7/23/2019 Nedarim 4

1/7

GgnWfA

Understanding the

Mishnah

as meaning that the

declaration

"Like

the nedarim of the

wicked"

itself

effects

a

vow,

the Gemara wonders:

rE$17

r),1

Nt??ll

-

But

perhaps

this

is

what

[the

person]

means

to say:

Nl"lll Nt

trtyg''l

r'llD

-

"Like

the

ned,qrim of the

wieked I

arn not vowing "

What

is

the basis

for

considering his

declaration

a vow?

The intent

of

the

Mishnah is

clarified:

9ar

b*lnrrl rB$

-

Shmuel

said:

trtl,P'l

t'll4

lplNt

-

The Mish-

nah refers

to

a case where

he

says,

"Like

the nedarirn

of.

the

wicked," and then adds,

Dnrilt

rby

rl': il

-

either

"am

I,"

or

"upon

me," or

ttfrom

it."

ntirlft

Ur-lil

-

If

he

adds

"am

I,"

he

has

vowed

regarding

nezirus;

I?li??

lby

-

if

he

adds

"upon

me," he has vowed regarding an offering;

l:trtril

ilylrt{r

-

and

if

he

adds

"from

it,"

he has vowed regarding

an

oath.l8l

KOL

KINUYEI CHAPTER ONE

NEDARIM

}..{;i,5ftn41fL

The Mishnah

provides

further

examples of

"partial

declarations":

trUrpl

il'Tll

-

If

one says,

"Like

the ned,arim of

the

wicked,"

rll

-

he has effected

a vow,lll

irlg

-

either

in

regard to becoming

iflazir,Lz)

Fli??t

-

or

in

regard

to

bringing an

offering,isl

ilYt:t4ft

-

or

in regard

to beingbound by an oath.t4l trr1l??

tll+

-

If

one

says,

"Like

thenedarim

of the virtuous,"

rES Nb

Etb

-

he

has

not

said

anlrthing.rsl tr 'i:ll-I

-

If

he

says,

"Like

their

[the

virtuous ones'f neda

vos,"td

1:l

-

he

has

effected a vow, rlp

-

either

in regard

to becoming anazir,

I+'ti??'r

-

or

in regard to bringing an

offering.ttl

NOTES

1.

Careless

people

-

unconcerned

for

the consequences

oftheir

words

-

had

a tendency to adopt nedarim, nezirus and oaths freely

[in

moments

ofanger

and the

like;

see

Gemara

21b1.

This practice is frowned upon,

since

the vower might

come

to violate

his words

(Gemara

9b). In the

context of his

tendency

to

vow, therefore, such a

person

is described by

the

pejorative

"wicked,"

although he might be virtuous overall. And

since

"wicked"

people

vow,

the expression

"like the nednrim

of

the

wicked"

connotes an effective vow.

In

specific circumstances

(as

shall be

described), one who employs this expression is bound by the

vow

for

which he intended

(Ran,

Ritua).

lThe

ternt nedarim in this

context

is a

general

expression

referring

to

various

categories of

vows,

including declarations of nezirus and oaths

(Gemara

below,

80b;

Ran to

8a,

cited there in note

6).1

2. The

Gemara explains that this applies in

a case

where the

person

said,

"Likethenedarim

of

the wickedam 1," implytng that he

should enter

a

state

like

that adopted by the "wicked" when they vow.

Ifhe

said this

while anazir was

passing

in

front of him, his statement connotes that

it

is

the

state of nezirus he wishes

to enter,

and on

the

basis of

his

partial

declaration

(yad,)\e

becomes anazir

(Ran).

3.

The

Gemara explains this as

referring

to a case where the

person

said,

"Like

the nedarim of the wicked upon me," implying

that

he

should

assume a certain obligation through this vow

-

and this

is

the

obligation to bring

an

offering. Presumably, this applies in a

situation

similar to that which

the Gemara describes

in

the context of the

previous

rule

-

i.e. where there was an

animal

[frt

to be offered] located

in front of the vower

(Ran;

see

Tosafos t:nrnt'by

)liil

tr'yur-l

r-l-r):

n"r; cf.

Kesef

Mishneh, Hil. Maaseh HaKorbanos

14:11).

4. As

explained by the Gemara, this

refers

to a case in which the

person

declared, "Like

the

nedarim

of the wicked,

from

it

shall

I not

eat."

lf

there was an article of food in front of him when he said this,

his

statement

implies

that

he

should

be

bound by

an oath to

refrain from

eating

it

[and

it

is

an

effective

yodl

(Ran;

cf.

Beis

Yosef, Yoreh Deah

237:9;

see also Bels

Yosef

ibid. 206:4).

[See

Rau MiBartenura

for

an

entirely different

understanding

of the Mishnah; see also

E

am.bam,

Hil.

Nedarim l:25-26.)

5.

Even

if

he

concluded

with

the

phrase

"am 1," ot

"upon

me," or

"from

it

etc,,"

and there was a

nazir,

an animal or an article of

food before

him,

he is not

bound by his declaration. Since

virtuous

people

do

not make

nedarim

[see

below], the expression "Like the nedarim of the virtuous"

is meaningless

(Raz).

6.

Ned,auos

(sing.

nedauah) are vows that differ

from

nedarim, and

the

practical

difference applies

in

the context of offerings. A neder of an

offering

is

a

vow in

which one says,

"I

hereby undertake to bring an

offering." The obligation rests

upon

the vower; thus, ifhe consecrates

an animal in order

to

fulfill his

vow but

it

dies or

is lost before he

actually offers

it,

he

must

replace

it

with anothet

one.

Aned,auah of an

offering

is

a vow in which one declares, "This animal is hereby

consecrated as

an offering."

There

is

no

personal

obligation upon

the

vower; thus,

ifthe

animal dies or

is lost

before

it

is

offered,

he

bears

no

responsibility. Although virtuous

people

do

not make nedarim,

dtrc

to

their

reluctance

to assume obiigations that they might be

prevented

from fulfrlling in

the

proper

time, they do make

nedauos,

since these

do

not involve

personal

liability

(see

Ran

and

.Rosh

).

7.

I.e. ifone says,

"Like

the nedauos ofthe

virtuous am

I,"

while

anazir

is

passing

in front of

him, his

statement

is a valid

yad

for nezirus aod

renders

him

a

nazir;

and

if

he

says,

"Like

the

ned,auos

of the virtuous

upon

me,"

while there

is

an

animal

in

front

of

him, his statement

is

a valid

yod

for

consecrating

the

animal

-

as

ifhe

said,

"It

is

hereby

[consecrated

as] a voluntary offering."

However, ifhe says,

"Like

the nedauos

ofthe

virtuous,

fom

it shall

I

not eal

" his

statement

is not a valid

yad

for an

oath, even if there

was food in

front

of

him. Whereas virtuous

people

sometimes adoptnedauah-t7pe

obligations

for either offerings or

nezirus,

lhey

neuer engage in oaths

lbecause

the

Name ofGod

is

generally

invoked

in an oath, and because the consequences

ofviolating

it

are most severe;

Ritual.

Arrd

although

we learned

above

(8a)

that

it

is

permissible

to

stimulate

oneselfto

perform

a

mitzvah

by

swearing to do so, that

type of

oath

is not

called

anedauah

(literally:

benevolent vow),

since

the

person

was

previously

obligated to

perform

the mitzvah

(Ran).

[Rosh,

following

the

view of

Rarnban

(cited

above, 8a

note 5), explains that the

reason is

because the oath to

fulfill

the

mitzvah has

no legal effectiveness.l

.Bon

wonders:

As

explained

in

the

previous note, a neder

is

distin-

guished

from

a

nedauaD in that the declaration

"I hereby undertake

. . ."

is

defined as

aneder, whereas the declaration

"This

is hereby . . ."

is

defrned

as a nedauah.

This distinction exists only

in the context of

offerings, where one

has

the

choice of either undertaking

a

personal

obligation or directly consecrating

an animal.

Concerning

nezirus,

however,

no

such

distinction exists, since

afl nezirus

vows are alike.

What,

then,

is

the

difference

between

"nedarirn"

and,"nedauos"

fof

the

virtuousl

in

regard to nezirus?

Roz

therefore

posits

that the

practical

difference

between aned,er

and,

anedauah stems

from amore fundamental

distinction between

the

mean-

ings ofthe term s

"neder"

and

"nedauah."

"Neder" cornotes

a

vow that is

tendered somewhat

dispassionately, whereas

"nedauah" connotes a vow

that

is tendered

enthusiasticaliy,

and hence,

regarded more favorably

(see

also

Roshi to Exodus

25:2). Based on this distinction,

we describe the

vow

of

"I

hereby

undertake

to

bring

an

offering"

as

aneder,

because since

the

vower did

not

donate

the offeringimmediately

he seems

gmdging.

And we

describe

a

vow of

"This

animal

is hereby consecrated"

as a nedauah,

because

the vower acted benevolently

and

his vow is more worthy.

Since

the underlying

difference between

a

neder and a

nedauah is

in

the

attitude

ofthe vower, these terms can

be applied

evenlo nezirus

-

de'

spite the

fact

that

on the

practical

level allnezirus

vows

invoke the same

type of

obligation. A

person

who undertakes

nezirus

with

pure

intentions

is said

to have m ade a

''nedauah" of nezirus

,

whereas

one who undertakes

it with inferior

intentions is said to have

made a"ned,er" of

nezlras.

Thus,

thenezirusvows

of wicked

people,

which

are made with

flawed intent, are

"nedarim," but the nezirus

vows

of

virtuous

people,

which are

made

wholehearteilly and

purely,

are

"ned.auos."

lndeed,

the

Gemara

(9b)

cites,

as an example of a

nedauah, the vow of a certain

nazir whose

intent was

purely

for

the sake

of Heaven

(see

also

-Eanzbam,

Hil. Nezirus t014).

In

conclusion,

then,

"Like

the

nedauos

of

the

virtuous"

is

a

meaning-

ful

statement

and

qualifies

as ayod.

However,

"Like

the

ned.auos of the

wicked"

is meaningless, since

the wicked are

incapable of tendering

nedauos. One who does

make a nedauah

is not considered

"wicked"

within the context

of

that

vow

(Ron;

see also

Rashba,

and,

Tosafos lo

Chullin

2b

end

of

):x

n--i).

8.

See

notes 2-4,

and,

Gemara further.

7/23/2019 Nedarim 4

2/7

KOL

KINIIYEI

CHAPTER ONE NEDARIM

The

first

part

of Shmuel's explanation is

questioned:

r;t1i

-

You

say that if

he

adds

"am

I,"

he has

vowed

rpgi?

ntryIt

rnrir

NF?:T

-

Perhaps

he

is

"I

am

in

a

fast.t't1ol

-

?

-

Shmuel

responds:

rn$

-

Shmuel said:

uIDb

t:ty rrq

iqlp?

-

We

are

with a

case

where

a

nazir

was

passing

in front of

[the

while he

made

his

declaration.

In

this situation, his

clearly avow

of

nezirus.tril

The

last

part

of

Shmuel's

explanation is now

Questioned:rDr

tltflir

(Fii;t

rfy;

-

You

say that

if

he

adds

"from

it,"

he

vowed

regarding

an oath,

meaning

that

he

is under

oath

to

eat

it ?

'lEg?

NJhtN:r

llhril NEh

-

Perhaps

he

means

to

"From

it

shall

I

eat."l13l

-

?

-

A clarification

is

cited:

'rn$

-

Rava

said:

b:tx XbW llhrir

tDS'r

-

We are

dealing

a case

where

[the

vower]

said

explicitly,

"From

it

I

shall

g1f,.t'tla)

The

Gemara counters:

rNE r),1

rx

-

If

so,

what

need

is

there

for

the Mishnah

to

that

his vow is effective?

The

Gemara answers:

urD

-

You

might

have

said,

ilrh|l5r:

ilvlftli

iTtED

Nb

N,l

-

he did

not

express

an

oath from his mouth,

and should

be

bound

by his

words

6f sll"ttsr

f.l I?

ypqb

xp

-

[The

therefore

informs

us this

-

that

your

argument

is

and

"Like

the

nedarim

of

the

wicked

etc."

does

qualify

as

partial

declaration

ofan oath.r6l

9a2

The Mishnah

stated:

,'ril

'llf

trltIID

D 5

rES iib trtlurl

t": lf?

-

If

one says,

,,LrKE

rHE

NEDARIM

oF

THE vIRTUous," HE HAs

Nor

sArD

aNyT slNc.

If

he

says,

"LfKE

nrrm

[the

virtuous

ones']

lrraAyos,-

HE IrAs

EF-

FECTEDAV0W

etc.

The

Gemara

inquires after

the authorship

of

this

ruling:

il?'llb

tl)

pl

nrb

rxur:r

xl5

IxD

-

Who

is

this

Tanna who

differentiates

between a neder and a nedaaah insofar

as

considering the former inappropriate

and the

latter

virtuous?

iJtitr

r 'l

Nbr rrxn

'r r

Nb NFrb

-

Shall we say

it

is

neither

R' M,eir nor

R'

Yehudah? NlfD

-

For

it

was taught in

a Baraisa:

,,,u1

r\n'xt

rU$

rtu,,

-

Scripture

states'tul

BETTER

THAr

you

Nor vow

etc,

[than

that

you

uow and not

pay].

In

this

passage,

Scripture describes

three

categories

ofpeople

-

one who vows and

pays,

one who does not vow at

all,

and

one

who

vows

and

does

not

pay.tml

b3 r1,i: tlxu, ilmt ilm llu

rPry

-

BETTER

TIraN

both

THrS

ONE

AND THAT

Owg

(i.e.

one

who vows

and

does

not

pay

aad one who vows

and

pays)

ls

oNE

wrro

DOES NOT

VOgr

41

411.irst tr1{D

U-l

rl?T

_

These

are

THE

WORDS

OF R',

MEIR.

ltltN il-Jtil

tl'l

-

R' YEHUDAH

SAYS: nlgral

Tru

illlit illlr

flu

-

BETTER

TrIAN BOTH THIS

oNE

AND

TIIAT

oNE

(i.e.

one who

does

not vow

and

one

who

vows

and

does

not

pay)

Is

oNE wuo vows AND

pAys.t20l

Neither

R'

Meir nor

R'

Yehudah

distinguishes between

a

neder

and a

nedauahtt2|

_

?

_

The Gemara

responds:

.lr$n

r -l

xprs

1fr55

-

Actuqlly,

you

can

sayt22l that the

Mishnah

accords with R' Meir.

NOTES

The emendation follows

Hagahos

HaBach.

Le.

although

"Like

the nedarim

ofthe

wicked am

I"

implies

that

wishes to enter a certain state through his vow, this

can refer

state

of fasting

as well as the

state of

nezirus.

Why

does

the

rule

it a declaration

of

nezirus

and

not

of

a

fast?

(R'

Akiua

based, on

Ran

below; cf. Rosh to Nazir

2b).

[See

?osoflos

for

of

why

the

pejorative

"wicked"

would apply

to one who

a vow to fast.l

Actually,

If

a

nazir is

passing

in front

of

the

vower, he

becomes a

even if

he merely

states,

"I

am,"

because

this

phrase

is indicative

nezirus

even

without

the

preface

"Like

the

nedarim of

the

wicked."

Mishnah focuses on

the

case

where

he

did say,

"Like

the nedarim

of

wicked,"

in

order

to

teach

through

inference

that

ifhe

says

"Like

of

the

uirtuous,

"

his vow

of

"I

am"

is

ineffective even

a nazir ls

passing

in front

of

him

(.Bon,

based on Gemara

5b;

see

fton

for

an

alternative

explanation).

The Gemara

questioned

the

first

part

ofShmuel's explanation

(that

"am

I" makes

the

declaration a

yad

for nezirus),

and

it now

the

final

part

(that

adding

"from

it"

makes the declaration a

for

an

oath).

However,

it does not

question

the

middle

part

of

-

that

adding

"upon

me"

makes

the declaration

yod.

for

a

vow

to bring

an offering.

This

is because we learned above

that'?y,-r\ It is hereby

upon

me, is

an effectiveya.d.

for

an offering,

"upon me"

is

no

different

(Shitah

Mehubetzes).

And

since

it

is unclear whether he means

to swear

that

he

will

eat

or

he

will

not eat,

this

should

be

considered

a

case of nln,Jlh

lrlsu

trlll,

d,eclarations

that

are inconclusiue,

which

according

to

Shmuel

5b) are

ineffective

(Ran;

see

R'Akiua

Eiger;

cf. Rosh).

And there

was an

article

of food in front of him

at

the

time

(.Bon

see

note 4).

I.e.

he did not say,

"I

swear

that

I shall

not

eat

it"

(Mefaresh),

lbut

"Like

the

nedarim

ofthe

wicked

etc."

Although

"Like

nedarim of

the

wicked"

can effect

a

vow of nezirus or

a

vow

to bring

offering,

perhaps

it

cannot effect anoathTt.

synonym

for "oaths"

(see

end of note

1).

[Therefore, when

"Like

the

ned,arim of

the wicked"

is

combined

with

the

clarification

"from

it shall

I

not

eat,"

which is indicative of

an

oath

-

since

it

obligates the

person

not

to eat, and does

not render

theitern

forbidden

(see

2b

note

5)

-

it

renders

him

bound by an oath not

to

eat

that

item.l

t7. Ecclesiastes

5:4.

18.

The

preceding

verse

in

Ecclesiastes

(v.

3)

concludes

with

the

words

n?U rr5-rqx nx, That

which

you

uow,

pay

This is followed by the verse

cited here

(v.

4): Better that

you

not uow than that

you

uow

and

not

pW.

19.

R'

Meir

interprets

"That which

you

uow,

pay

Better

that

you

not uow

than that

you

uow and not

pay"

as meaning

that

even

ifyou

always

pay

what

you

vow,

it

is

better

that

you

not

vow at all,

lest

you

once vow and

not

pay

(Ran;

Rashi to

Chullin

2a; cf . Rosh;

Tosafos to

Chullin

ibid.

n"-r

:ru).

20. R' Yehudah

understands That

which you

uow,

pay

as

describing

the

optimal

approach.

The following verse means literally

that

it is

better

not

to vow at all

than

to vow

and

not

pay;

it does not mean

that this

is

better

than to

vow

and

pay.

One

might

wonder, accordingly,

why

the

latter

verse

is

needed. Obviously, one who will

not

pay

should

refrain

from

vowing The answer is

that one might

have

thought that vowing

[in

the expectation ofpaying] is itselfvirtuous, and

ifone

later forgets

or

is

unable

to

pay

he will nevertheless

be

rewarded

[for

his

good

inten-

tionl. Scripture therefore

informs

us that one

is not

rewarded

for

the

vow itself

but

for its fulfillment.

[Thus,

the

unfulfrlled

vow

provides

no

benelit

and is simply a stumbling

blockl

(Ran;

see

Rashash).

21.

According to R' Meir, the verse teaches

that

it is best to

refrain from

vowing altogether

-

whether

wlth

a

neder or with

a

nedauah.

[N-

though

the

verse

mentions

only a

neder,

for it

states

'r.rn-N9

tt

N

flu,

literally: better that

you

notvow

aned.ea

I

ifthis would

apply

only to

the

ned,er method,

it

would

have

stated that the best approach of

all is

to

make

a

nedauah

(fian).

And

according

to R'

Yehudah,

the

verse

sanctions

even

the

neder

method,,

for R'

Yehudah

interprets

it

as

meaning

that

the best approach is

o?rarrr

rrt:,

literally: vowing a neder

and

paying

(Gemara,

top of

10a)l

Our Mishnah does not accord

with

The

expression

"nedarim

of the

wicked"

is inclusive

even of oaths

either

of these opinionsl

Meiri

to

Mishnah),

for

"nedarim"

is occasionally

used as a

22.

Literally:

You

can even say. See 2b note

6.

rt

1{

1i

7/23/2019 Nedarim 4

3/7

gbt

KOL

KINTIYEI

CHAPTER

ONE NEDARIM

lr$n

rI:

.lDSi?

rI

-

When

did B'

Meir

say

it

is best

not

to vow

at

all? i'll1

-

Regarding

a nedcr

vow.

rpry;7

xb

il?Iff

-

Regarding

anedaaah

vow,

he

did

not

say this.rlr

The

Gemara

objects:

I+'li??'r

rrlH

rll

trlt]l)I

tlni?

N,ll

-

But

[the

Mishnah]

teaches:

If

one states,

"LrKE

THEIR

(the

virtuous

ones')

,vgoAyog'HE

IIAS

EFFECTED

A

"NEDER"

either

rN nrcmo

ro

becoming ANAZIR oR

IN

REGARD

To

bringing

AN

oFFERING.

This

implies

that

the

virtuous ones

effect

eyennedarimlt2l

-

?

-

The

Gemara

responds:

Itli??'t

ltlll

l:l

r-)n

-

Teach

the

Mishnah

as follows:

"He

has

effected

a'ncda.vah'

either

in regard to

becoming

anazir or in

regard

to bringing

an offering."

The

Gemara

now

analyzes

the distinction between aneder and

anedauah:

NbI r:lr xlP

rxn

-

lYhat

is

unique

about

making

a

neder,

leading

R'

Meir to say

that

one should not do

so?

il

n$

NEh

rr p5

r1f

-

It

is

obviously

the

concern that

perhaps

one

will

come

to a

transgression

through

it.tsr

x5

tnl

il?If

-

A

nedaaah

should also

not

be

made,

n p4

rlrf

i'il

rn$

xn?,1

-

because of the

concern

that

perhaps

one

will come to

a

transgression

through

it.l4l

-

?

-

The

Gemara

answers:

il?p

5?il?

-

Anedauah

is

virtuous

when tendered in

accordance

with

the

method

of

Hillel

the

Elder.

Nlgrl

-

For it was

taught

in

a

Baraisa:

Ii?lir

bbrn

by

rip$

-

rltny sAID

ABour

rrrLLEL rHE ELDER

'trE:

bl tnltVl tr]$

byD

NbV.j

-

rrrAr

No

PERSON EVEI

COMMITTED

ME'II,AH

WITH

HIS

OTA}'

OF'FERING

IN

ALL HIS

p4vg.{sl

nl ?

Itbtn

NrilUr

i:tNrfp

-

IHILLELI

WOULD

always

BRING

IHIS

OFFERINGI

TO

THE Temple

COURTYARD

WIIILE

IT wAS

yet

LINCoNSECR-aTED,I6] irtftltt

irtby

:lhtDl

irurrii?Dt

-

AND

upon arrival, would

coNspcRATE

rr,

I,EAN

his

hands

tpor.l

11tzl 4tvp

SLAUGHTER IT.

By minimizing

the amount

of time

between

the

consecration

ofthe

offering

and

its

slaughter,

Hillel

eliminated

the

occurrence

of

me'ilah.

t8l

This is the

manner

in

which virtuous

people

make

nedauos.tet

The Gemara

asks

further:

nt)+ti?i

ir?' l

Nnuir

-

This

fits

well

regarding

lhe

ned.aaah

of

offerings, tprnb

x:rx

rND

n ir l:I ttl1f

-

hut

regarding the

nedaaah of

nezirus

what is

there to say?t101

The

Gemara responds:

iTti'lyil

ltyrturl

(il,

t:D)

-

A vow

of

nezirus

is

considered

a

ruedauah,

i.e.

virtuous,

in

a

case

such as

that of

Shimon the

Righteous.tllr

xlln

-

For

it was

taught in

a Baraisa: rB$

irrryil lytlri

(r:'1)

-

sHrMoN

THE RTGHTEoUS sArD: N.b

rDlh

,{Dg lrrr

trr?{

tnh$

-

TNALLMyDAys,TNEvERATE

of

rnnesrear

oFFERING oF a rrrazrR who b ecame TAMET,I.u) 1tr ,(

Nh..

-

ExcEpT

FORONE.

trtt:lil

In

ttlf

r[ ".

tr'l],r

N+

nE]_.

truE

-

oNcEACERTATN

MAN,

A

NAZIR

who had been tamei,

CIilIN

FROM

THE S0UTH.

rNli

ltu

trr 'ry

i'r r

IrIilu

DnrN"rl

-

AND I sAw

THAT HE HAD

BEAUTIFUL EYES AND WAS GOOD

LOOKING,

Tb NTTI-TU

ITNTYI'Ii?]

trtDh

-

AND HTsLocxswEREARRANGEDTNCURLs.

tb

rI-' D ,t

-

rsArDroHrM:

rl

-

.,MysoN,

tll:l'lvt{ nN

nlnurilb

It$l

ilF

ilt{lir

-

wHY DID YOU Spp

fit

rO

Oe

SrnOY

THrS BEAUTTFUL

rrArR

OF

yOURS?,'tl3]

rl

fE$

-

HE

REPLIED TO ME: xlgb

rniln

ngir

NOTES

1.

The verse

that R'

Meir expounds refers

only to nedarim, notto

nedauos

8.

[Hillel's

method

also

eliminated

the

possibility

of the

owner's trans-

(Ran).

$.e.

R' Meir

does

not

understand the

verse

as coming

to inform

us

gressing

the

prohibition

againstdelaying

payment,

sincethe nedauahvov

the best

approach to vowing. Rather,

he

understands

it

as coming to

wasinitiatedattheCourtyardentrance,lHowever,Hillelwouldnotmake

conveytheimproprietyofinvokingneder-typevows.Thus,heinterprets a

neder

vow

even

while

standing

with

his

animal

at

the

Courtyarc

its reference

to neder vows

literally,

and derives

only that

it is better

not

entrance,

since

if

the animal would die suddenly before

being offered

-

or

to make

a

"neder"

than to make

one

and

pay

it. As for nedauos,

R'

Meir a

disqualification would

occur

during

the

process

ofits

being

offered

-

he

may hold

that they are virtuous,

as

taught in our Mishnah.l

would

remain

personaJly

responsible

to

bring

another

offering, and this

2. Thus,

the Mishnah cannot be interpreted in

accordance with R'

Meir.

would

leave

him vulnerable

to a transgression

(see

?osofos

and Rashba

Furthermore,

the

Mishnah

is

self-contradictory On the one

hand,

it

9. When the Mishnah teaches

that

"Like

the nedauos

of

the

virtuous

differentiates between

"Like

the nedarim of the

virtuous"

and

"Like

effects

a

nedauah regarding

an

offering,

it

refers

to a

case where

t]neir nedauos,"

and on the other

hand,

it

states

that

"Like

their

someonesaysthisaboutananimalstandingintheCourtyard[entrance,

nedauos" invokes

anederl

(Ran,

Rosh).

The

Gemara could

have raised

the

latter

point

before discussing

the

Others contend that the

Mishnah

implies

the

vow is

always effective

authorship ofthe

Mishnah.

However, it chose to first

address

the matter

They therefore

explain that since there is some form

of nedauafr that i:

of the Mishnah's

distinction between

"Like

th e

nedarim"

arrd

"Like

the

considered virtuous, the declaration

"Like

the

nedauos

of the

virtuous'

nedauos,"

and

to

focus only

afterwards

on

the statement that

"Like

is meaningful

and,

always

effects a vow.

According to

this explanatior

lheir

nedauos" invokes

a

"neder"

(Ran,

in

the

name of

his teachers;

the declaration

can effect

not only

a vow to bring an

offering, but eve:,

Tosafos;

see Ran

for his

own variant explanation,

and see Rosh

for

yet

a

prohibitive

neder

li.e.

"Let

this

article be

prohibited

to

me like th.,

another

approach).

nedauos

of the

virtuous"l

(Tosafos;

see

aiso Rambam,

Hil.

Maase.

3.

[He

might

fail

to

fu-Ifrll

the obligation

that he

placed

upon

himsetf.]

HaKorbanos

l(Ll)'

4.

[Althoueh

rhe animal

is

consecrated

immediately,

and,the vower

l3"j;?.liX,$1H|]iiTr'j1enlir"ffifi$i,};]:#ff#T',]*:"r*:

cannot transgress

that

prohibition,l

he might

tarry

more

than,three

ao.i"Stlr"i"

iezirusterm

(,Ean

).

festivals

in

offering

it

and

violate

the

prohibition

asainst

delayins

-.

-:-

payrnent

(Ran;

see Ba

note 17

for

the sources or t1.."

irot

ilitionsl

cL

11'

shimon

the

Righteous, one of

the

greatest

Kohanim

Gedolim, sen-e-

Mefaresh

and.Hagahos R' Betzalel

Ronsburg).

tA]ro,

ori."

un

u"i;; i;

at the beginning

of the Second

remple

Era. He

was one

of the

last of tL:

consecrated one

is

forbidden

to

benefit

from

it

and

is

in danser

of

rr7rr4,J-rt_p) 'PfN,Menof

theGreatAssembly

(Auosl:2).

[Theemend..

transgressing this

prohibition

(see

further).1

tion of

the text follows

'Eon'

l

Accordingly,

even the statement

"Like

the nedauos ofthe virtuous"

12.

A nazir

who

became

tamei

through contact

with

a corpse, whe:.

should not effect a vow

(see

Raz

55n:

n-:).

purifred

of his

fumah,brirtgs

aspecial

offering of two birds

and a

lamb

-

I

:

,

I

I

I

b.

Me-tLanrs

the

s1n

or

uruawfuily deriving benefit from a

consecrated

the.birdsasanolahandchatas'

andthelambasanasham' Heforfeitsti'=

-"""""*,";

days of

his

nezirus term that

he

had counted and must

begin the ter::

obJecl

(see

lJeuttlcus D:Ic-Ib).

t(ecog'nlzlng tnat

havrng

a

consecrated

,

^;",.;

;; :;"

-::::

anew

{.Ron,

from Numbers

6:9-I2t. The

oLaiz is

burned

on the

A.ltar

in ::

i

arumal In one s

possessron

16

an

rnvrtauon

Eo me t|an, flrllel tooK

steps

entirety, but

the

meat of the chatas

and asham

is

eaten

by

Koharu-

to mrnlmrze

lne

possrDlll[y

oI rnrs

occurrence

shimon the

Righteous

refrained from partaking

ofeither

ofthese

offe:.

6.

It

is

actually

prohibited

to bring

an unconsecrated

animal

into

the

ings

(Rashba;

Rosh below). See

note

25 for

the

reason

he mentioned or...

Temple

Courtyard.

The

intent

is that Hillel brought it

to the Courtyard

the asham.

entrance

before consecrating

it

(Ran;

cf. Shitah Mekubetzes).

t3.

Anazir

is required to shave his head

entirely at the end ofhis

ter=

7. Itisobligatoryfortheownertoleanhishandsonhisofferingbefore

(ibid.

v. 18).

By taking the

vow

of

nezirus, therefore,

the

nazir

l,:

it is

slaughtered

(see

Leuiticus

l:4).

committed

himself

to destroying his

beautiful

head

of hair.

7/23/2019 Nedarim 4

4/7

gbz

KOL KINUYEI

CHAPTER

ONE

NEDARIM

I'ltlr+

-,.r

wAS

A STIEPHERD FOR MY

FATHER

IN MY

TO\yN.

tn? ,?

Itlt

Er-r

In

trrD nrNbDl

-

Once, I wEI{r

ro FILI,

a

pail

with wernR

FROM THE

SPRING

TbUI

N$I:?T

tNhDPI]

_

AND

I

STABED

AT MY

REFLECTTON

in

the water.

t1y tly

rnpt

-

rnsN My

evil

TNCLTNATToN RUsHED ovER

ME

n tu,1

1n

r:rliul

uri?lr

-

AND

soucHT To BANIsH

ME FRoM THE woRr,D.llal lb

tn'lDt(

-

r

sAID

TO

tMY

EWL

INCLINATIONI:

yql

-

'WICKED

ONE ll[ -. n,,l?

1 r4r

t:rxrz

ultul nxlnn

-

wHYAREYoUCoNCEITEDINAWORLD

rrrAr

rs

NoTYouRs,

i1y?tn]

npr

ntrnS

lrny

Nrilri

rE

-

WITH

oNE WHO IS

DESTTNED TO BE consumed by WOmIS

AND MAGGOTS?

illtr1r[

-

By rHE TEMeLE

snRvrcn,ti5r

tr?Dgb

1:thryq

-

rHAr

I

sTIALL

sHAvE

you

FoR

the sake

of

HEAvrNr'

"t161

tn']Dv

.t:lr

turx'r

by

tDi?tgp

-

IMMEDIATEIy

(Shimon

the

Righteous

contin-

ues),

l

ABosp

AND

r(ssnD HInn

oN

rrrs

HEAD, tb

tn" D ,(

-

and r

sArD

ro HrMr

rr

-

"MY

soN,

Sxlrtt+

nr'lrrr

rrri)

r 11

:llhl

-

MAY THERE

BE

MORE VOWERS OF NEZIRUS

LIKE

YOU

IN

ISRA,EL

'1)6tN

rtn?il

l'r?y

-

It

is asour a

nazir

such as

you

that

SCRIPTURE STATES:

"

'nl

rrlnb

.1rll .lJl

r'"rll xbpt

r

. . .

urx,,

_

A MAN . , . WHO SHALL

DISSOCIATE HIMSELF BY VOWING A NEDDR

AS

ANAZIRTO ABSTNN FOR

ITHD

SAKE OFl HASHDM,IIT]

This

was the

nazir

who

had

been

tamei

of whose asham, offering

I

ate."

When

a

man

makes

the vow

of

nezirus

with

this

degree of

sincerity, there

is

no

concern

that

he

will come to

violate it

and

it is therefore

considered a

nedauah,

i.e. virtuous.

The

Gemara

digresses to analyze the statement of Shimon the

Righteous:

rfr-i tt't

n

qr;lnra

-

R'Mani

objected to

this: lrtl

trrl$ xfp

txD

5;ry

xb1

Nnp

-

What

is

unique

about the asham

offering

of

a

na,zir who became tamei, that

[Shimon

the Bighteous] would

not

eat of

it?

NItt: ty

rIrSJ

-

Presumably,

ii is

the

fact

that

[the

offering]

comes on

account

of

a transgression.tlsl

bp

br:rb xb

rEI

nthqr$

-

Then

he should

not

have

eaten ofany

other asham

offerings either,

lng

Nt

n

by:r

-

for

they

all

come

on account oftransgressions.uel

-

?

-

R'Mani's objection

is resolved:

illtr

r 'l

ilr? rES

-

R'Yonah

said

to

him: NEt

p

Drlil

-

This is

the true

reason

that

Shimon the Righteous refrained

from eating

specifically the

asharn.

of a

nazir:

I.tril fil'in lilq?

-

In

his

times, when

[peoplel

felt

remorse

for their misdeeds,

they

would take vows of

nezirus,tzor

tn?

Iittbg

If'U

f$Ft

lr

1;q?t

nt'trlf

-

but when it

occurred

that

they

bec

ame tam.ei

and

the

days

of nezirus increased

for them,tzrt

1;'t lrtl" [{tn

*

they

would regret their vows,t22'

nllq?

Irbn

fxr:n

lxyrl:-l

-

and

they

were

thus

found to

be bringing

unconsecrated

[animals]

to the

Courtyard to

be offered.P3l

R'Mani counters:

r:ir

rx

-

If so,

lE

'rtilt,

.ttl

tbr $

-

then

even

the offering of

a

nazir who remained talwr, too, should

have

been

considered

unworthy

by Shimon

the

Righteous.t%l

-

?

-

R'Yonah

responds:

x b

r

tng i

rt:

-

The

offering of a

nazir

who

remained

folror

is not

considered unworthy,

ilrui5l lrD$

t.tlh$J

-

because he

surely

assessed

himself

before

vowing

'rtill

5tr:t

-

and

concluded

that

he

was able to

make the vow

and

fuffiU

it.

Only

when the

term

was

extended

beyond

the

duration for

which

the

vower

initially intended is

there

reason

to

be concerned that he

regretted

his vow.t25l

14. By

urging

me

to

use my beauty

World"

refers

to

the

World

to

Come

4:2I).)

15.

This

expression connotes an

oath (Rashi, Taanis

24a;

however,

see

14b note

2

and,

Tos. Yom Tou, Kesubos 2:9 nta

plnn

n"r).

16. To

overcome

his vanity,

the shepherd

swore

to

become a

nazir,

and

hence,

to shave

his beautiful hair

in

the

performance

of

a mitzvah for

the sake

ofHeaven

(Rosh).

17 . Leuiticus

6:2.

This

man

was

the

prototype

of a

nazir tnlJy

motivated

by a sincere desire to

devote himself to the service of God

(Eaz

)

He

was

also deserving of the title u'ri7, holy,

thatSuipture

(ibid.

v. 5) ascribes to

anazir

(Rosh).

lMost

nezirim had less laudable motives, as we shall see

below.l

See

Maharsha ar,d Chasam Sofer

for

further

insight

into

this

narrative.

18. The

nazir

is not

allowed to become

tarnei

(ibid'

v.

6),

md

the asham

comes

to

atone

for his turnah

[even

if

it

occurred inadvertently]

(Ean

).

Presumably,

Shimon

the

Righteous

considered

it unfitting

for

a

person

of his

stature

to

partake

of

an offering

that

comes

on

account

of

a

transgression

lexcept

in

the unusual

case that he mentioned]

(Rosh).

19.

See

Leuiticus 5:14-26, where the criteria

for most

asham

obligations

are described.

[Shimon

the Righteous

should

certainly

also have re-

frained from

ever

eating the meat of a chatas offering

(Rosh).1

20. Most

people

who became nezirim did so

in

moments of

regret

for

earlier misdeeds

[seeking

atonement through the vow

of abstinence]

(Ran),

or seeking to ward off

Heavenly

retribution

(Tosafos).

Others

explain

l,il'in

as meaning became agitated.

Thus,

the Gemara

says: When

people

became

agitated

by affliction that visited them, and

they

attributed

the affliction to Heavenly

retribution for

their

misdeeds,

they took

vows

of

nezirus

as

penance

(EosD;

see Mefaresh

for

yet

another explanation).

21. The tumah canceled the days

that

they observed beforehand

(see

note

12), causing

their

term

of

nezirus to

be

extended

beyond the

thirty

days [i.e.

the

standard

term] for

which they originally intended

(see

Ran).

22.

[Because

they

had not

undertaken

nezirus

purely

"for

the

sake of

Hashem,"

but

rather, in

search of some

form

of benefit

which

they

thought

they could

gain

by observing the thirty-day term.l

NOTES

in sinful

pursuits

(Ron).

["The

23.

[Theirregretnul]ifiedtheiroriginalvowsof

nezirus,eliminatingthe

(see

?os.

R'

Akiua

Eiger,

Auos requirement to bring offerings, so

that

the animals

they offered

were

considered

"unconsecrated."

Hence,

bringing them

to

the

Temple was

a

violation

of the law

(see

note

6),1

The

Gemara

does

not

mean this

Iiterally, for the nullifrcation ofa vow on the basis ofregret requires

the

decision

of

a competent

sage,

and

since

the nezirim

brought the

standard offerings they obviously had not

gone

to a sage for

annulment

Thus, the

offerings

were actually

obligatory despite

their

regreti

Rather, the Gemara

means

that

the offerings werelike unconsecratei

ones. Since the

nezirim's

intent

was

wanting

[and

actually

provided

a

basis

for annulmentl,

their

offerings

were considered unworthy

[ar:

Shimon

the

Righteous

therefore avoided

theml.

However, in

the

case c:

the

one

nazir

whom Shimon

the

Righteous described, since his

inten:

was absolutely

pure

in the first

place,

there

was

no

concern

that

h=

regretted

the

vow even when

his

term

was extended on account

r-:

tumah

(Ran;

see also

Rashba; cf.

Teshuuos

MaBit

$99

ar,d.

Teshutt,

Maharit

I:28,

cited by

Haflaos

Nedarim).

24.

lSince

he considered

most

nezirim insincere,] he

should

have

bee:-

concerned

for

regret

of

the vow

even

in

a case

where the

nazir

did

n,:.'.

become

tamei

(Tos.

Yeshanim).

lParoshas

Ned,arim

finds R'Mani's

question

puzzling,

since

R'Yon-

stated explicitly that Shimon the Righteous'concern stemmed from t:-.

fact

that the nozir's term

was

extended

due

to

tumah,

and,this obviou..'

does

not

apply to

anazir

who

remained

roDor

Therefore,

he

explains

-

follows: Shimon the Righteous implies that he had no

qualms

about ea:.

ing the offerin

g

of a nazir tahor even if his vow of nezirus

was

for

mi:

:

longer

than

the standard

term

of thirty days. Why was he less

concer::

for regret

there than

in

the case of anazir who

initially

took the

vor

:

.

:

only

thirty

days but whose term was extended because of tumah?

)

25.

Having

concluded

this

segment of the Gemara's discussion,

let

-'

note

that

every

nazir

must

make

an

offering

of

an

olah,

chatas ;-'-

shelamim when he completes his

term

of nezirus

(Leuiticus

6:14).

Ii::.

nazir

becomes tamei dt:rrng his

term,

he offers

an olah, chatas ,:.'-

oshamlapon

beingpurifred

of

lhetumah,

and then, when he

eventul

completes

his

nezirus

in

taharah,

he offers the standard

olah, ch.;:,

and,

shelamim. As is the case with

all

such offerings,

the

olah

is

bur:,.

-

in its

entirety

on the

Altar

whereas the meat of the chatas

and shela-.

*

is

eaten.

According

to the Gemara's explanation of

Shimon the

R:.:

l

7/23/2019 Nedarim 4

5/7

I

l

1

I

I

i

,i

,l

I

,i

,i

i

l

itl

l

I

i

{

u

rl

T

I

gb3

KOL

KINIIYT,I

CHAPTER

ONE

NEDARIM

The

Gemara

returns

to the original

question

as

to the

Mish-

NlFrx

nlylrNl

-

or,

if

you prefer,

say:

nah's authorship

and offers

an alternative

explanation:

NOTES

teous'

reasoning,

it

is clear that

he refrained

from eating

not only of the

crated."

Thus, we

may ask: Why

did Shimon the

Righteous single

ashaminthetumah

offering,butalso of

thechatas

inthatoffering.

theashamasanofferingheavoided?

Furthermore,

he

must

also

have

avoided

eating

of

lhe

chatas

and

The answer

is that since Shimon

the Righteous'

practice

applied

,-

shelamimin

the

final, taharah,

offeingof

anazir

whose

term

had been to

the nazir who

had

become

tamei,

he

specified

the offering

th.:

extended

due to

tumah

-

since

in the event

th

e

nazir

tegtelled

his vow unique

to

this

nazir

-

iz. the asham,

which

is never offered by a

1

-

--

and

it was considered

"annulled,"

all

ofthese offerings

were

"unconse- who

remains

tahor

(Rosh;

see

also Rashba).

7/23/2019 Nedarim 4

6/7

KOL

KINTIYEI

CHAPTER

ONE

NEDARIM

''T'JIilr rlI

NFrn ItrS$

-

You

can even say

that

the

Mishnah

accords

with R'Yehudah.

As

for

the

question

that the

Mishnah

:onsiders

nedauos

but

notnedarim

virtuous,

whereas

R'Yehudah

.tates in

the

Baraisa

that it

is

virtuous to vow

and

pay

-

apparently

referring

even to

nedarimtr

-

I

respond:

r -l

tBN

r

rJtit

-

When

did R'Yehudah

say

that vowing and

paying

is

-'irtuous?

il?lfl

-

He

said

it

regarding

a nedaaah vow.

rE$

Nb tlf+

-

Regarding

anedcr

vow, he

did

not

say this.

The

Gemara

objects:

'|lDizil

-

But

[the

Baraisa]

teaches:

irlEt

irID

:tu

-

R'

Yehudah

says:

BETTER TIrAN

THIs oNE

AND THAT

oNr

(i.e.

one who

loes

not vow

and one who vows and does not

pay)

Erli2ht

t':lt:

-

IS

ONE WHO VOWS ANEDEft AND FULFILLS

it.

Clearly,

he

considers

evennedaimvirtuous

-

?

-

The

Gemara answers:

or 'iZnt

:1.i:

rtn

-

Teach

the

Baraisa as

stating:

"Better

than

this

one

and

that

one

is

one who vows

a

nedaaah and

fulfills it."t2r

The

Gemara analyzes

B'Yehudah's

opinion:

xh

rl'il

NIP

txD

-

What is unique about making a

neder,

ieading

R'Yehudah

to

say

that

one

should

not

do so?

rnx

NhSr:l

nlBp

rlrf

n1

-

It

is obviously

the concern

that

perhaps

one will

come

to

a

transgression

through

it.t:l

rpl

tl?lf

-

Anedaaah

should

also

not

be made,

n B;r

t1$ rnN

xnbr:r

-

because

of the

concern

that

perhaps

one

will

come

to

a

transgression through

;+ll4l

.,

The Gemara responds:

irrn1'rg?

ilJtilr

r 1

-

R'

Yehudah

follows

his

own reasoning,

rpl,tl

-

for

[R'

Yehudah]

said: The

procedure

for

making

a

nedauah

is as follows: tlllyl inpl

N',ln trJ$

-

A

man

brings

his

lamb to the

Courtyard while

yet

unconsecrated,

nur:rl:D

iitlfi'itu:

il'tby

lll.iEl

-

and

upon

arriving

there,

he

consecrates it,

leans his hands

upon it, and slaughters it.tsl

When a

nedq.uah

is

made

in this

manner,

there

is

no

concern

that one might come to

a transgression

through it,

and

it is

therefore considered

virtu-

ous.l6l

The

Gemara

asks

further:

nl)?ri?l i]?'JI

nlrn

-

This fits

well

regarding

the nedauah

of

offerings,

tErnb xlrx

rNB

nttrlll

t11]f

-

but

regarding

the

nedaaah of

nczirus

what is there to

say?t?l

The

Gemara

answers:

iltn1lt?? iltilr

't

-

R'Yehudah

follows

his

own

reasoning.rsr

N:lItT

-

For it

was taught

in

a

Baraisa:

"thtx

nJtilr

rl'l

-

R'

YEHLIDAH

SAYS:

nNgr-l

]r" P

xrl,l?

IIt -

7/23/2019 Nedarim 4

7/7

KOL

KINUYEI

CHAPTER

ONT,

NEDARIM

-\

related

statement is cited:

''t$

.tE ,r

-

Abaye

said:

iTrlyir

lty,tq,

-

Shimon

the

Righ-

:eous

ltybrl,

''Ill

-

and R' shimon

itiz,l

..llvb -(

r ' 1

-

and

R' Elazar

HaKappar

II

nE -( iruru

I?t

-

are all uni{ied in

,:aring

the

same

approach

-

rlir

Nt

'in

rtllJ

-

that

anazir

is

:

-nsidered

a

sinner.tlsl

-{baye

elaborates:

"tnu'

rt'll

irrryi-1

ltynu

-

That

Shimon the Righteous and

R' Shimon take

this

approach

Il,?X

Nir

-

is

evident from

:hat

which

we stated

above.n6r

tll+

.tpptl

rlv?$

tl:l

-

-{-nd

that R'

Elazar HaKappar Berabinr

shares

this

approach

.:

evident, NIIDI

-

for

it

was

taught

in

a

Baraisa:

rl'l

.nrx

rl'll

rPizir rlv?t(

-

R'ELAZAR

HAKAPPAR BERABT

sAys:

uplt-l-b

NpE

rp$n t$y

r5ll,,

-

Scripture

states concerning

'.'te

nazir: AND HD

SHALL

AT1NE FoR

HIM FoR HAvING S/NNED

REGARDING

THE

souL.tta)

ill

NV[r

vrEr

lr*

rlr

-

Now, REGARD-

]ic

wrrAT

sour,

DrD

IrE srN?tlel

l t_l

ID

lhyy

'tyryu,

N?N

-

pER-

FORCE,

it

refers

to the

fact

TTIAT

HE

DISTRESSED HIMSELF

by

:bstaining

FRoM

wrNE

and

in

doing

so

sinned

against

his

own

r9q]llzol

R'

Elazar

HaKappar

continues:

rr:rn1

5p

trrr::r Nbill

-

Now,

do these

MATTERS Nor lend

themselves

to

e,xetvAcHoMER,

as

follows? iy'rv

xbu,

i1t irEr

I [

In

xh". t]:Yy

-

IF

EvEN

rHIS

orvs,

i.e.

the

nazir,

who abstained

from

only one thing,

Nu'in

NJ;?I

-

Is

oALLED

A

sINNER,

rtT

bln

'iEcp

tt

YDil

-

then

oNE wrro

DIsrREssEs HIMSELF

by

abstaining FRoM

EvERylrHING, i,e.

one

who

fasts,

npl

nrl$

ty

ilnl1

-

How

MUCH

MoRE

so

should

he

be considered

a

sinner

INt)l

-

FRoM rrERE

we derive

that

|