Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SUBJECTS FOR HATFASAH (Cont.)

(a) Refutation: It is referring to a Bechor before Zerikah. R. Yehudah permits it because the Hatfasah must be from something that is forbidden due to a vow (Davar Ha-Nadur), not something that is innately prohibited (Davar Ha-Assur).

1. R. Yaakov prohibits it because he holds that the Passuk of "LaHashem" includes Davar Ha-Assur.
2. R. Yehudah uses that Passuk to include Chatas and Asham as subjects for Hatfasah.
3. Question: Why include Chatas and Asham, but exclude Bechor?
4. Answer: Chatas and Asham became prohibited by way of Neder, but Bechor is sanctified from the womb.
5. R. Yaakov holds that Bechor is also prohibited by way of Neder:

i. (Rebbi) It is a Mitzvah to consecrate a Bechor.

6. R. Yehudah holds that since it would anyway be sanctified, it is excluded.

(a) (Tosefta) If one prohibits something with the words Imra (sacrificial lamb), corral, wood, fire-offering, Mizbeyach, Heichal, Yerushalayim, or prefixed with "like" or "to," it is prohibited if he said "that which I eat of yours" but not if he said "that which I do not eat of yours."
(b) It is R. Meir who holds that it doesn't matter if he prefixed it with "like" or "to" or with nothing.
(c) Question: Yet it then says that it is permitted if he said "that which I do not eat of yours," but R. Meir says otherwise:

1. (Mishnah - R. Meir) If he says "LeKorban, I am not eating of yours," it is binding.
2. (R. Aba) This is because he means, "You are as a Korban, and therefore I am not eating of yours."

(d) Answer: We can interpret it thus when he said "La"; but in the Beraisa he said "Le-", which means "This is not as a sacrificial sheep - that which I am not eating." (It is therefore permitted because R. Meir does not deduce the positive corollary.)

(a) If someone says "Korban Olah," or Minchah, Chatas, or Shelamim, "that I eat of yours," it is binding.
(b) (R. Yehudah) It is permitted.
(c) If someone says "The Korban," "As a Korban," or "Korban that I eat of yours" it is binding.
(d) (R. Meir) If he says "LeKorban, I will not eat of yours" it is binding.

(a) The first, unnamed, part of the Mishnah follows R. Meir, who does not distinguish between "Imra" and "Le'Imra."
(b) Question: If so, how can it says that if he says "The Korban" it is binding, a Beraisa says otherwise:

1. The Chachamim agree that if he said "Hoh (this) Korban that I eat of yours" that it is permitted, as he only meant to swear by the Korban.

(c) Answer: In the Mishnah, he said "The Korban" whereas in the Beraisa he said "This Korban" which means to swear by it.
(d) Question: R. Meir said that if he says "LeKorban, I will not eat of yours" it is binding; but surely he does not hold that we can deduce the positive corollary from the negative statement?
(e) Answer: It is as though he said, "This is a Korban, therefore I will not eat of yours."

(a) If someone makes a Konam on his mouth from talking with someone, his hands from working with him, or his feet from walking with him, it is binding.

(a) Question: The Nedarim of the Mishnah should not work as talking, working, and walking are intangible:

1. Nedarim are more stringent than Shevuos in that they can take effect on something that is a Mitzvah.
2. Shevuos are more stringent than Nedarim in that they can take effect on something that is intangible.

(b) Answer: It means that the subject of his prohibition was his mouth, his hands, etc.

1. This can also be seen in the Mishnah, which spoke of him prohibiting his mouth rather than his talking.

7) MISHNAH: PERMITTED NEDARIM

(a) Permitted (non-binding) Nedarim include saying: "Chullin that I will eat of yours," as pork, as idols, as hearts for idolatry, as dead animals, as killed animals, as vermin, as insects, as the Challos of Aharon and his Terumos.
(b) If someone prohibits his wife "as my mother," we permit it via some means other than his mother's honor, so that he does not take the matter lightly.

(a) His Neder is permitted because he said "Chullin that I will eat of yours," which implies that if he said "LeChullin" it would mean that it is not Chullin but rather Korban (and would be binding).
(b) Question: The Mishnah cannot be following R. Meir, as he does not hold that we can deduce the positive corollary; but if it is following R. Yehudah, that is the same as the earlier Mishnah (on 10b)!?
(c) Answer: This case was repeated to go along with the case of pork and idols.