by rows of pebbles cemented into the ground, this amounts to a division of the common property and the rabbis will not hold that a formal contract is needed to disestablish the former common domain. (In modern Hebrew, the word means “mosaic”.), even the rabbis agree. If one of them went and sold his part, even Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees7If one of the partners sells his part, he can no longer claim to enter into what is his and even according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob he is forbidden to set foot in the courtyard.. If they contracted between themselves to concede8They split the common courtyard as outlined in Baba batra but in the contract agreed that they would not insist on excluding the other party from entering the separate domain of the other party. Then for the rabbis the split did not change anything., it is still in the hands of the partners. It is only needed if they did not contract between themselves to concede; what is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And did we not state there, “he buys higher and sells lower9Chapter 3, Note 147. Does R. Eliezer ben Jacob permit transactions at the regular price?”? What is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And did we not state there, “he should not lend him nor ask him for anything10Chapter 4, Note 99. Since no transfer of property is involved, does R. Eliezer ben Jacob agree?,”? What is the position of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? And what Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long11Chapter 4, Note 76. Does R. Eliezer ben Jacob agree that the visits have to be as short as possible??
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Demai

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will62Mishnah Nedarim 3:11. This is one of the vows the husband cannot dissolve if made by his wife since dissolution is unnecessary; any recipient of the obligatory gifts to Cohen and Levite may take them by force in this case, and the owner has no monetary gain. It seems to disagree with R. Joḥanan who says that the owner has the choice of recipient. But since the owner does not want to give what he is obligated to, he transgresses commandments of the Torah and the situation can be saved only by others disregarding his rights..” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take63Same Mishnah; if the vow excludes a certain group of people, he always can give to others..” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen64Speaking of the firstborn of a cow or ewe. In the Babli (Bekhorot27a) a similar statement is made for future heave. Both statements are taken together in Tosephta Demay 5:18: “An Israel may say to a Cohen {it seems that it should read: another Israel, but there is absolutely no manuscript evidence for that} here you have a tetradrachma and give heave to my daughter’s son, the Cohen, or give a firstborn to my daughter’s son, the Cohen.” The Babli does not want to accept the statement about the firstborn since the Cohen might think the tetradrachma is redemption money and the firstborn does not have to be treated as a sacrifice..” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen65Indirect usufruct is permitted by R. Joḥanan..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

There162Mishnah Nedarim 3:6 and the relevant Halakhah (Notes 110–121). The text here does not make any sense and is not intended to make any sense. The Genizah fragment starts the quote of the Mishnah; the missing part of the line contained an instruction to continue the text in Nedarim. The same is intended here. We have a quote of the start of the Mishnah and a few words from the first paragraph of the Halakhah, ending with a complete copy of the last sentence, a sign that the copy now starts in earnest. It is clear that both scribes of the Genizah and the Leiden mss. considered the Nedarim text as the original for Qiddušin. For the reader’s convenience, here is the text omitted by the scribes:
Halakhah 6: “These orchard trees shall be qorbān,” etc. If he saw the king’s cutting crew coming near, if he saw fire coming near, and he said: These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorbān if it is not burned or torn. Were they sanctified retroactively or only for the future? What is the difference? If he used them. If you say that they are sanctified retroactively, he committed larceny. If you say that it refers to the future, he did not commit larceny.
, it was stated: “These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorbān if it is not burned.” And it was burned. Were they sanctified retroactively? He committed larceny. If you say that it refers to the future, he did not commit larceny.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah

Available for Premium members only
Full Chapter