Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

נדרים ב׳:ד׳ - ב׳:ה׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Saturday, October 26, 2019 is נדרים ב׳:ד׳ - ב׳:ה׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Nedarim Perek 2 Mishnah 4

נדרים פרק ב׳ משנה ד׳

4
Unspecified vows are treated stringently, but their specification, if specification is necessary, is treated leniently. How so? If one said: This item is prohibited to me like salted meat, or: This item is prohibited to me like the wine used for libations, if he vowed in reference to meat or libations of a peace-offering, i.e., if he claimed that his intention was that the item will be forbidden to him like the salted meat of an offering, or like wine that is used for libations on the altar, it is forbidden, as he associated the item of the vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., the offering. If he claims that he vowed in reference to meat or libations of idol worship, i.e., that the item will be like the salted meat of an offering for an idol, or like wine that is used for libations as idol worship, it is permitted, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by the Torah. By enabling the one who took the vow to later clarify his intent, the vow is treated leniently. And if the vow was without specification, i.e., the one who took the vow did not specify whether his intention was to associate the item with an offering for Heaven or to associate the item with idol worship, it is forbidden. Similarly, if one said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to Heaven, which is a form of consecration, it is forbidden. And if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to priests, whereby one pledges his asset as a gift to priests, it is permitted, as this type of gift is not forbidden at all. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden. Likewise, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like tithes, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the animal tithe, it is forbidden, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it will be like the tithe of the granary, i.e., grain that is given to the Levites and has no sanctity, it is permitted. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden. Similarly, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like teruma, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber [terumat halishka], which is a tax for the communal offerings, it is forbidden, his vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it would be like teruma of the granary that is given to the priests, it is permitted, as teruma is not an item forbidden by a vow. And if the vow was taken without specification, it is forbidden. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. However, in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the chamber. When they say teruma they are referring to the teruma allotted to the priests, which is familiar to them. Conversely, unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests, so when they say dedication they are referring to dedication to Heaven.
סְתָם נְדָרִים לְהַחְמִיר, וּפֵרוּשָׁם לְהָקֵל. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּבָשָׂר מָלִיחַ, כְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ, אִם שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם נָדַר, אָסוּר. אִם שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָדַר, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּחֵרֶם, אִם כְּחֵרֶם שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם, אָסוּר. וְאִם כְּחֵרֶם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּמַעֲשֵׂר, אִם כְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נָדַר, אָסוּר. וְאִם שֶׁל גֹּרֶן, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כִּתְרוּמָה, אִם כִּתְרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה נָדַר, אָסוּר. וְאִם שֶׁל גֹּרֶן, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, סְתָם תְּרוּמָה בִּיהוּדָה אֲסוּרָה, בַּגָּלִיל מֻתֶּרֶת, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. סְתָם חֲרָמִים, בִּיהוּדָה מֻתָּרִין, וּבַגָּלִיל אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת חֶרְמֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים:
ד׳
ברטנורא

ופירושם להקל – even though that when he explained his words, we follow after his explanation, for when it is undefined and he didn’t explain, we go to the most stringent [opinion], for a person who makes an undefined vow, his intention is to forbid.

כבשר מליח – which is a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 2:13): “[You shall season your every offering of grain with salt; you shall not omit from your grain offering the salt of your covenant with God;] with all your offerings you must offer salt.”

כחרם של כהנים מותר (assigned to the private use of priests) – even though that which belongs to the priests, people commit religious sacrilege with them until they come into the hands of the Kohanim, and they are a thing that is vowed, nevertheless, undefined property of the priests implies that they have already come into the hand of a Kohen (see also Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 6)..

אם כמעשר בהמה אסור – for this is something that was vowed, that one must sanctify it, but the tithe of cattle does not prohibit the stable/shed like the tithing of grain prohibits the granary/threshing floor.

שאין אנשי גליל מכירין תרומת הלשכה – becase they were far from Jerusalem.

