Friday, December 28, 2007

Rif Nedarim 2a {Nedarim 8a - 9a; 10a}


(Note: Here is a video on Rif on Nedarim daf 8. Runtime 13 minutes:

And here is the video on Nedarim daf 9 - 10a. Runtime 5 minutes 45 seconds.


{Nedarim 8a continues}
א"ר גידל א"ר האומר אשנה פרק זה או מסכת זו נדר גדול נדר לאלהי ישראל.
והלא מושבע ועומד מהר סיני הוא ואין שבועה חלה על שבועה
מאי קמ"ל דאפילו לזרוזי בעלמא היינו דר"ג קמייתא
הא קמ"ל כיון דאי בעי פטר נפשיה בק"ש שחרית וערבית:
Rav Gidel cited Rav: One who says "I will learn this perek," or "this masechet," this is a great vow to the God of Israel.
But is he not already sworn on this from Har Sinai, and an oath cannot apply on top of an existing oath? What is this coming to inform us? If it is that it is to encourage himself, then this is the same as the first statement of Rav Gidel. Rather, it informs us that {the oath is binding}, since if he wished he could exempt himself {of the Biblical obligation} with the reading of Shema in the morning and evening.

א"ר גידל א"ר האומר נשכים ונשנה פרק זה עליו להשכים שנאמר ויאמר (ה') אלי קום צא אל הבקעה ושם אדבר (עמך) [אותך] ואצא אל הבקעה והנה שם כבוד ה' עומד:
Rav Gidel cited Rav: If one said {to his fellow}, let us arise early and learn this perek, it is upon him {=the one who said this} to arise early, for it is stated {Yechezkel 3:22-23}:
כב וַתְּהִי עָלַי שָׁם, יַד-ה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי, קוּם צֵא אֶל-הַבִּקְעָה, וְשָׁם, אֲדַבֵּר אוֹתָךְ. 22 And the hand of the LORD came there upon me; and He said unto me: 'Arise, go forth into the plain, and I will there speak with thee.'
כג וָאָקוּם, וָאֵצֵא אֶל-הַבִּקְעָה, וְהִנֵּה-שָׁם כְּבוֹד-ה עֹמֵד, כַּכָּבוֹד אֲשֶׁר רָאִיתִי עַל-נְהַר-כְּבָר; וָאֶפֹּל, עַל-פָּנָי. 23 Then I arose, and went forth into the plain; and, behold, the glory of the LORD stood there, as the glory which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face.

א"ר יוסף נדוהו בחלום צריך י' בני אדם להתירו והוא דתני הלכתא אבל מתנו ולא תנו לא
ואי ליכא אפי' מתנו ולא תנו
ואי ליכא אזיל ויתיב אפרשת דרכים ויהיב שלמא לבי עשרה עד דמקלעין עשרה דתנו הלכתא.
Rav Yosef said: If he was placed under a ban in a dream, he needs 10 men to release him. And this is where they learnt halacha, but if they learnt Mishna and did not learn {halacha}, no.
{See here in Rif on Megillah 9b, where the distinction is between Mishna and Talmud, but with the relative importance reversed and identities reversed. See Nimukei Yosef where he gives the distinction of learned vs. taught, or Mishna vs. Talmud. Learned vs. taught is based on a slightly different girsa.}
And if there are none, then even those who learned Mishna but did not not learn {halacha}.
And if there are none, he should go and sit at the crossroads, and give greeting to ten men, until he reaches ten men who have learned halacha.

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ידע מאן שמתיה מהו דנשרי ליה
אמר ליה לשמותי שוויה שליח למשרי לא שוויה שליח
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If he known who placed him under the ban {in his dream}, may he have him release him {while awake}?
He said to him: He {=this man} was appointed an agent to ban him, but was not appointed an agent to release him.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי שמתוהו ושריוהו בחלמא מהו.
א"ל כשם שא"א לבר בלא תבן כך א"א לחלום בלא דבר בטל.
Rav Acha son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: If he both banned him and released him it the dream, what is the law?
He said to him: Just as it is impossible to have wheat without chaff, so is it impossible to have a dream without some measure of meaningless matter. {And the release is the meaningless matter.}

{Nedarim 8b}
רבינא הו"ל נדרא לדביתהו אתא לקמי' דרב אשי א"ל בעל מהו שיעשה שליח לחרטת אשתו
א"ל אי מכנפין אין אי לא לא.
ש"מ תלת ש"מ לא שרי למשרי נדרא באתרא דרביה.
וש"מ כי מיכנפי שפיר דמי.
וש"מ לכנופי לא

ויחיד מומחה שרי שמתא ואפי' באתרא דרביה
Ravini's wife had a vow, and he came before Rav Ashi.
He {=Ravina} said to him: May a husband be an agent for the regret of his wife?
He said to him: If they {=the three scholars} are already assembled, yes, but if not {and he will have to go to the trouble of assembling them}, no.
We derive from this three things. We derive from this that one may not release a vow in the location of his teacher. And we derive from this that if they are assembled, it is fine. And we derive from this that to assemble, no.

And an single ordained scholar may release a ban even in the location of his teacher.

{Nedarim 9a}
כנדרי רשעים נדר בנזיד בקרבן ובשבועה
כנדרי כשרים לא אמר כלום כנדבותם נדר בנזיר ובקרבן


מאן תנא דשני [ליה] בין נדר לנדבה
לימא לא ר"מ ולא ר"י ולא ר"י
דתניא את אשר תדור שלם טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם
טוב מזה ומזה שאינו נודר כל עיקר דברי ר"מ
ר"י אומר טוב מזה ומזה נודר ומשלם
Who is the Tanna who teaches this distinction between a vow and a freewill offering? Let us say it is neither Rabbi Meir nor Rabbi Yehuda.
For they learnt {in a brayta} {Kohelet 5:4}:
ד טוֹב, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תִדֹּר-- מִשֶּׁתִּדּוֹר, וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם. 4 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.
Better than this or that is not to vow in the first place. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda said: Better than this or that is to vow and fulfill.

{Nedarim 10a}
ואסקי' מתני' ר"י היא.
וכי קאמר ר"י בנדבה בנדר לא קאמר.
והקתני טוב מזה ומזה נודר
תני נודב.
ומ"ש נדר דלא דילמא אתי לידי תקלה נדבה נמי אתי לידי תקלה.
ר"י לטעמיה דאמר מביא אדם כבשתו לעזרה ומקדישה וסומך ידו עליה ושוחטה
And we conclude that the Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda. And where Rabbi Yehuda spoke {in the brayta}, he was speaking of a free-will offering.
But it taught in the braya "better than this or that is one who vowed." Teach instead "made a free-will offering."
And what it the difference that by a vow, no? Perhaps he will come to a stumbling block. But by a free-will offering, perhaps he will also come to a stumbling block!
Rabbi Yehuda is consistent in his opinion, for he said: A man can bring his sheep to the Temple court, and then consecrate it, lean his hand upon it, and slaughter it.

No comments: