Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) RISKING BREAKING CONDITIONS (Cont.)

(a) Question: We can deduce a contradiction to R. Yehudah from our Mishnah:

1. The Mishnah's statement that a Konam on sleeping is binding can't be taken at face value, as the Beraisa states that a Neder cannot take effect on something intangible, so it must mean that he made a Konam on his eyes from sleeping.
2. It can't mean that he did so without a time limit, meaning that he would eventually transgress Bal Yachel, as R. Yochanan said that if a person swears to abstain from sleep for three days, we give him Malkus and he can sleep immediately!
3. So maybe it means that he said Konam on his eyes from sleeping tomorrow if he sleeps today.
4. But we said that people are careful about transgressing the prohibition (and there is no need from prohibiting him from sleeping today)!
5. So it must mean that he said Konam on his eyes from sleeping today if he sleep tomorrow; and if he didn't sleep today, there is no problem of Bal Yachel if he sleeps tomorrow.
6. So it must mean that he is allowed to sleep today (and thereby risk Bal Yachel), which contradicts R. Yehudah!?

(b) Answer: The Mishnah means that if he did sleep, he risks Bal Yachel (but not that he may sleep).
(c) Alternate answer (Ravina): The Mishnah really means that he said Konam on sleeping, not on his eyes, and the Bal Yachel is only D'Rabbanan.

1. Question: Can there be Bal Yachel D'Rabbanan?
2. Answer: Yes, as we find in a Beraisa that one cannot permit things that people have taken the custom of prohibiting.

(d) Question: We can deduce a contradiction to R. Yehudah:

1. (Mishnah) If a man prohibits his wife from benefiting from him until Pesach if she goes to her father's house before Sukkos, then if she went before Pesach, she is prohibited from benefiting until Pesach.
2. We can deduce that if she didn't go, she may benefit from him (even though she may yet go before Sukkos), which contradicts R. Yehudah!?

(e) Answer: It means that if she went, she is prohibited and punishable with Malkus, otherwise she is merely prohibited.
(f) Question: The Mishnah continues that if she went after Pesach, there is Bal Yachel.

1. That is only possible if she did benefit from her husband before Pesach.
2. We see that is permitted for her to benefit before Pesach and risk Bal Yachel, which contradicts R. Yehudah!?

(g) Answer: It does not mean that she may do so; it means that if she did do so, she risks Bal Yachel.
(h) Question: We can deduce a contradiction to R. Yehudah:

1. (Mishnah) If a man prohibits his wife from benefiting from him until Sukkos if she goes to her father's house before Pesach, then if she went before Pesach, she is prohibited from benefiting until Sukkos; she may go after Pesach.
2. We can deduce that if she didn't go, she may benefit from him (even though she may yet go before Pesach), which contradicts R. Yehudah!?

(i) Answer: It means that if she went, she is prohibited and punishable with Malkus, otherwise she is merely prohibited.
(j) Question: We can deduce a contradiction to R. Yehudah:

1. (Tosefta) If someone prohibits a loaf of bread on himself today if he goes to a certain place tomorrow, then if he ate it, he is prohibited from going there tomorrow.
2. We see that he may put himself in the situation of risking Bal Yachel!?

(k) Answer: It doesn't say that he may eat it; it says "if he ate it."
(l) Question: It continues that if he went then he transgresses Bal Yachel, but it doesn't say that he may go (which would mean that since he was prohibited from eating the bread on the previous day, there is no risk of Bal Yachel), so we see that he is allowed to risk Bal Yachel!?
(m) Answer: It could equally have stated that he may go; it used the past tense to match the statement concerning him having eaten.

(a) The Mishnah said that if someone says Konam on having relations with his wife, it is subject to Bal Yachel.
(b) Question: Surely he has a Torah obligation for this (and the Neder should not take effect)?
(c) Answer: He can circumvent this by prohibiting the pleasure of relations.

1. (R. Kahana) If a woman prohibits her husband from having relations with her, she is forced into her, as she has an obligation to him.
2. But if she prohibits the pleasure of it on herself, relations are prohibited, as we don't force someone to contravene a prohibition.

(a) If someone says Shevuah that he will not sleep, speak, or walk, it is binding.
(b) If he said "Korban, I am not eating of yours," "This Korban, that I am eating of yours," or "Not Korban, I am not eating of yours," it is permitted.

(a) The Mishnah must be following R. Meir, because R. Yehudah would not distinguish between whether he said "Korban" or "The Korban."
(b) The latter part states that if he said "LeKorban, I am not eating of yours" it is permitted.
(c) Question: The Mishnah previously stated that if he says "LeKorban, I am not eating of yours," R. Meir holds that it is binding, and R. Aba explained that it 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 Korban - that which I am not eating." (It is therefore permitted because R. Meir does not deduce the positive corollary.)