שין אנשי גליל מכירין חרמי כהנים – for everything that they would dedicate for priestly use, they would set aside for the repair of the Temple. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

ופירושם להקל. אע״ג דכשפירש דבריו אזלינן בתר פירושו, כי סתם ולא פירש אזלינן להחמיר, דסתם נודר דעתו לאסור:

כבשר מליח. היינו קרבן, דכתיב (ויקרא ב׳:י״ג) על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח:

כחרם של כהנים מותר. אע״ג דחרמי כהנים מועלים בהם עד שיבואו לידי כהנים והוי דבר הנדור, מ״מ סתם חרמי כהנים משמע שכבר באו ליד כהן:

אם כמעשר בהמה אסור. דהוי דבר הנדור, שצריך להקדישו, ואין מעשר בהמה אוסר הדיר כמו שמעשר דגן אוסר הגורן:

שאין אנשי גליל מכירין תרומת הלשכה. לפי שהיו רחוקים מירושלים:

שאין אנשי גליל מכירין חרמי כהנים. וכל מה שהיו מחרימין היו מפרישין לבדק הבית. והלכה כרבי יהודה:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Nedarim Perek 2 Mishnah 5

נדרים פרק ב׳ משנה ה׳

5
One who took a vow by associating an item with a dedication [ḥerem], saying: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, and then said: I took a vow only with the intention that it would be like a sea net [ḥermo shel yam] that is used to catch fish; or one who took a vow by associating an item with an offering, and then said: I took a vow only with reference to offerings to kings, i.e., a gift for a king, not an offering to God. Or one who said: I am hereby an offering myself [atzmi], and then said: I took a vow only with reference to a bone [etzem] that I set aside for myself to vow with, as atzmi means both myself and my bone, i.e., he set aside a bone so as to pretend to take a vow upon himself; or one who said: Deriving benefit from me is konam for my wife, and then said: I took a vow only with regard to my first wife whom I divorced, not with regard to my current wife. For all of the above vows, those who took them do not need to request of a halakhic authority to dissolve them, as the speaker interpreted the vows in a manner that caused them not to take effect at all. However, if they requested dissolution, apparently due to their being uncertain of their explanations, the court punishes them and treats them stringently and the vows are not dissolved. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: These vows are not treated stringently. Rather, dissolution is broached with them by suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., the halakhic authority suggests extenuating circumstances that undermine the vow but do not pertain to its wording. And we teach them that they should not take this kind of vow in the future, in order that they will not take vows lightly.
נָדַר בְּחֵרֶם וְאָמַר, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְחֶרְמוֹ שֶׁל יָם. בְּקָרְבָּן, וְאָמַר, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְקָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁל מְלָכִים. הֲרֵי עַצְמִי קָרְבָּן, וְאָמַר, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְעֶצֶם שֶׁהִנַּחְתִּי לִי לִהְיוֹת נוֹדֵר בּוֹ. קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי, וְאָמַר לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְאִשְׁתִּי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁגֵּרַשְׁתִּי, עַל כֻּלָּן אֵין נִשְׁאָלִים לָהֶם. וְאִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ, עוֹנְשִׁין אוֹתָן וּמַחְמִירִין עֲלֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פּוֹתְחִין לָהֶם פֶּתַח מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, וּמְלַמְּדִים אוֹתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בַּנְּדָרִים:
ה׳
ברטנורא

בחרמו של ים – the language of a net, as in (Ecclesiastes 7:26): “[Now, I find women more bitter than death,] she is all traps , her hands are fetters, [and her heart is snares].”

הרי עצמי קרבן – he forbade himself like a KORBAN/sacrifice upon his fellow.

אין נשאלים עליהם – it is not necessary for a request to a Sage [to release him from a vow] for they don’t take effect.

ואם נשאלין – but if this person is an illiterate person/Am HaAretz who made a vow in such a manner and he came to request from a Sage [to release him] from his vow, we don’t make an opening for him for regret and we don’t release him. But if he transgressed on this vow, we excommunicate him.

פוחתין לו פתח ממקום אחר – we show him that the matter exists and we make an opening for him for another reason and release him from his vow. But we don’t punish him and we are not stringent with him. And such is the Halakha.

בחרמו של ים. לשון מצודה, כמו אשר היא מצודים וחרמים (קהלת ז׳.):

הרי עצמי קרבן. אסר עצמו כקרבן על חבירו:

אין נשאלים עליהם. אין צריכין שאלת חכם, שאינן חלים:

ואם נשאלו. ואם עם הארץ הוא זה שנדר כהאי גוונא ובא לישאל על נדרו, אין פותחין לו פתח לחרטה ואין מתירין לו. ואם עבר על נדרו זה מנדין אותו:

פותחין לו פתח ממקום אחר. מראים לו שהדבר קיים ופותחין לו פתח מטעם אחר ומתירין לו נדרו. אבל לא עונשין ולא מחמירין. וכן הלכה:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר