Komentarz do Nedarim 7:11

הנודר מן הירק. לא מצאתי אלא דלועין – and if it is a species of vegetable, why doesn’t he purchase it for him?

Introduction This mishnah demonstrates one means by which the sages determined what a typical person’s intent might be when he prohibits to himself a specific food.

כן הדבר – and from there I bring a proof. Lest he say I did not find [anything] but pulse. And since I come to consult on the gourd, I can see that it is a kind of vegetable. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

He who vows abstinence from vegetables is permitted gourds. Rabbi Akiba prohibits. They said to him: And does not a man say to his messenger “Bring me vegetables,” and he replies, “I could find only gourds.” He said to them: That is so! But would he say, “I could find only pulse?” For gourds are included in vegetables, while pulse is not. The argument in this mishnah is whether or not one who vows to abstain from vegetables must also abstain from gourds. In other words, are gourds a type of vegetable? The Sages argue that gourds are not included in vegetables, whereas Rabbi Akiva argues that they are. In order to prove their point, the sages point out to Rabbi Akiva that when a man sends his messenger to the market to buy vegetables, he might come back and say “I could find only gourds.” Gourds are not vegetables, and therefore he did not buy them. Rabbi Akiva responds that the messenger’s words prove his point. The messenger is asking if he should buy the gourds, because the gourds are included in vegetables. He would not say “I could find only pulse (legumes)” because pulse is different from vegetables. In summary, Rabbi Akiva finds the hypothetical response of the messenger to imply that gourds are included under the category of vegetables, whereas the rabbis find his reply to mean that they are not.

He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans but permitted the dry species. Although the mishnah just stated that pulse is not included under the category of vegetables, wet Egyptian beans are.

אסור בפול המצרי יבש – that grain is anything that is from grain is implied, every thing that we make of it a heap/pile, and this also is from grain.

Introduction Yesterday’s mishnah defined “vegetables”. Today’s mishnah defines two other terms: “produce” (tevuah) and “grain” (dagan). Note that the Hebrew words are not exactly equivalent to their English translations.

הנודר מן הדגן אסור בכל – kinds of pulse ;hat they make of hem heaps/piles. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

He who vows abstinence from grain is forbidden dry Egyptian beans, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: only the five species of grain are forbidden him. According to Rabbi Meir “grain” includes dry Egyptian beans, which we learned yesterday were not included under the category of “vegetables”. The Sages disagree and say that “grain” refers only to one of the five species: wheat, barley, spelt, rye and oats.

Rabbi Meir says: He who vows abstinence from produce ( is forbidden only the five species; but one who vows abstinence from grain (, is forbidden all; yet he is permitted the fruits of the tree and vegetables. Whereas the Sages held that “grain” refers to the five species, Rabbi Meir holds that “produce” refers to the five species. Under the category of “grain” Rabbi Meir includes other things besides the five species, including pulse, as we learned in section one. The only thing not included in “produce” are fruits and vegetables.

בשק ביריעה ובחמילה (sacklng, curtain, blanket of thick, coarse stuff)- kinds of large andvery thick clothing but people do not regularly cover themselves with it.

Introduction After having discussed at length vows of abstinence from food, the mishnah now discusses vows of abstinence from garments.

מותר גביזי צמר – that he didn’t intend other than for a wool clothing.

He who vows not to wear garments is permitted sack-cloth, curtain, and blanket wrapping. Sack-cloth, curtain and blanket-wrapping are not considered “garments”. Therefore, if one vows not to wear “garments”, he may still cover himself with these rough cloths.

הכל לפי הנודר – according to the time of the vow. Since it is recognized that as a result of the heaviness of his load he made the vow, he is permitted to wear them as clothing. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If he says, “Konam, if wool comes upon me,” he may cover himself with wool shearings; [Konam] if flax comes upon me”, he may cover himself with stalks of flax. In this section we learn that if a person vows not to cover himself with a finished type of material, he may still wear the unfinished product. Thus, if he vows not to wear wool, he may still wear unprocessed wool shearings. If he vows not to wear flax (linen), he may still cover himself with unprocessed stalks of flax.

Rabbi Judah says: It all depends upon the person who vows, [thus:] if he was bearing a burden [with wool or flax] and perspires and had bad odor, and he said “Konam if wool or flax come upon me,” he may wear them, but not throw them [as a bundle] over his back. Rabbi Judah states a general rule applicable to the interpretation of vows; the situation in which the person vowed must be taken into account. Normally, when one vows that wool or flax should not come upon him, he means that he shall not wear them. However, if a person was carrying a heavy bundle of flax or wool, and sweating and emitting a foul odor because of his intense perspiration, and then said, “Konam, if wool or flax come upon me”, his intention was that he should not carry them. In such a situation, he may still wear them, but not throw them behind his back as a bundle.

