i i ' a oe , a 10b* KOL KINUYEL ‘CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM Misfiniaft. Having ittustrated the laws of “partial declarations” and “equivalent terms,” the Mishnah proceeds toillustrate that a neder can be effected by associating a permitted article with a prohibited one:™* ‘wig — One who says to his fellow: which Ieat of yours," Wwp x — “not kosher,” 3h bare phind — “La’ehullin (i.e. not chullin) — that 131 x5) — or “not clean,” ‘ny — “tahor,”™ xy = or “tamei,””™ apis — “nossar,”'% Sven — or “piggul,”*! sox ~ is forbidden to eat of his fellow’s food." ‘The Mishnah continues with another group of declarat xq KD — If one said, “Let this be like a lamb,” ‘the logs," arwxey — “like the fires," name — Brym — “like the enclosures," rvva — “like “Ake the Altar,""* 3y3 — “like the Heichal,”* NOTES 26, Meiri. This Mishnah presents the rule that one can invoke a neder ‘without explicitly declaring an object forbidden, but by merely linking it {oan article previously prohibited through a vow. This method of vow- {ng isalled ngpra, hatfasah (eee 2a note2). The formulas listed here are ‘not considered yados, but rather, full declarations (Ran to 2a™a3 737071 ‘and to Shevuos 20a (fl. 8a of Rf, Vilna ed f. Rtoa here and to 14a). 21. Chullin is unconsecrated food. One who tells his fellow, “That which Tea of yours shall not be chullin,"implie that the fellows food shall be considered like kodashim — consecrated food. The intent is clearly that the fellow’ fod shall be forbidden to him like an offering (Ran). [The ‘word rn is a contraction of in x9, not chullin (Ran; se Rashba and Ritea; see also Taz, Orach Chaim 5822, and Magen Avraham 582:4, for ‘an application of this grammatical principle to our prayers ef. Hagahos Yavetz and Parashas Nedarim).) 28, The word "97 is Aramaic for np, clean or pure, meaning “permit- ted," as in Deuteronomy 14:0): Yo9xn m9 “8x59, Any clean {i.e Kosher] bird may you eat (see Targum Onkelos ad lo. see further, Onkelos ibid. v. 20 and Mishnah Eduyos 8:4). Saying that a fod item shall be considered ot kosher, or not clean, implies thatthe food shall be forbidden (Ran). ‘One might ask: Why do we assume that the ower means “Not kosher, ‘but rather, prohibited by vow" — and that thisis valid neder? Perhaps Ihe means “but rather, inherently prohibited (.. like pork)” — and this ‘snot a valid mader! (As we learned previously (se02a note), one says, “Let thie be forbidden like pork” — or like anything’inherently prohibited, as opposed to something prohibited by vow — his neder {noffective| The answer is that since the vower di not specify, and it: possible to interpret is words either way, we apply the principe (see ‘Mishnah 18h}: wa9? S77 pp, Indeterminate nedarim [are treated} stringently (Ran; ef. Tosajos; seo Mishneh LaMelec, Hil. Nedarim. Doginning of 118). [Le, since the person clearly intended foraneder, and ‘merely failed to specify how his neder shall take effect, we treat it stringently and aay thatthe proper intent was present (Rosh; so also 6a note 10 and 185 note 1] tan has the reading Ww3? and 9%, in conformance with rv. See ‘Tos, Yor Too for clarification of our version. Cf. Hagahos HaBach. 29, sew, ako, ithe same as'>7 clean excopt that e1pis Hebrew while “pris Aramaic (ee Onkelos ibid). It would therefore seem that in order to effect a neder the vower would have to say 7h x9, not tahor — ‘implying, “but rather, forbidden” — just as he must say 37 x5, not clean! Ran (printed on Ha) explains that this isin fact the Mishnab's intent, However, having just stated that 97 x5, not clean, ita neder, the ‘Tanna simply follows with Wry, aor, relying upon us to realize that he obviously means no tohor. There isin fact aversion ofthe Mishnah that reads explicitly ww x9, not tohor (aoe Rift see also Rambam, Hil [Nedarim 1:18, who rules that not tahor is what effects a neder). 30, Tamei connotes “forbidden like a disqualified offering,” since an offering that becomes fomei is disqualified and forbidden for consump- tion (Ran, printed on Ila; see note 33). 31. Nosear (literally: leftover) is part ofan offering that has been lef ‘ver beyond the time thatthe Torah allotted for its consumption. Such food is forbidden, and sccordingly, declaring somothing “nossar” connotes that it shall be forbidden like an unfit part of sn offering (Ran). 32, Piggul (iterlly: rejected) is an offering whose avodah (sacrificial service) was done with the intent that it would be consumed beyond the allotted time. The offering is automatically disqualified and unfit for ‘consumption even within the allotted time. Thus, declaring something “pigaut” connotes that it shall be forbidden ike an unfit offering (Ron). {Note that offerings disqualified by becoming tamei piggul or nossor are prohibited because the Torah decreed that these disqualifications render the offering unfit for consumption; the prohibitions are not ‘effected by a vow, Nevertheless, when one refers to these prohibitions in '9 nader, he is Aecred to he vowing with referense to eomething ‘prohibited through a vow, because he is understood as referring to the offering upon which these prohibitions take effect, and the offering is ‘consecrated through a vow (Tosofs; see Gemara 13a).] 88. The Mishnah has thus far taught two rules: (a) When the vower ‘makes reference to something that is permitted, such as chullin or kosher food, his neder i effective if he uses the negative form, Le. not chullin or not kosher. We follow the implication of his negative state- ‘ment and understand him as saying that th subject should be forbidden like an offering. (b) When the vower makes reference to something that ia prohibited, and its prohibition applies specifically to offerings, such as ‘tamei,nossar or piggul, his neder i effective if he uses the positive form, fhe was to use the nogative form (“not tamei” ete), his words would Imply that the subject should be permitted. Furthermore, the neder effective even though he didnot say “[Lot this bo] ike something tamei tte. Since tamei, nossar and piggul are the titles of prohibitions pertaining to offerings, mentioning these titles alone, even without saying “like,” connotes thatthe subject of the vow shall be in the same category as a prohibited offering (Ran tis noteworthy that although the disquaifications of nossar and ‘Piggul pertain only to offerings, the disqualification of tumah pertains to terumah (the portion ofa crop given to a Kohen) as well — io terumah, like an offering, is rendered unfit for consumption if it becomes tame. Now, terumah isnot “something vowed” and eannot serve as the source item in aneder through association (see 128 note 22). Thus, if one says “Let this be like disqualified ferumah,” he has not made a valid nede. Nevertheless following the principle that Indeterminate nedarim fare treated] tringenty, when a person sizaply says “Tomei” we assume that hhe means to associate the subject with an ofering that is fam, not with ferumah, and we doom his neder effective (Ran). 834, He is understood as refersing toa lamb that had been designated as ‘an offering ~ based on the rule that indeterminate nedarim are treated stringently. Furthermore, his words seem a reference to a specific, ‘known lamb, and this is presumably one designated as an offering (ian). [Some explain this asa reference specifically tothe lamb of the ‘vioe-dalytomid offering (Rashi, Kiddushin 64a; Rambam, Commen- {ary tthe Mishnah; se further, Tosafos xxox2 7), {All the declarations in this group must include the term “ik like the lamb. See note 43 forthe reason.) 35, This ie understood as a reference to the animals designated ax offerings and contained in specisl enclosures (Ran). (There was = section in the Temple whore such animals were kept. The plural form of “enclosures” alhdes to an addtional enclosure in the Temple where consecrated wood was stored (Tosafos; see Rashi ibid.) 36, This is understood as a reference to the two logs of firewood thst ‘were brought up and arranged on the Altar each day, as stated in Leviticus 6:5 (Ran) ‘5. This is understood as a reference tothe Altar fires (Ran). The fires fare considered Temple property because they are attached {0 coals ‘rodiuced from consecrated wood (se Shifoh Mekubetzes, and Rashask ‘on tla; ef. Porashas Nedarim; see Taz, Yoreh Deah 142:3 fora parallel ruling) (Thus, they ae ‘consecrated by a vow." Others explain pax as a reference to the offerings themselves, {in accordance with the verse (Leviticus 19): 7p pwn AWK, a fire offering, 0 satisfying aroma to Hashem (Tosafos, Rash; cf. Nimukes Yosef) 38, This is understood as a reference to the offerings that are made c= the Altar (Yerushalmi, cited by Rosh). (Alternatively, the reference may bbe to the Altar itself, since it was built of material donated for ths purpose, and was this “consecrated through a vow" (eee Rash an TTosafos cited in note 40)] 39, Thsis understood as a reference tothe offerings made in the Heicha! [Memple building] (Vornehoto’ cited by Rich), roferato ths kes S10b* KOL KINUYEL (CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM pibyrns — or “like Jerusalem,” nanan wae, 9m HH 77} ~ or he vowed with reference to any of the accessories of the Altar/*! 