Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Nedarim 4:1

אורחיה דבר נשא מימר קנתה דכולכה דילמא כולכה דקנתה: מנודה אני לך ר' עקיבה היה חוכך בזה להחמיר. לוסר את כל נכסיו כמה דאת אמר (עזרא י׳:ח׳) יחרם כל רכושו והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה. מה עבדין לה רבנן. חומר הוא בנידוי ב"ד: כנדרי רשעים נדר בנזיר בקרבן ובשבועה. שמואל אמר לצדדין היא מתני' או בנזיר או בקרבן או בשבועה. ר' זעירא אמר נזיר בשלשלתן. א"ר אבין מאן דבעי מיפתור הדא דר' זעירא כיני. היה לפניו אשכול אחד ובא אחד ואמר הריני נזיר ממנו הרי זה נזיר ובא אחר ואמר הרי עלי קרבן. הרי עליו קרבן ובא אחר ואמר הרי עלי שבועה הרי עליו שבועה. ובא אחר ואמר מה שאמרו שלשתן עלי לא נמצא זה נדור בנזיר ובקרבן ובשבועה. תני וכנדבותם לא אמר כלום. הדא אמרה שהרשעים מתנדבין מכיון שהתנדב אין זה רשע. מתני' דר' יודן דתני בשם ר' יודן (קוהלת ה) טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם. טוב מזה ומזה שלא תדור. ר"מ אומר טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם טוב מזה ומזה נודר ומשלם. וכן הוא אומר (תהילים ע״ו:י״ב) נדרו ושלמו לאלהיכם. כיצד הוא עושה על נדבה מביא כשבתו לעזרה ואומר הרי זה עולה. ר' אבין אמר ר' יהודה פתח אילו הייתי יודע שהנודר נקרא רשע נודר הייתה. אמר ר' ינאי (משלי כ׳:כ״ה) מוקש אדם ילע קודש ואחר נדרים לבקר. התחיל לנדרו פינקסתו נפתחת. ד"א מוקש אדם ילע קודש ואחר נדרים לבקר. איחור נדרים. איחר אדם את נדרו פינקסו נפתחת. מעשה באחד שאמר הרי עלי עולה ושהא להביאה ושקעה ספינתו בים: כנדרי כשירים לא אמר כלום. הדא אמרה שהכשירים נודרין ומכיון

If it becomes shadowy, the intermediate period (twilight) has arrived. If darkness has set in, so that the upper atmosphere has become indistinguishable from the lower, night has arrived. Rabbi says: When, at the period of the new moon, the sun commences to go down and the moon to appear, it is twilight. know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves.2 In Palestine they said: Also the Key of Sustenance, for it is said, Thou openest thy hand etc.3 Why does not R. Johanan include also this [key]? — Because in his view sustenance is [included in] Rain.4 R. ELIEZER SAYS: ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FEAST etc. The question was asked, Whence did R. Eliezer derive this? Did he learn it from Lulab5 or from the Libation of Water?6 If he learnt it from Lulab, then just as the obligation of the use of the Lulab comes into force on the [first] day of Tabernacles, so too should we begin to make mention of rain on that day. Or perhaps he learnt it from Libation. [If so, then] just as Water Libation may be [carried out] on the evening [preceding the first day] — (for a Master [interpreting the verse], And the meal-offering thereof and their drink-offerings,7 said, Even by night)-so too should one begin to make mention of rain on that evening!8 — Come and hear: R. Abbahu said: R. Eliezer deduced it from Lulab only. Some there are who say: R. Abbahu had a tradition. Whilst others say: He based it on a Baraitha. Which is the Baraitha? — It has been taught: ‘When do we [begin to] make mention of Rain? R. Eliezer says: From the time of the taking up of the Lulab; R. Joshua says, From the time when the Lulab is discarded.9 Said R. Eliezer: Seeing that these Four Species are intended only to make intercession for water,10 therefore as these cannot [grow] without water so the world [too] cannot exist without water. R. Joshua said to him: Is not rain on the Feast a sure sign of [God's] anger? R. Eliezer replied: I too did not say to pray but to make mention. And just as one makes mention of the Revival of the Dead all the year round11 although it will take place only in its proper time, so too should mention be made of the Power of Rain all the year round although it comes only in its due season. Therefore if one desires to make mention all the year round he may do so. Rabbi says: I hold the view that when one ceases to pray [for rain]12 one should also no longer make mention of it. R. Judah b. Bathyra says: On the second day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention. R. Akiba says: On the sixth day of the Feast. R. Judah says in the name of R. Joshua: The last to step before the Ark 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. Did not then R. Eliezer reply well to R. Joshua?- R. Joshua can answer you: It is quite in order to make mention of the Revival of the Dead [all the year round], since any day may be its time, but is rain seasonable at all times? Have we not learnt: Should Nisan terminate and then rain fall it is a sign of [God's] anger, for it is said, Is it not wheat harvest to-day etc.?13 ‘R. Judah b. Bathyra says: on the second day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention’. What is R. Judah b. Bathyra's reason? — It has been taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra says, Of the second day of the Feast, Scripture Says, we-niskehem,14 [‘and their drink-offerings’] and of the sixth day, u-nesakeah15 [‘and its drink-offerings’] and of the seventh day, kemishpatam16 [according to their rule]. Note [the letters] Mem, Yod, Mem which form the word mayim [‘water’].17 Here you have the biblical allusion to the Libation of Water. And what makes him [R. Judah b. Bathyra] fix it on the second day? — Because [the first of the allusions to the Water Libation] is found in connection [with the order for] the second day. Hence why we should [begin] to make mention on the second day. R. Akiba says: On the sixth day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention, for of the sixth day Scripture says, And its drink-offerings.18 Scripture thus speaks of two libations,19 the Libation of Water and the Libation of Wine. Perhaps both Libations must be of wine? — He [R. Akiba] is of the same opinion as R. Judah b. Bathyra who said, There is an allusion to water.2

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 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

There, we have stated34Mishnah 4. Personal healing is healing a human, which is a biblical commandment (Deut. 22:2) and cannot be abolished by a vow. Financial healing is veterinary medicine. The question is, if he is required to return what the other one had lost as required in Mishnah 2, why can he not heal his cow which is lost without medical help?: “He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing.” Rebbi Judan and Rebbi Yose. One of them said, here if the vow refers to his body, there if the vow refers to his property35Mishnah 2 refers to a vow that B cannot personally have any gain from A; therefore A may return what B lost. Mishnah 3 deals with the case that B cannot have any material advantage from A; therefore A cannot heal B’s animal.. But the other one said, here if he has somebody else who can heal him, there if there is nobody else who can heal him. If he has somebody else who can heal him, he should not be able to heal him personally! Not by everybody is a person successfully healed36The personal skills of a medical man are not transferable..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah

Available for Premium members only
Full Chapter