menu
small logo

Back

Nedarim

Daf 32b

״הַשָּׂטָן״ בְּחוּשְׁבְּנֵיהּ תְּלָת מֵאָה וְשִׁיתִין וְאַרְבָּעָה. וַאֲמַר רָמִי בַּר אַבָּא: כְּתִיב ״אַבְרָם״ וּכְתִיב ״אַבְרָהָם״, בַּתְּחִלָּה הִמְלִיכוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל מָאתַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁלֹֹשָׁה אֵבָרִים, וּלְבַסּוֹף הִמְלִיכוֹ עַל מָאתַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה אֵבָרִים,

The letters of the term the Satan [ haSatan ] in numerical value is 364, which equals the number of days of the year, except for Yom Kippur, during which he has no power. And Rami bar Abba said: It is written “Abram,” and after he was commanded to perform circumcision it is written “Abraham” (Genesis 17:5). Initially the Holy One, Blessed be He, enthroned him as ruler over 243 limbs, which is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the word Abram. And in the end, after he was circumcised, He enthroned him as ruler over 248 limbs, which is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the word Abraham.

RASHI

שס''ד ימים אית ליה וכו' וימי השנה שס''ה ימים:

המליכו השליטו:

אֵלּוּ הֵן: שְׁתֵּי עֵינַיִם, וּשְׁתֵּי אָזְנַיִם, וְרֹאשׁ הַגְּוִיָּיה.

These are the additional limbs: Two eyes, and two ears, and the tip of the sex organ. Following his circumcision, he had total control over them, and they performed only according to his will.

RASHI

אלו הן שתי עיניים דלאחר שמל היה שלם בכל אבריו:

ראש הגוייה הוא אבר:

TOSAFOT

שתי עינים וב' אזנים וראש הגוייה ראש האבר שנימול ושמע וראה ושלט בעיניו ואזניו שהמצות מפקחות את העינים והאזנים כדכתיב (דברים כ״ט:ג׳) ולא נתן ה' לכם לב לדעת ועינים לראות ואזנים לשמוע עד היום הזה אבל הכא לא קחשיב לב דהא כתיב (נחמיה ט׳:ח׳) ומצאת את לבבו נאמן לפניך וכרות עמו הברית ונדר על המילה אלמא קודם המילה היה כבר לבו שלם לשמים:

וַאֲמַר רָמִי בַּר אַבָּא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״עִיר קְטַנָּה וַאֲנָשִׁים״ וגו'? ״עִיר קְטַנָּה״ – זֶה הַגּוּף. ״וַאֲנָשִׁים בָּהּ מְעָט״ – אֵלּוּ אֵבָרִים. ״וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ מֶלֶךְ גָּדוֹל וְסָבַב אֹתָהּ״ – זֶה יֵצֶר הָרַע. ״וּבָנָה עָלֶיהָ מְצוֹדִים וַחֲרָמִים״ – אֵלּוּ עֲוֹנוֹת.

And Rami bar Abba said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “There was a little city and few men in it, and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a man poor and wise, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man” (Ecclesiastes 9:14–15)? “A little city,” this is referring to the body; “and few men in it,” this is referring to the limbs; “and there came a great king against it and besieged it,” this is referring to the evil inclination; “and built great bulwarks against it,” these are sins.

״וּמָצָא בָהּ אִישׁ מִסְכֵּן וְחָכָם״ – זֶה יֵצֶר טוֹב. ״וּמִלַּט הוּא אֶת הָעִיר בְּחָכְמָתוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים. ״וְאָדָם לֹא זָכַר אֶת הָאִישׁ הַמִּסְכֵּן הַהוּא״ – דְּבִשְׁעַת יֵצֶר הָרַע לֵית דְּמַדְכַּר לֵיהּ לְיֵצֶר טוֹב.

The Gemara expounds on the next section of the verse: “Now there was found in it a man poor and wise,” this is referring to the good inclination; “and he by his wisdom delivered the city,” this is referring to repentance and good deeds that are cause by the good inclination. “Yet no man remembered that same poor man” means that when the evil inclination overcomes the good inclination no one remembers the good inclination.

״הַחָכְמָה תָּעֹז לֶחָכָם מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים״. ״הַחָכְמָה תָּעֹז לֶחָכָם״ – זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים. ״מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים״ – שְׁתֵּי עֵינַיִם, וּשְׁתֵּי אָזְנַיִם, וּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם, וּשְׁתֵּי רַגְלַיִם, וְרֹאשׁ הַגְּוִיָּיה, וּפֶה.

The Gemara interprets the following verse in a similar homiletical manner: “Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city” (Ecclesiastes 7:19). “Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man,” this is referring to repentance and good deeds. “More than ten rulers,” these are the two eyes, and two ears, and two hands, and two legs, and the tip of the sex organ, and the mouth, which are the limbs that are used by a person to interact with the world.