7p) 317 xby 19 by 9x — even ithe did not mention an offering explicitly, "99 12723 772 my — this is considered a neder through association with an offering. spverrpim2) — R’Yehudah sayst mp woe xb ety not said anything. = One who says, “Let this be Jerusalem,” has NOTES Gncense), which was offered on the Inner Altar (Nimukei Yosef, and to the “inner” offerings such as those of Yom Kippur, whose blood was sprinkled inside the Heickal (agahos Yavetz). (Alternatively, the reference may be tothe Heichal structure itel, which was built with consecrated funds (see Rosh and Tora cited in note 0), 40, This is understood as 2 reference to the offerings made (at the "Tempel in Jerusalem (Ran here and to end of Ha; but see Nimuket Yosef and Hagohos Yavez), (Alternatively, it isa reference to the city walls, and the Tanna maintains thatthe Walls of Jerusalem were built with ‘Temple funds (Rosh, Tosofos to la xan "in"; ee Mishnah Shekalim 42; see further, Tos. Yom Tov below, 6:5; Shaar HaMelech, Hil ‘Shekalim 4:8; Keren Orah).] 41. Such asthe bowls (used for receiving and throwing the blood the shovels {used for collecting the ash] or the forks {used for turning the ‘meat] (Rooh). These are made or purchased with consecrated funds (see Kesuboe 106). 42, Le, since the neder either alluded to an offering, or reforred to something consecrated through a vow, itis tantamount to a neder explicitly associating the object with an offering and is therefore celfctve (ee Nimuket Yosef) 43, Because he did not say “Zike Jerusalem” (Ron). Our entire Mishnah ‘actually follows the opinion of R? Yehuda, and it informs us here that ‘he isthe Tanna who maintains that in all the cases mentioned in the latter pat of the Mishnah, the vower must say, “Let this he like that (Gemara 1a), R' Yehudah's opinion standsin contrast to that of another ‘Tanna, who maintains that it is unnecessary to say “like that” even in the lator cases That Tanna's opinion iscited in the Mishnah below, 182 (Shitoh Mekubetzes). Yehudah's reasons that ince the titles of th thing listed hore do not represent any prohibition ~ but are merely names of consecrated tbjects ~ the vower is not understood as effecting a prohibition unless he says ‘Tie [the consecrated objec)” Itis only when the vower refers to something whose title represents a prohibition ~ viz. piggu, nossar and tame — that he may omit the term “like” (Ran on 1a; see there, and Tosafos to Tia rin3 77, for alternative reasons why the vower must say “like” in the Inter eases; ae also 18a note 2). In summary, the Mishnah contains three lessons: (a) When the vower makes reference to something that is permitted, such as chullin or kosher food, his neder is effective if he uses the negative form, ie. not chullin oF not kosher. (b) When the vower makes reference to something that is prohibited, and its title represents a probibition that applies specially to offerings — viz. tomer, nossar or pigaul — his neder must be in the postive form, and is effective even if he does not include the ‘term “like.” (¢) When the vower makes reference to something that is consecrated, but its title does not represent a prohibition — eg. “a lamb” ~ his neder i effective only ite includes the term “ike” (Ron; ‘00 the Mishnah on 18a for additional eases to which R’ Yebudah applies this last rule, and see Ran here for discussion of those case; ee also Keren Orah yin 1210177)KOL KINUYEL Germara. The Gemara seeks to determine the Mishnah's authorship and focuses on its opening statement: ‘grap — They assumed that rin» — what is the meaning ofsLarcHutaN’? ner pomp x9 — It means “This shall not be considered as chullin, —y99z 89x — but rather, shal be like an offering.” The Mishnah rules the neder effective based upon the inference contained in the vower’s words. pnvamia ‘xp ~ Now, ‘hose opinion is reflected in our Mishnah? “7x0 737% ~ If ‘you say itis that of R’ Metr, Iwill respond: wp Sogn mb mv Thaw ns — But [R’ Meir] does not accept the view that from the implication of a negative you hear a positive!" yan — For we learned in a Mishnah:®) pix wg 39 — MER SAYS. YUE] NDT MB NED IMA NEI bp — ANYSTIPULATION ‘THATISNoT doubled LAKE THE STIPULATION OF THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUVEN *x2n wy ~ I8NOTA legally CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM lta! authorship, bu finds this difficult as well som mpuy 739 x>x — Rather, you will say that [our Mishnah] is reflective of the opinion of R’ Yehudah.® —x5¥0 pv — But consider the Mishnah’s latter clause, which teaches: *39 oN — RYEHUDANSAYS: —otbp px xb ary oN — ONE WHO SAYS, “Let this be JERUSALEM,” HAS NOT SAID ANT- THING. my} *37 xpFOTD - Since the Mishnah’s letter clause quotes R'Yehudah, sen 711937 7 Ay") ~ itis obvious that the former clause is not the opinion of R’ Yehuda, — ? — ‘The Gemara responds: 2x mv 9371919 — The entire (Mishnah] is the opinion of R'Yehudah, 392799) — and this is what it means to teach: ‘fone says, “Let this be ... like Jerusalem,” his neder is valid, but if he omits the term like it is not valid, -watx mW *3710 ip way xd aide Toixy — for R’ Yehudah says that one binding sriPuLATION'* ‘who merely says, “Lot this be Jerusalem,” has not said ‘The Gemara considers another possiblity as to the Mishnah’s _anything.* NOTES 1. This is not merely an initial assumption, but is the Gemara’s final position as wel. The Gemara on rare occasions employs the expression 13799, They assumed, even when referring to an assumption that is correct (Ran, citing Bava Basra 2aas another such instance; see Tosofos there nro 1 and Hogahos R’ Betzalel Ronsburg here; ef. Rashi, cited ‘by R’ Avraham Min HaHfar, who considers this usage unique to Tractate [Nedarim), {However, se Kesef Mishneh, Hil. Nedarim 1:19, who takesa diferent approach to our Gemara, according to which the current ‘assumption is ultimately abandoned ] 2, Le. R' Meir rejcts the notion that making a negative statement is ‘equivalent to stating its positive corollary, and vice versa 8, Kiddushin 61a. 4, The Torah (Numbers Ch, 2) relates that before the Jews entered Bretz Yisrael, the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested permission from ‘Moses to sotle inthe Land of Gilead on the eastern side ofthe Jordan ‘River, which had already been conquered. Moses granted their request, ‘but stipulated that their aequsition of Gilead would be conditional on thei leading the other tribes in battle to conquer the western side ofthe ‘Jordan, the Land of Canaan. He stated tothe leaders ofthe nation that if'Gad and Reuven fought for Canaan they would be entitled to their portions inthe Land of Gilead, and then added the negative corollary to this (id. v. 30): If they will not cross zealously with you, they shall inherit in your midst in the Land of Canaan (they wil not be entitled ‘tw portions in Gilead, but will resive @ portion of Canaan like all the ‘other tribes) R’ Meir infers that if Moses had not stated this negative ‘corollary his stipulation would not have been binding; that sis grant ‘of Gilead to Gad and Reuven would have been valid regardless of Whether they later crossed the Jordan to fight for Canaan, [R’ Meir derives from this passage thet when one stipulates acondition ‘upon entering into a binding agreement, he must explicitly declare that ifthe condition is met, the agreement is valid, and ifthe condition isnot ‘met, the argreoment is not valid. (Ths is known as 71537, «doubled stipulation.| If one states only the positive alternative, and leaves ‘unmentioned the negative one, his stipulation is not binding, for we cannot simply infer the negative half of the statement from the positive (Geashi, Kiddushin Gla wan 77 and 6lb % M25 7). Similarly, if one ‘mentions only the negative, we cannot simply infer the postive from it Clearly, our Mishnah ~ which validates a neder that is based upon the inference of a nogative statoment ~ does not accord with R’ Meir's opinion! (see Kehillos Yaakov 9:2. (Ran asks: The Gemara in Tractate Shevuos (96a) asserts that R’ Meir ‘maintains the position that “From the implication of « negative you do not hear a positive” only regarding monetary matters, but not regarding ritual matters (myer). Le. it is only when entering a monetary ‘transaction that one must explicitly mention the converse of aconditin, {or the requirement of « “double stipulation” is derived from Moses! stipulation with Gad and Reuven, which involved a transfer of land. ‘Rogarding mattors of ritual aw, R’ Moir eoncedes that we may infer the positive from the negative. (Thereisa general rule that matters of ritual Jaw cannot be derived through analogy from matters of monetary lew; s0¢ Berachos 9b.) Since nedarim area matter of ritual law, why does the Gemara assume that R’ Meir disregards a neder that is based on the positive implication of negative statement? Ran answers that the Gemara in Shevuos (366) concludes that when the ritual matter involves money as well,’ Mir maintains that both sides of a stipulation must be mentioned (see Ran for example). ‘Nedarim are in this category, since aneder always takes eet upon an. objet (see 2b note 6), andthe object has monetary value. Thus, R’ Meir cannot validate a neder that is based on the implication of a negative statement, Seo Tosafos here and to Sofah Y7a man v3173« 7 for a variant anawer (elaborated by Dibroe Moshe 11:62), and Tosafos to ‘Sheouos 36b 7.7 for an entirely different approach. Seealso Rashba, Rt Avraham Min Hafler, and Hagohos R’ Betzalel Ronsbarg.) 15.’ Yehudah maintains that a stipulation is binding even if it is not “doubled.” This emerges from R’ Yehudah’s ruling (Gitun 46b) that if ‘one divorces his wife because she isan aylonis he may naver remarry her. [An aylons is women who failed to develop the signs of female puberty and exhibits certain male physical characterstics; she is Incapable of bearing children.) R’ Yehudah is concemed for the possibility that the woman was erroneously classified as an aylonis, If fer her divorce she marries another man and bears him a child, the first husband might claim shat his divorce was basod ona false premise and is therefore void so that her second marriage and any children theroot ar legitimate! Therefore, the Rabbis deereed that the husband be notified that he may not remarry her in any event, thus finalizing the divoree and foreclosing any options of protest on his par. R Yehudsh applic this rule to any case where the husband mentioned when giving the get that he is divoreing her because she is an aylonis, Even ithe did not make a double stipulation at the time of the divore, the mere ‘mention ofthe reason fo the divoree would enable him tolater contend that the divorce was conditional on that factor (Rashi ad loc.). The Gemara there states that R’ Meir disputes R’ Yehudah’s ruling, boeause hhe holds that in absence of a double stipulation the husband's claim ‘would have no validity, Thus, we see that R’ Yehudah accepts the principle that “From the implication of a postive you hear a negative” fand vice versa. Accordingly, you might say that our Mishrah follows R’ Yohudah (Ran, as emonded by Gilyon HaShas and Rastash; see the following note). 6, Thus, the last clause, which quotes R’ Yehudab’s opinion, is actually ‘a clarifiation ofthe previous clause (and informs us thatthe Tanna of ‘our Mishnah is R’ Yehudah]. R’ Yebudah maintains that when one refers in his neder to any ofthe items listed in the previous clause (a lamb, the enclosures, ete.) he must state, "Let this belie that” (as ex- plained above, 10b note 43). The Mishnah quotes R’ Yehudab regarding ‘erusale becuse itis Une last item in the previous list, bathe actually refers to the entire list, However, a explained previously (ibid.), this ‘qualification doesnot pertain to the tems in the Mishnabs first clause, ie. tamei, piggul and nossar (Ran; cf. Rite in Shitoh Mokubetes). [The Gemara could also have responded that our Mishnah accords with R’ Chanina ben Gamlil, who explicitly disputes R’ Meirin the cited Mishnah (Kiddushin Gla) and rules that a stipulation need not ever be doubled! However, since R’ Yehuda is mentioned in our Mishnah, ‘whereas R’ Chanina ben Gamliel is not mentioned here at all, the Gemara prefers to interpret it as following R’ Yehudsh ~ despite the ensuing difficulty (Ran; see Rashash; cf. Rosh).KOL KINUYEI ‘An objection is raised: byrne 78 13) — Now, if one says “like Jerusalem,” »379 ‘pra many — is he truly forbidden by aneder, according to R'Yehudah? x07) — But it was taught in a Baraisa: °27 SKK MIT — RP YEHUDARSAYS: mnbg ay. xd EYTT THLT = ONE WHO SAYS “LIKE JERUSALEM” HAS NOT SAID ANYTHING, mmyyrara a9p0 7372 THY TY — UNLESS HE VOWS WITH explicit reference to SOMETHING THAT IS OFFERED IN JERUSALEM.” =? — (CHAPTER ONE ‘The Gemara answers: don rp 137 77 — As we stated above, the entire [Mishnab] is the opinion of R’ Yehuda, rm 277 xpi wggn MY — and ‘there is a dispute of two Tannaim whether ‘‘like Jerusalem” is an effective neder according to the opinion of R’ Yehudah, The ‘Tanna of the Baraisa maintains that R’ Yehudah considers it ineffective, but the Tanna of our Mishnah maintains that R’ ‘Yebudah considers it effective." NOTES 7. According to this Baraisa, when one says “like Jerusalem,” he is ‘understood as meaning “like the wood and stones (of Jerusalem's ‘structures),” which is nota valid neder. In order to effect the neder, he ‘ust explicitly mention the offering that are made in Jerusalem (Ran; of, Tosafos, Rosh, Mefaresh). 48, The Tanna of our Mishnah maintains that according to R’ Yehudah ‘one who says “like Jerusalem” is automatically understood as refering to the offerings that are mado there, and itis unnecessary for him to mention the offerings explicitly (Ran).1b" KOL KINUYEI ‘The Mishnah stated that “La’chullin — that which I eat of yours” isan effective neder. The Gemara cites a related Baraise: yn — Itwas taught ina Baraisa: | ponn> nna pon — Ione begins his declaration by stating, “CHULLIN,” “HA'CHULLIN” (the chullin), of “KA'CHULLIV" ike chullin), xe PAA 92NK P ‘35 bow — thon WHETHER he concludes with “THAT WHICH 1 EAT OF YOURS," OR “THAT WHICH 10 NOT EAT OF YOURS.” 79% — HE IS PERMITTED to eat of his fellow’s food" 49 bana pin — If one says, “LA'CHULLIN (not ehullin) — THAT WHICH 1 EAT OF YOURS,” "WX — HE 1S FORBIDDEN to eat of his fellow’s food!) 5 bat xb pony — If one says, “LAYCHULLIN, 'SHALA, NOT EAT OF YOURS,” "WAY — HE IS PERMITTED to eat of his fellow's food." ‘The Gemara analyzes this Baraisa: +92 xyr) — Whose opinion is reflected in the first clause? ¥27 .gmyien — Itisthe opinion of’ Melr, rps wy Sep m9 ry ‘pa yew — who does not accept the notion that “from the implication of a negative you hear a positive.” | xpY0 xp ~ Now, consider the last clause, which states: 9 atx xb phan ‘vpva ~ IFone says, “LA°CHULLIN, SHALL NOTEAT OF YOURS," HE IS PERMITTED to eat ofhisfellow’s food. On its surface, this ruling seems compatible with R’ Mei’s opinion. y2nzy) - However, we learned in a Mishnah:" 32 atx xb yerR9 - If one says, “ZA'KORBAN,1SHALLNOTEATOF YOURS,” YOM 79939 — R (CHAPTER ONE ‘Met FORBIDS him to partake of hs fellow’s food. Upon analyzing this Misha, we initially thought that R’ Meit’s reason is that since the vower said, “Not korban, 1 shall not eat of yours,” he implied, “But korban, that which I shal! eat of yours,” and so he effected a neder through the implication of his negative state- ment, yp xp) — And we therefore asked: So3u my nib xt ya vaww naw ix — But [R’ Meir] does not accept the notion that “from the implication of a negative you hear a positive.” Since “La'korban, I shall not eat of yours” is merely a negative statement that implies a neder, why does R’ Meir rule the person forbidden by it? gue 137 7px) — And R’ Abba said, in explanation of R’ Meir’s ruling: —“atxp ripya — (The vower] is treated as though he said: yp D2tx x9 33°09 xm IR? — “Equivalent to a korban shall [your food be, therefore, I shall not eat of yours.” According to R’ Abba’s explanation of R’ ‘Meir’s opinion in that Mishnab, the following difficulty arises: v2 X99 — Here, too, in our Baraisa’s case, where the vower declared, “La‘chullin, Lshall not eat of yours,” m9 8x2 "39 — let us say that this is what he means to tell [his fellowl: x ‘33 bat xb apr) min phan — “Not chullin, but a korban, shall [your food] be, therefore, I shall not eat of yours.” Thus, let his rneder be effective even according to R’ Meir!® Why does the Baraisa rule that “La‘chullin, 1 shall not eat of yours” is ineffective? NOTES L If he says, “Chullin ~ that which I et of yours,” he is obviously allowed to est, since he stated that tho food should be permitted like ‘hullin! And even if he states, “Chullin ~ that which I do nat oat of yours,” which implies “But that which I do eat of yours shal be lke a horban (offering)," he is permitted to eat the fllow’s food. As the Gemara will explain, the Baraisa fellows tho opinion of R’ Meir, who does not accept the principle that “From the implication ofa negative you hear a positive” (Ran), 2. This ruling is exceedingly dificlt, for since the declaration is a rneder only by implication af the negative statement “Not chullin,” R’ [Meir cannot consider it effective! For this reason, the Gemara stated above (lop of Ia) that our Mishnsh — which begins with the very ruling cited here — was not authored by R’ Meir. Ran therefore states that there are those who delete this entire clause from the text of the Barsisa “Tosofos (xn 77), however, preserve this clause, based on a variant reading, According tothe text of Tosfos, the vower did not say p72, “La’chulln,” which we interpret as “Not chullin;” rather, he said x> rom, “Not okulln,” explicitly. Le. he suid 39 Dosxy pn x5, “Not ‘hun — that which I eat of yours.” Tosafos explain that saying “Not ‘hullin” explicitly is the equivalent of saying “A harbor,” and thus, feven R’ Meir agrees that it effects a neder. Only when we must fist interpret the vower's words as meaning “Not chullin” and then stretch this to mean “A horéan” doos R’ Moir consider it an invalid “inference.” Thus, whereas the Mishnah which validates “La‘chullin te." eannot follow R’ Meir, the Baraisa which validates “Not chullin ete." can follow even R’ Meir (see also Rosh, printed on Us, and ‘Mefaresh), (Rite, also following this reading, explains further that the ‘explicit expression “Not chullin” is more than a mere negative — its ‘a selfstanding figure of speech which has the same meaning a5 "horban” (much like “‘non-koshee” i, in our times, an independent descriptive verm rather than a mere negative of “Ikosher"). Thus, R? Meir ean agree that “Not chullin — that which T eat of yours” effects saneder (see also Niruet Yosef.) Ran, however, does not recognize any distinction between “La‘chullin” and “Not chullin” (Mishneh LoMelech, Hil. Nedarim 118 v-wny ova 7% gee also Ran to Ma xox 7; see further, Beur HoGra, Choshen Mishpat 21:9). (Ran also cites Raavad, who suggests ‘another emendation that makes this elause tenable even according toR? Meir. However, Raavad’s emendation leads toa different understand- ing of the entire following sugya, as elaborated by Ran below. Our commentary shall follow Ran’s’ (and other Rishonim’s) primary explanation, which is incompatible with Raavad’s emendation.) 8. The simple explanation is that since “‘La‘chullin”” means “Not chulln,” the person in flect sid, “That which I shall ot et of yours isnot considered chulln,” and implied, “But tht which [shal et of yours considered chullin ~ i. permitod," Mhus, be didnot make 8 rader even by implication (Mishnoh LaMelach ibid, Yow 7). An ‘ternative explanation il be presented hy the Gemara below, 4. Below, 1a. 5. Which would soem to mean “Not horban.") 6. Below, 1b 7, Le. we do not understand wg, “Lahorban,” as meaning Ta x, “Not horban:” rather, we understand it as moaning 197%, To @ Jorban.” The word lahorban has both connotations, and R’ Abba explains that [since indeterminate nedarim are treated stringently (eee Ritva),] im every given case wo interpret it in a manner that causes the neder to take “ec. Thus, when & person sys, "Le'korban, T'sball not eat of yours,” his words are interpreted as a positive statement ofaneder, based on two factors. First, 27@, “Laorban,” is understood as meaning, 779, “To a borban,”” Secondly, the two parts of the vower's declaration are understood as seperate clauses, teith the second claus (“ ahall not eat of yours”) carfying te fist Clause ("To a horban"”) Thus, hei deemed to have eaid"Equivalent] ton horban shal your foo bo, therefore shall not eat of yours" Tis neder ineffective even according to R’ Mei, sine it i a sraightforward Statement (Ron, a elaborated by Mishneh LaMelch ibid; se further, Rita) 8. (The word yin, la‘chulin, ie similar to 7p, lkorban, and can be undersced ab mesning either pow x, “Not chullin,” o rm, To hull." Sines in our case the Interpretation “Not chullin” and the assumption that the sand clause comes to lari the first] allows the ‘man’s declaration to be understood as a neder, lt us apply this Interpretation, an let us ths consider his nedar effective ‘One might ask: Even according tothe proposed interpretation, the ‘ower didnot sy explicitly “Korban,” but merely said “La’chulin.” Sinee this is a neder only through the implication of his negative statement, why should” Meir consider it effective? The answer i that Since the vower concluded, “I shall not eat of yours," even Meir must ‘gree that i is a valid nade. R? Modr disqualifies « neder through {plication only in ease suchas that ofthe Mishnah, where the person sai, “La'thullin ~ that which T eat of yours" [where the’ neder ‘merges purely through the implication ofa gative), But here, where ‘he concluded, “I shall not eat of yours,” the expt postive, nature of his closing remark renders his declaration a neer even according to R’ Meir ~ despite tho implicit, negative, nature ofthe opening remark (Ran, Tosfe, Ros; see aie Mefaresh xoxox)" and Rashba; soe further, Mishnch LaMelock bi).1b? KOL KINUYEL The Gemara answers: xyp °xq ~ This Tanna of the Baraisa xqq3 01579 92 7139 — agrees with R’ Meir in one respect _sxyna roy 31591 — and disagrees with him in one respect. x73 mn13 79 Tap - He agrees with (R’ Meir] in one respect, nx wb Soon mb mio ‘prune ~ forhe also does not accept the notion that “from the {implication of a negative you hear a positive.”" ry xm xxma — And he disagrees with [R’ Meir] in one respec, 12523 — that is, regarding the interpretation of the statement, “La’korban, 1 shall not eat of yours." ‘An alternative explanation is presented: ‘og wx 37 — Rav Ashi said: The Tanna of the Baraisa actually ‘agrees with R’ Meir entirely, but he is not discussing a case ‘comparable to the one that you cited. om px x5 ~ For this, i. the Baraisa, refers to a case where [the vower] said “Le'chullin,” vowelizing the letter lamed with a sheva, With this vowelization, R’ Meir considers the neder inefective:™ xq) ann? xb ay — However, this, i. the case you discussed in your question, is one in which [the vower] said “La’chullin,” CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM vowelizing the letter armed with apasach, so that it can be under- stood as meaning “Not chullin.”3) xs phn ngt x> Oe 18723 — This connotes, “It (your food) shall not be chullin to ze, but shall be like a korban.” Ifthe vower would then conclude with “I shall not eat of yours,” R’ Meir would consider his neder effective, as you assumed above." Unlike your previous assump- tion, however, even the Tanna of the Baraisa would agree with this, as his ruling pertains to a declaration with a different ‘vowelization. Thus, the Baraisa fully reflects R’ Meir’s opinion. ‘The Mishnah stated: swox burer apt Heap) oy — One who says “TAME,” “NOSSAR” OR “PIGGUT,"1S FORBIDDEN, ‘An inquiry is cited xop 13 "7 179 — Rami bar Chama inquired: e399 999 ‘Bvpy ngray wax} orabw mat — fone says: Let this hereby be to re like the meat of a shelamim offering after the throwing of its blood," x7 — what is [the law]? Does the object become forbidden to the vower as a result of this declaration?" “raHoR" on ‘NOTES 9, As evidenced by his first ruling, that “Chullin — that which I donot ‘eat of yours" i ineffective (see note 1; see alo the following not). 10.8’ Meir holds that when a vower says, “La’horban I shall not eat of yours," his closing words can be understood as a clarfiation of his ‘pening word (as explained in note 7). Tho Tanna of the Buraisa, however, considers this a forced interpretation and therefore reject it (see Ritva for the underlying basis ofthis dispute). Rather, acording to ‘Tanne, a vower who says this is understood as having said, ‘La'korban ~ that which I donot eat of yours.” Atbes, this represents ‘a nader by implication. For if we interpret “La'korban as “(Equiva- lent} to a horban,” the vower did not make a neder at all, since he ‘compared that which he does not eat to a Korban, implying that that whieh he does eat is permitted like chullin, And if we interpret “La'korban" as “Not horban,” then the vower made a neder by Implication, for “Not horban, that which I donot eat of yours” implies ‘But korban, that which I do eat of yours.” Since the neder emerges only through inference, the Tanna considers it ineffective — for he ‘agrees with KR’ Meir that a neder cannot be invoked through the implication ofa negative statement. Thus, the Tanna would dispute R” ‘Meir’ ruling inthe cited Mishnab, Consequently, in tho Baraisa’s caso — where the vowor said, “La’chullin, I shall not eat of yours” ~ the Tanna rules that i isnot 1 neder. For if we interpret “‘La‘chullin” as “Not chulin,” then wo ‘understand the vower as saying, "Not chullin ~ that which Ido not eat of yours.” Since this implies, “But chullin — ie. permitted — that ‘which Ido eat of yours,” it doesnot constitute anader at all! And even if wo interpret “aehullin” as “(Equivalent to chullin,” the neder is ineffective. For the statement, “(Equivalent to chullin ~ that which 1 do not eat of yours," merely implies “But unlike chullin — ie. ‘equivalent toa horban — that whieh Ido eat of yours,” and the Tanna hols that nedarim through the implication of negatives are ineffective. Tn short, since the Tanna accepts R’ Meir’s opinion that nedarim by implication are ineffective, but rejects R’ Meir’s spiting of the declaration into two clauses, he rules that “La’chullin, I shall nt eat of ‘yours is nota valid nede (Mishneh LaMelech ibid yronas mmr, following Ran; soe also Rita). 1 Ray Ashi explains that the word yn‘ inthe Baraisa should not be vowelized pond, as assumed previously, but yoyn¥. This word, "Le’hul Tin,” can only be understood as meaning “(Equivalent) to chullin!” rofore, the Baraisa rules thatthe statoment, “Le‘chullin, I shall not cat of yours,” is ineffective, For the only way to construe this asa neder ‘would bo to assume that the vower meant Equivalent] to chullin — that which Ido nat eat of yours,” which implies, “But unlike challin i, equivalent to a horbon — that which T do eat of yours.” Since R° “Meir considers a neder through the implication ofa negative ineffective, the Baraisa — which follows his opinion — rules that the vower remains permitted to eat of his ellow’s food (Ran; cf. Tos. Yeshanim), 12. Le. you cited the Mishnah, which deals with case where the vower said jp, vowelizing the Jomed with apasach, and the comparable case is one in which the vower sad par. As has been explained, this may ‘mean oithor “Not chullin," or “[quivalent] to chullin,” and in any sven case we apply the interpretation that leads to an effective neder. Tn our ease the interpretation “Not chullin” renders the declaration & valid nede, as the Gemara proceeds to explain (see Ran) 13, Because when one states, “Not chuiln, I shall not eat of yous,” the ‘explicit, postive nature ofthe concluding clause causes the declaration ‘tobe considered a valid neder even aceording to R’ Moir (as explained in note 8). 14 Since the Baraisa ruled only that “Le'chullin (rym), I shall not eat ‘of yours is ineffective, it isin consonance with the opinion of R’ Meir, ‘Thus, Rev Ashi explains that the one who asked the question above ‘was entirely correct in his legal assumptions. Firs, the words jp and. roan can be understood as meaning either "Not korban”” and “Not chullin,” or “[Equivalent] to akoréan and “(Equivalent] to chullin.” [he Gemara's previous answer agreed with this point as well] Secondly, when the vower concludes with “Tshall not eat of yours,” his closing remark can be understood as a separate clause which clarifies his opening remark. (The previous answer understood the Barsisa as ‘ejecting this view.} Thus, ifthe vower would say, “La’chullin (mn), shall not eat of yours,” he would be fochidden to partake of his fellow's food. However, the Baraisa deals with a case where he said, Lehullin (rim), I shall not eat of yours.” This declaration leaves the vower permitted to eat his fellow's food — according to R’ Mer, whom the Baraisa follows ~ because it is aneder only through the implication of ‘a negative statement (Ran), Note that Rav Ashi and the Gemara’s previous answer are fully in ‘agreement concerning R’ Meir’s opinion. It is clear, based on R’ Meirs ralingin the Mishnah on 13a, that he holds both principles just mention- ced (via. that p7pb and pono? each has tro connotations and that I shall not eat of yours” may be understood ata elarfyng clause). The point of contention hore is merely whether the Baraisareflets the opinion of a new Tanna who disagrees with the latter principle, or fllows R Meir entirely (Mishneh LaMeleck ibid, vrwnn son zr, based on Ran; ef ‘Tosajos, as elaborated by Mishneh LaMelec ibid exrmw 9-97) [See ‘Ran for an alternative explanation ofboth answers, based on the reading of Raavad. For a novel approach to our sugya, based on Rambam, sco ‘Kesef Mishneh, Hil. Nedarim 139; ef Lechem Mishaeh 118.) 15. The meat of a shelamim may not be eaten until its blood is thrown ‘upon the Altar [ng, 2eikah]. Afterwards, however, it is eaten, as Scripture states (Deuteronomy 12:27: the blood of your feast oferings ‘hall be poured upon the Altar of Hashem, your God, and [then] you shall eat the meat (Ran; see Rosh. The breast and right thigh are given tothe Kohanim and may be eaten only by them (Leviticus 7:84), and the remainder may be eaten even by Isrelites, 16. We learnod in the Mishnah (seo also 2a note 2) that itis possible to invoke a neder even without saying explicitly that the object shall be forbidden, but by merely associating it with something that is itself prohibited because ofa vow. Rami bar Chama inquires whether linking fan object to the meat of a shelamim after the throwing ofits blood effects a neder upon that objet,! 11b* KOL KINUYEL Understanding Rami bar Chama as meaning that the person actually said ‘like the meat of a shelamim offering after the throwing ofits blood,” the Gemara wonders: gud pa TWAT YX — If [the vower] said his neder in these words, pian xp X7n73 — he is associating the object of his neder with a permitted object, for meat of a shelamim is permitted after its blood has been thrown! Thus, there is no basis at all for considering it a valid neder.\"! What, was Rami bar Chama’s inquiry? ‘The Gemara therefore revises its understanding: ‘xx — Rather, Rami bar Chama refers ong ea mm7 123 arnby — toa case where meat of a shelamim offering whose ‘blood had already been thrown was lying infront of the vower, CHAPTER ONE maa 7077 romp! — and a permitted object, such as a loaf of bread, was ying nearby, mgm ‘as ~ and {the vower] said, “This (the bread) is hereby like that (the shelamim meat).”" Rami bar Chama inquires: 1x — What isthe law? xp pa vane — Is [the vower] associating the bread with the essential state of [the shelamim meat, i. its previous state, in which it was prohibited by vow, | orane xp x70"73 1K — or she associating it with the current permitted state of the meat" A resolution is proposed: 7) 9x — Rava said: yey xp — Come, learn a resolution from our Mishnah, which teaches that burst ima ~ if one says ‘that a food item shall be “Nossan“OR “PIGGUT,"heis forbidden to cat it, NOTES: 17, Saying, “Let this be lke the meat ofa shelamim after the throwing ofits blood,” i tantamount to saying, “Let this be permitted!” Ifthe vower meant otherwise, he would have omitted the phrase “after the throwing ofits blood” (Rosh). 18. This is a manner of invoking a neder through association [399%], hasfasah, The vower did not say thatthe bread shal be forbidden, nor did he even describo what nature it shal assume, Nevertheless, since he ‘aid, “This is hereby like that,” thus associating it with an object pro- hibited by vow, he has in effect declared a neder upon it (see Ramban to 1a), (The Gemara does not mean tht the bread must actually be lying ‘near the meat, but stated this for the sake of simplicity. The pertinent point is thet the meat was lying in front ofthe vower and he sad that ‘some other object shall be “like that” — i lke Ube meat (Rock). 19, the vower means thatthe bread shall be lfraly “like that,” then his declaration is meaningles, since he associated the bread with the helamim meat in its current state, and the meat is currently permitted, But he can be understood as meaning thatthe bread shall be “lke the essence of that,” ie. lke the meat in its original state before the zeikah, when it was prohibited (see Ran and Mefaesh). Since his declaration indicates that he is attempting to make the bread prohibited, perhaps we should infact interpret i in the latter manner Rosh to I2a vor 730 1°. ‘One might wonder why we do not apply the principle sp an° ‘wan Indeterminate medarim are treated stringently (see Machaneh Ephraim, Hil. Nedarim $7). A possible answer is that, as has been explained (6a note 10), this principle applies only when someone made 1 declaration that contains the language of a valid neder but there is “uncertainty as to his precise intent. In our case, however, the inquiry doesnot pertain simply tothe person's intent, but tothe basie meaning of his words. Rami bar Chama inquires whether ‘This is hereby lke that” can reosonably be interpreted as meaning “This is like the essence of that.” IF is deemed unreasonable to interpret the words in this noniteral manner, then even if the person intends for a neder it does not take effect, since he failed to express the neder with his mouth (Goe Rivash $350 [end] and Chidushet R’ Noftali Trop; ef. Tosajos, ‘Nazir 22a xvon "7% Ritva below, 14s; Machaneh Ephraim ibid.) Tt is noteworthy that Rami bar Chama’s inquiry is also cited in Nazir 2b, and the Gemara there seems to understand his question differently. For lengthy discussion ofthis matter and variant explans tions of Rami bar Chama reasoning, see Tosafos there (on 22a) "37 sxxon, Ran to Shevuos 20a (ol. 8b in Rif), and Rivash ibid. Soe also R” ‘Avraham Min HoHr. [an asks: Even if the vowers linking the bread to the current state of the meat, let his neder be effective, since even after the zerikah the ‘meat remain prohibited to fomei people, and portions of it (the breast ‘and thigh) remain prohibited to non-Kohanim ~ and thus, a remnant ‘of the original prohibition still exists!? Ran answers that these restrictions are not classified as resulting “from a vow,” because they fare not remnants of the original restriction. The owner initaly ‘conseerated the animal without qualification, and thereby rendered it probibited to all people. He didnot specify that tamet people should be forbidden to eat it even after the zeritah, nor did he specify that the breast and thigh should remain forbidden to non-Kohanim. Thus, the -zerikah dissolved the initial vow-induced prohibition in its entirety, and the Torab imposed new post-2erikah restrictions against fomel people eating any of it and against non-Kohanim eating the breast and thigh Consequently, ifthe vower associates the bread with the meat in its current state he has not associated it with anything prohibited by vow. See also Rashba and Rivash ibid, and soe Shalmei Nedarim. |KOL KINUYEL sor bmg] ngMY ay bvps wats x7] — Now, nossar and piggul are in effect only after the throwing of the blood of an offer- ing! Sinoe the Mishnah considers these declarations effective, it isobvious that the voweris associating the objet of his meder with ‘the essential stato ofthe source object that he mentioned! ‘The proof is rejected: im} 377 712 xp 37: ws — Rav Huna the son of Rav Nassan said to (Raval: nw by iniza — The Mishnah is eating with the nossar of an olah offering, which always remains in its orignal state. Rava retorts: 1) bx — He said to [Rav Huna the son of Rav Nassan]: 5x iy wea ram 12 — If so, let [the Mishnah] teach that the ‘ower referred to the meat of an olah! Why does it mention Rav Huna responds: ‘yay xyy3rp x> — [The Mishnah] states its ruling in the style of “it is unnecessary,” as follows: mbt “Wp xy xb — It is unnecessary to state regarding one who associated an object with the meat of an olah >Wox7 ~ that he is forbidden by his neder to eat it, oremp x2 72723 X07 — since he has explicitly associated the object with an offering that is prohibited by vow. spryyn ninsy wn Tt — But regarding a case where one associated an object with nossar or piggul of an olah, it is necessary to state that he is forbidden by his neder to eat it (CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM 12a! ‘xy 1047 G99 — It might have entered your mind to say that he is saying burs woes nua We%D — the object should be treated like it has the prohibition of nosear, or like it has the prohibition of piggul,"* swoxt) 1373 99 Mm MyM — and hes thus considered like one who is associating an object with something that is inherently forbidden, Yon x) — and accordingly, he is not forbidden to eat the object."" pov xp 1} — [The Mishnah] therefore informs us that the vower i associating the object with the offering that carries the disqualif. cation of nossar or piggul, not the prohibitions of nossar end ‘iggul themselves, and he is thus forbidden to eat the objec." At ‘any rate, the Mishnah may be understood as refering specifically to the nossar of an olah offering, and thus, it does rot prove that in a neder through association the vower refers to the essential state ofthe source item. ‘The Gemara again attempts to resolve the inquiry: 131mm — They challenged the notion that a vower attaches his neder to the current, permitted, state of an object, on the basis of the following Barasa:"” Anna way WER HIPS — WHAT IS ‘Tm formula for the neder PROMIBITION MENTIONED IN THE ‘TORAH, ie. how ean a neder prohibition be invoked through as- sociation?" wx — IONE SAID: bv) Ws bax KbY ITT PIRNWX — “THEREBY undertake THAT WILL NEITHER EAT MEAT [NOR DRINK WINE today," 3312 NB BMp — AS ON THE DAY NOTES 1. Nossar is meat of an offering that was let over beyond the time alloted for it to be eaten. Now, the permit to eat the meat sts in when the blood is thrown, and lasts for either one or two days, depending on the category of offering, Obviously, then, an offering cannot become nossar until its Blood has been thrown, at which point the initial restriction against benefiting from it was lifted. The restriction that sets in when the permit expires andthe offering becomes nossar is not caused by the initial vow of consecration, but is a new prohibition Imposed by the Torah at that time. Thus, ifthe declaration, “Lot this be noesar,is to he understod literally, it eannot effect aneder at all, for the subject is being associated with something inherently prokiited, rot something prohibited by vow! Since the Mishnah teaches that « neder can be effected by linking an object to nossar, it must hold that tne who states, “This is hereby nossar,” is [using the term “nossar” to describe an offering, but is actually] assoriating the object to the ssential,pre-nossar state of the offering, i. the state it was in before its zerikah, when it was infact prohibited by vow (see Ran; see further, Tosafos) (The Mishnah’s mention of piggut does not prove anything, since an offering that is piggul never becomes permitted for consumption, and its initial vow induced prohibition remains in force forever (see 10b note 82). The Gemara mentions piggul here in passing, but its proof is setually from the ease of nossar (Tosafos), In some texts, the word pig- ‘ul is omittod (Ran). CL Rosh; see Rashash and Dibros Moshe 1:65.) 2, An olah never becomes permitted for benefit or consumption. Rather, after its blood is thrown, the meat is burned on the Altar, Thus, one ‘who associates something with the nossar of an olah has linkod it to something prohibited by vow even if we say that the hafasah was to its current state (Ran). (The Gemara does not mean that whenever one mentions nossa he is understood as referring to the nossar ofan ola. le'means that the Mishnah refers to a case where the vower specified “nossar of an oleh” (Tosafes; ef Rashash) [Meat of an olah becomes nossar if itis not burned on the Altar within the alloted time, ie the day its blood is thrown or that night (Gee Mishnah Me iiah 9.) 8. With respect tothe prohibited status of an ola, there is no difference between nossar and non-nossar meat, since both are prohibited on tccount of the original vow. Why, then, does the Mishnah specify ‘All would be wel if we were to say that the Mishnah does not refer to, an olah offering. Accordingly, it would be informing us that although reat in a state of nossaris no longer prohibited by a vow, a reference to nossar effects a neder because the hatfasah isto the essential state of ‘the meat. But ifthe Mishnah refers to an olah, there is no point in its specifying nossar (Ran). [One could respond thatthe Mishnah informs us thatthe neder takes effet even ifone doesnot say “ike nossar (see 10 notes 33 and 43)! “However, the Gemara chooses an even better response WRan )] 4. (Le. he is not making Aatfasah to the offering that carries the restriction of nosear or piggul, but to these restrictions themselves. ‘There is a specific prohibition against eating nossar or piggul, for Scripture states (Exodus 29:34): xm 79-994? Xb, it may not be eaten fori s holy, meaning that since its a sacred item that was disqualified it may not be eaten (Makhos 18a-b; Rambam, Pesulei HaMukdashin 1810), Furthermore, one who eats nossar or piggul is lable to hares Leviticus 19:8; Kreisos 2a, 5a.) 5. Because a neder through hatjasah is effective only when the source to ‘which one attaches the object i itself something wowed [7793 “93, not ‘when the source is a prohibition imposed by the Torah [x 791] (see ‘Mishnah 13b (beginning of Chapter 2}, and 14a note 1). 6. Le. the vower does not refer to the prohibitions named nossar and ‘Piggul, but to actual mest ofan offering that became disqualified as ressar or piggul (Whon the offering isan ola, the meat is considered ‘8 "vowed item” even in its eurrent state, since the original prohibition ‘remains in fore] (Mefaresh; see Tosofoe S3x wand Keren Orah r wn 7. The Gemara's usage ofthe expression», They challenged, is un- usual in this eontxt, since nobody stated a definitive opinion regarding ‘this matter. It would seem more appropriate to say vey x8, Come, earn {a proof! This is an example of the unconventional usages found in ‘Tractate Nedarim (Shitah Mekubetzs; see 7a note 18; - Rosh). 8. (The elucidation follows Rava’s explanation ofthe Baraisa in Shevuos 20] The Torah states (Numbers 0:8): 73 793 wrx, Ifa man vows a rnader, and tho repotitive phrazoology (vowe a neder) toachos that in ‘order fora neder to take effect through hatfasoh, the association must bbe made to something vowed, not to something inherently prohibited (Gomara below, 14a). The Baraisa seeks to clavfy what formula is effective for invoking a neder prohibition in this manner (see Ran to ‘Sheouos ibid. [fl 8a i. Rif]; Ran above, 2a; Ramban below, 4a. ‘9, The Baraisa's language is imprecso. Since the Baraisis discussing a rede, the formala should correctly target the object (meat and wine), not the person's act (eating and drinking). Thus, the precise formula realy is: “Bread and wine are hereby prohibited to me for eating and drinking ...” However, the Barasa’s objective isto illuminate the law cothaifasah, which it accomplishes with the example tht follow, and itKOL KINUYEL ON WHICH HIS FATHER DIED," 39 12 ThvW BND — oF “AS-ON ‘THE DAY ON WHICH HIS Torah TEACHER DIED," 2 31790 BM ‘pix 13 OTA — oF “AS ON THE DAY ON WHICH GEDALYAH BEN ACHIKAM WAS KILLED"! gaya yYITE MMW BND — oF “AS ON THE DAY ON WHICH I VIEWED JERUSALEM IN ITS DESTRUC- ‘oN; he has invoked a neder through association. “WB¥) Syma — And Shmuel commented: piv imix HW XI) — ‘This is true only if [the vower] was previously bound by aneder probibiting him from meat and wine on that day to which he referred." ‘The Gemara develops its proof: x91 1307 — What is the precise ease to which the Baraisa refers? sping 79 nv NGwa TH NPT THD 1X? — Is it nota case in which [the vower] is standing on the Sunday that is the anniversary of the day on which his father died? For example, his father died onthe first Sunday in the month of Nissan, and several years ater CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM. 12a" onthe first Sunday in Nissan he says, “Let today be to me ike the first Sunday in Nissan." xgya my GW Ax) 33 SY 9 xqmn7 — And although there were many permitted first ‘Sundays in Nissan in the years between his father’s death and the current first Sunday in Nisan, wx ng) ~ [the Baraisa} teaches that [the vower] is forbidden by his neder!*® yyw ‘an xm agi3 np — Learn from this that when aman makes ‘aneder by association, he associates the object of his neder with ‘the essential state of [the source object!” "The Gemara rejects the proof by revising the quotation of ‘Shmuel’ statement: ‘vonx "39 bxnav — Shmuel's explanation ofthe Baraisa was ‘actually stated as follows: Sxvav px — Shmuelsaid: 1m ‘spy mms anes x91 aeTW — This (the Baraisa’s rung thatthe neder is effective) is true only if [the vower] was bound by a reder prohibiting him from meat and wine from that day to NOTES {is unconcerned with quoting the beginning of the neder precisely (Ran above, 2b vmx n=). Others explain that a neder uttered inthe language of an oath is effective, because this is considered a yad of a neder. ‘Accordingly, the Baraisa means that the neder is valid even with precisely this formula (Ramban, cited by Ran ibid.; see 2b note 6; ct. ‘Tosafos to Shewuos 20a x0 7) 10, (The vower referred tothe day of his own father's death. Perhaps ‘the reason the Tanna says “the day on which his father died” isto allude that the vower did not actually say “the day on which Father died,” but rather, mentioned the date of his father's death (se below). Itis common for a mourner to refrain from indulgences onthe day of @ parent's death (Rosh; see furthor, end of note 18) [Some authorities ‘ate our Gemara a the source of the custom to fast on a parent's ‘yahrzeit (Terumas HaDeshen §298; Toras Chaim to Shevuos 20s, cived iby Hagahoe R’ Akiva Biger, Yoroh Deah 402:12; but soe Beur HaGra, Yoreh Deoh 316:7)1 1, People commonly refrain from indulgences on such a day (Rosh), Purthermore it was customary to fast on the day of a sage's demise (Woreh Deah’378:4; see Beur HaGra there; see also end of note 18) (Mishnah Berurah’ (568:46) stats that it is proper to fast on the ‘yahranit of one's primary Torah teacher] 12, Le. the third day of Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah 19). On this day, Gedalyah, the governor appointed by Nebuchadnezzar over the remnant Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael after the destruction of the First Temple, was murdered. Ths triggered a sequence of tragic events, ‘which eventually led tothe pillage and complete expulsion ofthe Jewish settlement (see Jeremiah Chs. 89-4), and extinguished the last ember ‘of hope for the Jewish commonwealth (Rambam, Hil. Taaniyos 6:2). [Many assert that Gedalyah was in fuct murdered on Rosh Hashanah. “However, since itis a holiday, the commemoration of his death was ‘postponed until the thd of Tishre, after the holiday (see Rada 41:1, Ton Ezra to Zechariah 8:19 and Rabbeinu Yerucham, cited by Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim end of $649). 13, Some say that the fret time a person views the ruins of Jerusalem the must refrain from eating meat or drinking wine that entire day GMishnah Berurah 5614). 14, Shmuel adds: For the vower's nader to be valid, he must have previously made anedsr forbidding meat and wine to himself on the day of his father's death, of his teacher's death, of Gedalyah ben Achikam’s| ‘murder, or of his viewing the ruins of Jerusalem, Ifon a subsequent day hhe declares that he shall be bound as on that previous day, he has effected a neder through association with the day of the original neder (Ban), This appiee even if on the subsequent day he dees not say ‘explicitly that ho will refrain from meat and wine, but simply says, “Let today be like the day ..." (Rosh [Pesakim] 21 [Although the anniversary of Gedalyah’s murder is a pubic fast day, if the vower made no previous neder on that day then he is associating his current neder with something inherently prokiited, not something prohibited by neder (Rash; see further, note 18), 15, Ran, The Gemara assumes that the Baraisa does not mean the ‘vower said explicitly that today should be to him like “the day of Father's death,” for if he made the association explicit itis obvious that his neder is effective. Rather, tho Gemara assumes, the Baraisa rofers to a caso in which the vowor associated the current day withthe date of his father’s doath (“the first Sunday in Nissan", on which he hhad abstained from meat and wine years earlier when his father actually died, due toa neder he made tht day, but on which he had not abstained in te intervening years (Ran, as understood by Keren Orah [Tosafos assert thatthe Gemara does not mean literally thatthe person referred to “Sunday” (orto “the first Sunday in Nisean”). Rather, it ‘means that he referred to the calendar date of his father’s death (the ‘yahraeit). Cf. Rosh.) 16, Le, since several years passed between the father’s death and the day of this neder, the vower hed boon permitted to eat meat or drink ‘wine on his father's yahrai all those years. Novortholss, the Baraisa rules that by saying, “Let today be to me like the fet Sunday in Nissen,” the vower becomes bound by his neder. We assume that he referred to the Sunday on which his father died, and not one of the permitted first Sundays in Nissen since that fateful day (Ron, a "understood by Keren Ora). 17, In the Baraisa's case, it is possible to interpret the vower's declaration as referring to the most recent fist Sunday in Nissan — ‘which was a permitted day. Nevertheless since when he made the declaration, it was the day of his father's yohrzet (the first Sunday in [Nissan we say that he referred tothe origina, fateful, fst Sunday in ‘Nissan, on which his father died and he made the previous neder. (It follows that in Rami bar Chama's case (“Let this breed be like this shelamim meat”), we say that tho vower referred tc the original, fstentil, state of the shelamim mest, ie. the state in which it was prohibited by vow] (Ran). TTosafos ask: If the vower referred to the earliest possible “first Sunday in Nissan,” let us assume that he meant a certain “first Sunday in Nissan” before his father’s death? Tosofos answer that since the date had no personal significance to the vower before his father died, he could only have referred to the day of his father’s desth, or a subsequent yahrzeit. The Baraisa teaches that we say he referred to the original significant “first Sunday in Nissan.” [lan stresses that this applies ony ifthe man made the neder om his {ather’syohrovt (the fist Sunday in Nissan) This is implied by the GGemara’s words, 334 779 197 xQW3-193 77 91K? — “Tit nota case in whieh eis standing on the Sunday (that isthe anniversary of the Gayl on which his father died?” However, Rosh (apparently following @ variant text; see Rashash) slates that deslaration does aot have to be ‘made on the father's yahrzet, but ean be made on any day! Thus, if at anytime aman says, "Let today be like (the day of is fher's death,” ‘we understand him as referring tothe original day of hisfather's death fand he has made a neder through secosition. Apparently, Ran maintains that ordinarily, when a man mentions a certain date, we automatically understand him as referring to its most recent occur- rence, Only when a man says on the first Sunday in Nissan, “Let today belie the fret Sunday in Nissan,” does his unusual statement give ise to the possibilty that he refers to “frst Sunday in Nissan” other than the most recent one, And since the Baraisa teaches taat we in fact understand him as referring tothe original and fateful first Sunday in Nissan — and not the most recent one — we learn that a vower Who ‘makes an ambiguous association is understood as making the associ tion to the “sential” state ofthe source object.)KOL KINUYET which he referred and onward, on each recurrence of that day") According to this version, the vow is effective through assoc even though the vower refers to the most recent “first Sunday in Nissan” (the “current state”) ‘The Gemara attempts again to resolve Rami bar Chama’s inguiry: xp3] vex — Ravina said: yey xp — Come, learn a proof from the following Mishnah:® pya tnyrin2y pros nbn — IP Someone says, “That which I eat of yours shall be LIKE AARON'S CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM 12a° (CHALLAH,” OR “LIKE (AARON'S) PERUMAH,”"*” HE IS PERMITTED to at his fellow’s food, because he associated the object of his neder with something inherently prohibited, not some:hing vowed. ‘Since the Mishnah specifies that one who says “Aaron’s teru- ‘mah,” is permitted, it implies: jin won’ npyvna xq — But if one would say, “Like the terumah of the breads of a todah offering,”"® awox — he would be forbidden to eat his fellow's food, because he would be associating it with something prohib- ited by vow!" Thus, theterumah of dah breads can serve as the source item in a neder through association, NOTES 18. Le. on every “first Sunday in Nissan” from the day of his father’s death and onwards, he was bound by a neder forbidding meat and wine tohim thet day. Thus, even ifhe refers to the most recent first Sunday in Nissan,” he has made a neder through association. (Similarly, declaration, “like the day on which Gedalyah ben Achikam was killed, ‘seffective ifthe vower had made aneder onthe most recent occurrence ofthat date} Accordingly, the Baraise offers no proof whether a vower refers to the “estential” state or the current [ie, most recent] state (Ran; see Rashi, Shevwoe 200). According to this explanation, one might wonder what the Baraisa ‘informs us. (That is, why does it choose this unusual example as its ‘lustration of neder through hatfasah? (see Ran to Ida ‘vane t9) |The Gemara here ignores this pint, apparently relying on the parallel text ‘in Shemuos 20b, There, the Gemara explains that there is a novelty specifically inthe case of “like the day on which Gedalya ben Achikam ‘as killed.” One might have thought that sinee that date (3 Tishrei is 1 public fast ~ so that the vower was forbidden to eat that day even Without his neder — when he asociates another day with that date he is deemed to be making the association to something inherently rohibited, not something vowed. The Barsisa therefore informs us, by lusing this specific example, that it is considered “association with something vowed" and is therefore effective (Ran; see further, Rashi ‘and Tosafos to Shevuos 20b, and Cheshek Shlomo here). Alternatively, the Baraisa chooses this example to inform us that a zneder through hatfasah is valid even ifthe source object is forbidden ‘nly to the vower himself, and isnot like» horbam that is forbidden to all people (Ran; see further, 14a note 13) 19, According to this version, Shmuel holds definitively thatthe vower makes the astociation to the current stato of the source item. For ‘Shmuel states that the neder is valid only ifthe vower had made the rneder on every yohrzet, including the most recent one! However, since there are two versions of Shmucl's teaching, and the first ‘accords with the position thatthe association is with the essential state of the source item, the inquiry remains unresolved (Ran to Shevuos 20s, fol. 8b in Rif. 20, Below, 13b. The Mishnab lists various items that are inherently prohi- Dited, and thus, unfit to serveas the source object for anede of hatfasah 21. “Aaron’schallah”"is.acolloqualism fr challah, ie the portion that ‘ust be separated from a dough and given to a Kehen, “Aaron's ferumah" is the trumah portion (usually ane fiftieth tat is separated from the crop and given to a Kohen. Both ehallah and ferumah are forbidden to non-Kohanim, 22, Challah and terumah are classified as “inherently prohibited” (ie. prohibited by the Torah) despite the fact that they are designated as “challah” and “terumah” through the owner’s declaration and are consequently prohibited to non-Kohanim. Ifthe declaration ite would treat the prohibition, even Kohanim would be forbidder to eat challah ‘and terumah, for the declaration does not differentiate between ‘Kohanim and others. Perforee, the owner merely crests the designa- tion, and the Torah imposes a prohibition on non-Kohanim to benefit {rom food that has been so designated (Ram here and to 3b; soe note 8 there (beginning of ch. 2], and 11h end of nate 19) [For other reasons Why challah and terumah are not classified as “something vowed,” see Tosafos, Rosh, Rashba; Rambam cited below, 13a note 9 Raavad, Hil. Nedarim 11. Se also Rashash, 28, Atodah (thanksgiving) offering consists ofan animal scompanied by forty breads. The breads are divided into four categories; tn of them are baked as chamet loaves, en as matzah loaves, ten as matzah wafers, and ‘ten as scalded-metzah loaves (ie. the dough is scalded with hot water, then baked slightly and finally fried; Rambam, Maaseh HaKorbanos 9:19), After the four eatagoros of bread aro baked, ons loaf of cach category is separated from the rest and given to the Kohen. ‘The remaining loaves are eaten by the owner and his guess, along with their portion ofthe offering, in accordance with the laws pertaining to sacred food (Leviticus 7:1-14 with Rech. he Torah (. 14) refers to the four ‘breads that are given to the Kohen as mer terumah (ie. a separation). (See Menachos 77b for a discussion of parallels between the ferumah of ‘odak breads and teruriah of the erp, i. “Aaron's” truriah,) 24, Ran, (Since the Mishnah, in its list of items unGt to serve as the souree fora neder through hatfasah, singles out “Aaron's” ferumah, it plies that the other category oftrumah ~ viz the terumah oftodah ‘breads ~ is fit to serve asthe source item)| | = 12b' KOL KINUYEL serra] NPM AMA TAN oN ANA x) — But the ferumah of todah breads s generally in existence only after the throwing of ‘the blood of the offering, and at that point the terumah is permitted for consumption by Kohanim!" Perforce, the reason a rneder through association with “the ferumah of todah breads” is cffective is that the vower is deemed to be making the association with the state thatthe terumah breads were in before the blood of the offering was thrown. Thus, we see that when one makes a nneder through association, he refers to the essential state of the source item! ‘The Gemara rejects the assumption that the Mishnah means to {imply that “the terumah of todah breads” isa valid source item: ‘xox ~ Say that when the Mishnah rules that one who associates his fellow’s food with “Aaron’s terumah’”is permitted to eat the food, it means to imply: maya mprins — But if one would say that his fellows food shall be “like the ferumah of the Temple treasury chamber,” >wo¥ — he would be forbidden to eat it. ‘This terwmah can certainly serve as the source item in a neder ‘through association, since it always remains prohibited for bene- ft) ‘The Gemara counter swan vane noMTA 434 — But according to your interpretation, if one says, “Your food is like the ferumah of todah breads,” ‘what is the law? -1nva — He is permitted to eat his fellow’s food! ma van’ sum? — If so, [the Mishnah] should teach that if one says, “Like the ferumah of todah breads,” he is permitted to eat his fellow’s food, wngrin yo 59) — and we would know that certainly, if he says, “Like [Aaron's] feru- mah,” he is permitted to eat it! For if even the éerumah of todah breads, which was originally prohibited by a neder, eannot serve CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM. as the source item in a neder through association, certainly ‘Aaron's terumah, which was never probibited by a neder, cannot serve as the source item!" Since the Mishnah states its law ‘regarding “Aaron's terumah,” it implies that the terumah of todah breads isa valid source item. ~ ? = ‘The Gemara responds: sominprin yin wand nova (fpyaEN Np XM) ~ The ferumah of fodah breads is included in the category of “{Aaron’s] feru- mah.” Thus, when the Mishnah states that “‘Aaron’s ferumah” cannot serve as the source item, it actually refers not only to ‘erumah ofthe erop, but also tothe terumah of tadah breads ‘The Gemara offers an alternative answer to the original ques- tion. According to this answer, we revert to the understanding that the category “Aaron's ferumah” does not inchude the teru- ‘mah oftodah breads. Thus, by listing only “Aaron'sierwmah,” the ‘Mishnah implies thatthe terumah oftodah breadscan serveas the source item in a neder through association, As for the argument that this ferumah is separated after the blood of the offering is ‘thrown, the Gemara responds: 2xprw v9 1x) — Or, if you prefer, say: vay TIN woN? NINA 2x17 B97 NENT OTP — The ferumah of todah breads can even be in existence before the throwing of the blood of the offering, nya myw7ex7 Tp — in a ease where one separates [the terumah breads] while they are still dough." In this case, the ‘erumah breads are prohibited by vow even after their separation, and thus, may certainly serve as the source item in a neder through association.” And since there is a case in which the ferumah breads are a valid source item, the Mishnah lists only ““Aaron’s terumah” among the invalid source items." NOTES 1. (The throwing of the blood (zerikah) ofthe animal component of the ‘odah is the final esentil actin ts avodah(service).'The completion of this act renders the edible portion of the offering ~ ie. the meat of the animal and the accompanying breads — permitted for consumption. From that point onward, the Kohanim may eat the portion of meat and the erumah breads that are awarded to them, and the owner may eat the remaining meat and breads] Since the Kohanim may not eat the ‘erumah breads until the 2zrikah is performed, there is no purpose in separating them before the zerikah, and the common practice is there- fore to wait until afterwards (Ran, Rosh; cf. Mefaresh). Thus, the ‘expression “the erumah of odah breads" applies to this erumah when ‘isin th post-zeritah stato, at which point itis permitted to Kohanim, ‘Although it is forbidden to non-Kohanim, that prokibition is not ‘Yow- induced, sine it doos not apply to Kohanim. In its current state, then, the erumah of odah breads isnot a vali souree item for hatfasch (Keren Orah, based on Ran cited shove, 12a note 22; se also Rashba). 2. [At that point, the breads that would ultimately be separated 98 ‘erumah were prohibited, along with the other breads, due to the neder by which they were consecrated] 3, When the Temple stood, each Jew was required todonateaalfshekel to the Temple treasury every year (preferably, in the month of Ada). ‘This money was used to purchase the communal offerings, and thus, every singlo Jow had a share in these offerings. The donated monies ‘were placed in a special chamber in the Temple complex. Since they’ generally amounted to more than was actually neded for the purchase af the communal offerings, designated officers would enter the chamber three times a year with three large containers, and would separate a portion of the money with which they would fill the containers. The Separated money ~ which was called “the ferumah (separation) of the ‘chamber” — was actually used forthe purchase of offerings, and the remaining money was designated for other Temple expenses (Ran; ‘Mishnah Shekalim Ul, 31-2, 4:-4, 4. Rosh. The separated money is always classified as a “vowed item” [rvrga nya, since it was conseerated for the purchase of offerings and romains permanently designeted for this purpose (R" Avraham Min Hahar; el Mefaresh). 5, Beeause you contend that one who makes aneder through association refers tothe current state ofthe source item, and the erumah of tadoh ‘breadsis currently [.e. after thezeritah | not prohibited by vow (see end ‘of nate 1; socond explanation of Mefaresh). 6. Ran, 1-Le. the term “Aaron's ferumal" doesnot refer only t terumah of the crop (which is the standard “terumah”), but tall forms of terumah that fare permitted specifically to Aaron's progeny, the Kobanim, This includes the éerumah of todah breads, for like terumah of the crop its forbidden to non-Kobanim (Ran, Rosh). (The emendation of the text follows Rash (sce Roshash) and Re'eim in Shitah Mekubetes. Re'eir explains why the phrase j> voom xp xis clearly out of place here. CE ‘Mefaresh.] 8. (Literally: during the kneading:) As the Gemara shall prove, the ferumah of todah breads dovs not have tobe separated after the erika ‘but may be separated while the bread i sil in the form of dough, which is before the offering is slaughtered and obviously before its blood is thrown. (The todah breads are always baked before the animal is slaughtered, because the bread becomes fully sanctified as an offering ‘when the animal i slaughtered and it eannot attain tis sanetity unless it has been baked (Mishnsh Menachos 78b). Thus, since the Gemara shal prove thatthe ferumah may be taken in dough form, we automat- ‘ally know thet this means it may be taken before the zeikah,) ‘The terumah ean also be separated afer the bread is baked and the ‘animal slaughtered, and before the blood is thrown. However, since the Gemara’s proof deals with a situation in which the separation is done before the baking t mentions specifically this case Wan; see note 10 for further discussion), 48, Although the full sanctified statu ofthe breads is not achieved until they are baked and the offering slaughtered, they ean serves the source item while they are yet dough. This is because they were already designated as fedah breads verbally, and therefore, can no longer be used for any other purpose, Thus, they area “vowed item," and retain this elassifieation until the blood is thrown (Tosafos to Niddah 6h 7 srwnaicr Re'eim in Shitah Mekubetzs; cf. Rosh). 10. Although the ferumah of todah breads is ueually separated after the _2erikah (oe note, the Mishnah cannot lst t among the invalid source