הנודר מן הבית – that he should not enter the house. He is permitted to enter into the upper story/attic, because it is not included in the house.

Introduction This mishnah discusses one who vows not to use a house or the upper story of a house.

One who vows not to benefit from a house is permitted the upper story, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: the upper story is included in “house”. He who vows not to benefit from the upper story is permitted the use of the house. According to Rabbi Meir, when a person vows not to benefit from a “house” he may still make use of the upper story in that house. The Sages disagree and hold that the upper story is included in the house and therefore, one who vows not to use the house may also not use the upper story. However, one who vows not to use the upper story, may according to all opinions, still use the house. This is because the upper story is a specific part of the house, and hence one who vowed not to use it, certainly did not intend to prohibit upon himself the entire house.

דרגש (footstool) – a small bed that they place it in front of the large bed and from it one ascends to the large bed.

Introduction Section one of this mishnah deals with the definition of a bed and a couch. Section two deals with defining the borders of a city and a house, in cases where a person has vowed not to enter either.

לתחומה של עיר – two thousand cubits in every direction surrounding it.

One who vows abstinence from a bed is permitted a couch, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: A couch is included in “bed”. If he vows abstinence from a couch, he is permitted the use of a bed. This section is similar to the yesterday’s mishnah and the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. Rabbi Meir holds that a couch and a bed are two separate items, and one who vows abstinence from one is permitted the other. The Sages hold that a “bed” is a collective name and includes couches. Therefore, one who vows abstinence from beds, is also prohibited from deriving benefit from couches. However, a “couch” is specific, and therefore one who vows not to derive benefit from couches may still derive benefit from beds.

עיבורה (outskirts) – of the city. The houses that protrude from it within seventy cubits and their remnants. It is like a pregnant woman whose stomach projects outward.

One who vows not to benefit from a town, may enter the town’s [Shabbat] border but may not enter its outskirts. But one who vows not to benefit from a house, is forbidden [only] from the door-stop and inwards. This section deals with the border of areas which have been prohibited by a vow. One who vows not to enter a city, may still enter into the city’s Shabbat border. This is a perimeter around a city of 2000 amot, which is the distance a person can walk outside of the city on Shabbat. In Numbers 35:5, this area is referred to as “outside the city.” However, he may not enter its “outskirts”, a perimeter of 70 amot and four tefachim outside of the city. The Shabbat borders are measured from the end of the outskirts, and hence the outskirts are considered part of the city. In contrast, one who vows not to benefit from a house, may not enter from the place of the door and inwards. However, he may go onto the porch even though this area is similar to the “outskirts” of a city.

אגף (door-stop; moulding or eminence of the door frame against which the door shuts) – [place] of the closing of the door. And its example (Ezra) [Nehemiah 7:3]: “let the doors be closed and barred.” (the text of Bartenura lists the source as coming from chapter 3 of Nehemiah which is incorrect.

אסור בחילופיהן ובגידוליהן – if he exchanged them ab initio, that which he exchanges for them is prohibited in their monetary value that the Rabbis decreed the prohibition of benefit on their monetary value. And their growth of [something called] KONAM Is prohibited like that dedicated to the Temple which grows.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches that sometimes, when a person prohibits a certain fruit to himself, he may not have that which grows from the fruit or that which is exchanged for the fruit. However, on other occasions only the actual fruit itself is prohibited.

שאיני אוכל ושאיני טועם – he did not prohibit upon himself other than consuming and tasting of them alone.

[If one says] “Konam be these fruits to me”, “Konam they are for my mouth,” or “Konam they are to my mouth,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows from them. The three languages used in this section prohibit the one who vowed to receive any benefit from the fruit. This would include anything exchanged for that fruit or anything that grows from the fruit.

אבל בדבר שאין זרעו כלה – as for example, onions and things similar to it. Even what grows from what grows is like the body of the prohibition, since this is something of which the seed does not perishes.

[If one says “Konam] if I eat or taste of them,” he is permitted [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows of them, if it is a thing of which the seed itself perishes, but if the seed does not perish, even that which grows out of that which [first] grew from it is forbidden. However, if he says “Konam if I eat or taste of these fruits”, he has only caused a prohibition on these fruits themselves. He has not created a blanket prohibition of receiving benefit from the fruits. Therefore, he may eat things that are exchanged for these fruits and he may eat things that grow from the seeds of the fruit. However, sometimes there is still a prohibition on deriving benefit from that which grows from the fruit. In order for what grows from the fruit to be permitted, the original seed must cease to exist. For instance, if one were to say “Konam if I eat this apple,” he may use the seed to grow a tree and eat the apples from the tree. However, if the seed doesn’t cease to exist, such as an onion (which they considered to be like a seed) he may not eat what grows from it, because the originally prohibited object still exists.

קונם מעשה ידיך עלי – he forbade all of what she does and what she prepares for him. And if she planted a tree, its growth is prohibited.

Introduction This mishnah continues to teach when things which were exchanged for or grown from things prohibited by vow remain prohibited. The mishnah began to discuss this topic yesterday, and mishnah seven is largely the same as mishnah six. The difference is that today’s mishnah deals with the handiwork of a wife, which we learned in Ketuboth, belong to her husband. The husband can say that anything that she makes is “Konam”, i.e. prohibited to him.

If one says to his wife, “Konam be the work of your hands to me,” or ”Konam be they for my mouth, or “Konam be they to my mouth”, he is forbidden that which is exchanged for them or grown from them. Since in this case he has prohibited upon himself anything that is a result of what his wife does, he may not benefit even from what is exchanged for his wife’s handiwork, or what grows from it. “What grows from it” would refer to a case where she planted a tree. He may not benefit from the tree itself, nor from any trees that come from seeds produced by this tree.

[If he says “Konam] if I eat or taste [of what they produce],” he is permitted [to benefit] from what is exchanged for them or what grows of them, if it is a thing of which the seed itself perishes, but if the seed does not perish, even that which grows out of that which [first] grew from it is forbidden. In this case, he has prohibited upon himself only the food that his wife makes for him (I’m sure she will be quite insulted!). Therefore he may sell things that his wife makes for him and then use them to buy other things or he may use things grown from things his wife has made. Again, this is only true if there is nothing actually left over from the original; if the seed of the originally prohibited object still remains, the prohibition remains, as we explained yesterday.

שאת עושה עכשיו יני אוכל עד הפסח – it implies this – that what you do now I won’t eat of until Passover, but after Passover I will eat. But everything that you do until Passover, I do not eat, implying, every thing that you do from today until Passover comes I do not eat it ever, even after Passover.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss a husband who forbids that which his wife produces. In the case in our mishnah he sets a time limit for the prohibition.

[If he says to his wife, “Konam that] what you will produce I will not eat from it until Pesach” or “That what you will produce, I will not wear until Pesach”, he may eat or wear after Pesach that which she produces before Pesach. In this section he vows not to eat of what she produces or wear things that she makes until Pesach. However, once Pesach passes he may eat anything she produced and wear anything she made, even before Pesach. The prohibition was on a time period and not on things made within that time period.

[If he says to his wife “Konam that] what you produce until Pesach I will not eat”, or “That what you produce until Pesach I will not wear”, what she produces before Pesach he may not eat after Pesach. In this case the prohibition was on anything made between the time of the vow and Pesach. In other words, the prohibition was not on the time period but on the objects themselves. Therefore, these things remain prohibited even after Pesach.

שאת נהנית לי עד הפסח אם הוכלת את לבית אביך עד החג – Whomever that would stand after Sukkot and prohibit his benefit upon her until Passover if she would go to her father’s house until Sukkot.

Introduction In this mishnah a husband make’s a vow that if his wife goes to her father’s house before a certain time, she shall not be able to benefit from him for a defined period of time.

לאחר הפסח בלא יחל דברו – meaning to say, if she went [to her father’s house] after Passovef, she violates (Numbers 30:2): “he shall not break his pledge; “retroactively on what she benefitted from him before Passover.

[If he says, “Konam] be any benefit you have from me until Pesach, if you go to your father’s house until the festival [of Sukkot],” if she goes before Pesach she may not benefit from him until Pesach; if she goes after Pesach she is subject to, “he shall not break his word” (Numbers 30:3). The husband says to his wife after Sukkot that if she goes to her father’s house before the following Sukkot, she shall be forbidden to have any benefit from his (the husband's) things until Pesach. If she goes before Pesach to visit her father, she may not benefit from her husband until after Pesach. After Pesach the prohibitive vow has passed and she may derive benefit from his things. However, there is a problem if she goes to his house after Pesach for the time of prohibition created by the vow has already passed. Therefore the mishnah teaches that if she did benefit from him before Pesach, she should not go to her father’s house after Pesach. If she does go, she shall have broken the vow.

[If he says, “Konam] be any benefit you have from me until the festival [of Sukkot] if you go to your father’s house before Pesach”, if she goes before Pesach, she may not benefit from him until the festival [of Sukkot], but she is permitted to go after Pesach. If he vows that if she goes to her father’s house before Pesach, she shall not have any benefit from him until Sukkot, if she goes before Pesach she may not benefit from him until Sukkot. However, after Pesach it is permitted for her to go to her father’s house, for he vowed only that she shouldn’t go until Pesach.