RASHI

מעשרה שליטים שהן מועילין לגוף יותר מעשרה שליטים ואלו הן כו':

אָמַר רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בִּיקֵּשׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהוֹצִיא כְּהוּנָּה מִשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן״. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִקְדִּים בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם לְבִרְכַּת הַמָּקוֹם – הוֹצִיאָהּ מֵאַבְרָהָם.

Rabbi Zekharya said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted the priesthood to emerge from Shem, so that his children would be priests, as it is stated: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Once Melchizedek, traditionally identified as Shem, placed the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of the Omnipresent, He had the priesthood emerge from Abraham in particular, and not from any other descendant of Shem.

RASHI

הוציאה לכהונה:

TOSAFOT

להוציא כהונה משם תימה דאברהם נמי היה מזרעו של שם וי''ל דמכל בניו של שם קאמר ולבסוף ניטל משאר בניו וניתנה לאברהם לבדו א''נ י''ל לפי שלא היה בכור בכל בניו ולא היה לו לירש הכהונה מן הדין אלא דוקא הבכור:

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיְבָרֲכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ וּבָרוּךְ אֵל עֶלְיוֹן״. אָמַר לוֹ אַבְרָהָם: וְכִי מַקְדִּימִין בִּרְכַּת עֶבֶד לְבִרְכַּת קוֹנוֹ? מִיָּד נְתָנָהּ לְאַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״נְאֻם ה' לַאדֹנִי שֵׁב לִימִינִי עַד אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ״ וּבַתְרֵיהּ כְּתִיב ״נִשְׁבַּע ה' וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם אַתָּה כֹהֵן לְעוֹלָם עַל דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק״ – עַל דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק,

As it is stated: “And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God the Most High” (Genesis 14:19–20). Abraham said to him: And does one place the blessing of the servant before the blessing of his master? You should have blessed God first. Immediately the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave the priesthood to Abraham, as it is stated: “The Lord says to my lord: Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalms 110:1), and afterward it is written: “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: you shall be a priest forever, because you are a king of righteousness [ al divrati malki tzedek ]” (Psalms 110:4), which is explained homiletically to mean: Due to the improper words [ divrati ] of Melchizedek, the offspring of Abraham shall be priests of God forever.

RASHI

על דיבורו של מלכי צדק ניטלה ממנו הכהונה:

וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן״ – הוּא כֹּהֵן, וְאֵין זַרְעוֹ כֹּהֵן. הדרן עלך ארבעה נדרים

The Gemara comments: And this is as it is written: “And he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18), which emphasizes that he, Melchizedek, is a priest, but his children will not be priests.

SUMMARY

There are four categories of vows for which it is clear that the one taking the vow did not intend to do so. Therefore, one is not prohibited by it, despite the fact that the words were articulated in the form of a vow. The first category relates to vows of extortion. These are vows taken in an exaggerated manner in order to encourage another to do something specific. It is common knowledge that one did not say his words as a vow but rather as encouragement. Similarly, the second category consists of vows of exaggeration. This refers to a vow aimed at demonstrating that something one said is true, but it is common knowledge that his statement is somewhat exaggerated. The third category, unintentional vows, includes vows taken based on a faulty premise that one later discovers to be incorrect. The fourth category, vows impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control, do not require dissolution by a halakhic authority, but rather are immediately dissolved. This category can be divided into two groups: The first includes vows taken under the assumption that one will be capable of fulfilling a certain condition. If circumstances beyond his control then arise that prevent him from fulfilling his vow, it is assumed that he did not intend for the vow to take effect in such a situation. The second group includes cases where one is compelled to vow due to financial or other types of distress. In this case, although the vow was verbally expressed in a proper manner, one had no mental intention whatsoever that the vow take effect. Concerning this issue, there is no difference whether a vow or oath was taken, since in both cases one’s words do not take effect. In connection with these issues, the Gemara discussed a number of questions related to the dissolution of vows, e.g., what types of openings may be suggested by a halakhic authority to induce the one taking the vow to declare that they never would have intended for it to take effect had they initially considered other factors. Through this process, the vow is transformed into an unintentional vow, which may be dissolved. With regard to the question of understanding the implication of various ambiguous expressions used in a vow, the primary principle is that a vow should be understood based on colloquial language. Therefore, a vow will occasionally be expressed using very general terms, yet colloquially the expression is much more limited in scope. Because the distinction between those who are circumcised and those who are not is mentioned in this chapter in the context of vows, the Mishna and the Gemara cite numerous statements concerning the greatness of the mitzva of circumcision, which is a sign that demonstrates the uniqueness of the Jewish people.

INTRO

Many vows are reactions to interpersonal disputes or results of these interactions. The one who vows seeks to chastise the other person or to modify his conduct, and consequently prohibits that person from deriving benefit from him. This vow can assume one of two forms: That benefit from his food is forbidden to the other, and that all benefit from him is forbidden to the other. This chapter addresses those vows and raises several questions, particularly with regard to the latter type of vow. The first issue is defining the difference between these two vows. Since benefit from one’s food is not limited to food alone but includes any monetary gain that could facilitate the purchase of food, when one vows that benefit from his food is forbidden, he prohibits the other from deriving any benefit with monetary value. Therefore, the difference between those two vows must be delineated. An additional series of issues stems from an analysis of the relationship between the one who vowed and the one subject to the prohibition in the vow. Typically, relations between people with close familial or collegial ties are precisely those that tend to deteriorate into quarrels that lead to vows. Therefore, situations could arise where one of the parties seeks to assist the other in times of need, but is prevented from doing so by the vow. Therefore, the Gemara first explains those actions that are not considered benefit and that the one who vowed may consequently perform for the one for whom benefit is forbidden. In addition, in circumstances where the one for whom benefit is forbidden is in dire straits and the other seeks to help him, the question is whether there are ways to circumvent the prohibition and assist him despite the vow. The Gemara in this chapter will address these and other related questions.

מתני׳ אֵין בֵּין הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמוּדָּר הֵימֶנּוּ מַאֲכָל אֶלָּא דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל, וְכֵלִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶם אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ.

The difference between one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow [ hamuddar hana’a meḥaveiro ] and one for whom benefit from his food is forbidden by vow concerns only setting foot on the other person’s property and borrowing from that person utensils that one does not use in preparation of food but for other purposes. Those two benefits are forbidden to the former but permitted to the latter.

הַמּוּדָּר מַאֲכָל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וְרֵיחַיִם וְתַנּוּר, אֲבָל מַשְׁאִיל לוֹ חָלוּק וְטַבַּעַת וְטַלִּית וּנְזָמִים.

Therefore, with regard to one for whom benefit from another’s food is forbidden by vow, that person may not lend him utensils used in the preparation of food, e.g., a sieve, or a strainer, or a millstone, or an oven. However, he may lend him a garment, or a finger ring, or a cloak, or nose rings, as these are not used in the preparation of food. However, he may not lend them to one for whom benefit from him is forbidden by vow.

RASHI

אין בין המודר הנאה מחבירו שחבירו הדירו שלא יהנה ממנו בשום ענין:

למודר ממנו מאכל שלא הדירו אלא הנאת מאכל:

אלא דריסת הרגל לעבור בחצרו ולקצר דרכו:

וכלים ולהשתמש בכלים של מדיר שאין עושין בהם מאכל דמודר הנאה אסור בדריסת הרגל דהיינו הנאה שמקצר דרכו ולהשתמש בכליו אבל מודר ממנו מאכל מותר בשתיהן לפי שזה לא הדיר ממנו אלא מאכל:

TOSAFOT

אין בין המודר הנאה וכו' אלא דריסת הרגל במקום דלא קפדי אינשי כגון בקעה בימות החמה:

גמ׳ מַאן תַּנָּא? אֲמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ וִיתּוּר אָסוּר בְּמוּדָּר הֲנָאָה.

Who is the tanna who taught this mishna? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: Even overlooking [ vittur ] a matter for which one is typically indifferent to the actions of others, e.g., people setting foot on one’s property, is prohibited in the case of one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another.

TOSAFOT

ולא ישאילנו נפה וכברה אבל לא נקט מחבת ופיטפוט שלא ישאילנו דהא פשיטא שלא ישאיל דהנאה המביאה לידי מאכל הוא אלא אפי' נפה וכברה שאינו יכול לאכול אחר תיקון זה בכלי זה אלא צריך תיקון אחר אפייה ובישול אפ''ה אסור לשאול לו נפה:

מקום שמשכירים אסור דחשיב הנאת מאכל ממה שנהנה השוכר וראוי לקנות מן המעות מאכל:

״הַמּוּדָּר מַאֲכָל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ״ וכו׳.

§ We learned in the mishna: With regard to one for whom benefit from another’s food is forbidden by vow, that person may not lend him utensils used in the preparation of food.

RASHI

גמ' מאן תנא דמודר הנאה אסור בדריסת הרגל ובכלים וכו' אע''ג דלא מיחזי הנאה:

רבי אליעזר היא דאמר אפילו ויתור כו' ויתור זהו כגון שלקח מדה של תפוחים בפרוטה ולאחר שמדד לו המדה מוסיף לו שתים או שלשה וזהו דרך של חנוונין להוסיף על המדות משלהן הואיל ובלא תנאי נותן לו לא מיחזי כמקח אלא כמתנה ואליבא דרבי אליעזר אסור המודר באותו הויתור של מדידת פירות הכא נמי אף על גב דדריסת הרגל לא הויא הנאה גמורה אסור:

TOSAFOT

מני ר''א היא ומיירי בבקעה בימות החמה דלא קפדי כדפרישית וא''ת ולוקמה הכא בחצר דקפדי וכ''ע וי''ל דא''כ הוה ליה מקום שמשכירין והיה אסור במודר מאכל:

אפי' ויתור שמוותר לו כדרך המוכרין ומתני' דלעיל דמוכר בפחות ולוקח ביותר מסתברא דאתי כר''א: