Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, dry Egyptian beans are included in Dagan - because they are placed in a pile and stored.

(b) The two categories of crops that Dagan does not incorporate, according to Rebbi Meir are - the fruit of the trees and vegetables (see previous Mishnah, where the Tana also precluded legumes from the category of vegetables).

(c) According to the Chachamim - Dagan incorporates the five species of grain (wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt) exclusively.

(d) Rebbi Meir says - that 'ha'Noder min ha'Tevu'ah' incorporates the five species of grain exclusively.

(a) Chizkiyah instituted that Yisrael (who would previously wait for the Kohanim and the Levi'im to come to the granary for their Matanos) should bring all their T'rumos and Ma'asros to the Beis ha'Mikdash - because the people were lax in giving them.

(b) According to Rebbi Meir (who maintains that whatever is stored is included in 'Dagan'), the Pasuk ("ve'Chi'Ferotz ha'Davar ... ") having mentioned "Reishis Dagan", adds "ve'Chol Tevu'as ha'Sadeh" - to include the fruit of the trees and vegetables.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan informs us that everyone agrees (even the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir) that 'Tevu'ah' incorporates only the five species of grain. We might have thought otherwise - because 'Alalta' (the Aramaic for 'Tevu'ah') implies all kinds of produce.

(d) In light of Rebbi Yochanan's statement, Rava explains the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim, which adds 'Kol Tevu'as ha'Sadeh' after having mentioned 'Reishis Dagan' (which already incorporates the five species of grain, even according to the Chachamim) - by differentiating between 'Tevu'ah' (which applies exclusively to the five species of grain) and 'Tevu'as Sadeh', which is inclusive.

(a) When Mar bar Shmuel bequeathed Rava in his will thirteen thousand Zuz from 'Alalta di'Nehar Panya', he sent Rav Yosef (his Rebbe) a She'eilah - as to what Mar bar Shmuel meant by 'Alalta'.

(b) When Rav Yosef tried to prove from our Mishnah that Tevu'ah is confined to the five species of grain - Abaye objected on the grounds that Mar bar Shmuel did not write 'Tevu'ah' in his will, but 'Alalta', which, as we have already learned, is more inclusive than 'Tevu'ah'.

(c) It transpired that this was not really what Rava wanted to know - because he knew it already. What he really wanted to know was - whether 'Alalta' incorporated the rental for ships and houses (which Mar bar Shmuel apparently had owned).

(d) He thought that, perhaps the rental for ships and houses is not considered 'Alalta', because they tend to depreciate. On the other hand - the extent of their depreciation is not known in advance, in which case it may still be included in 'Alalta'.

(a) Rav Yosef was nevertheless cross with Rava for troubling him about something that he seemed to know himself. Rava reacted to that - by going to visit his Rebbe on Erev Yom Kipur.

(b) Rav Yosef suspected that Rava might have appeared at his home - when he tasted the wine, which Rava (having first obtained permission from the Shamash) had diluted. This is because Rava was famous for his preparation of wine (diluting it exactly three parts water to one part wine).

(c) The name of Rav Yosef bar Chama's son was - Rava.

(a) Rav Yosef instructed Rava to explain some of the Pesukim of 'Shiras ha'Be'er' in Chukas. Rava explained ...

1. ... "u'mi'Midbar Matanah" to mean - that if someone makes himself Hefker (adopts the attitude that everything is secondary to Torah), the Torah is given to him as a Divine gift (he will receive tremendous Divine inspiration in his learning).
2. ... "u'mi'Matanah Nachali'el" - that once he receives Torah as a gift, he becomes Hashem's inheritance.
3. ... "u'mi'Nachali'el Bamos" - that once he becomes Hashem's inheritance he will rise to greatness.

(b) If someone who allows this elevation to go to his head - Hashem will lower him again (as the Pasuk continues "u'mi'Bamos ha'Gai"), and not only that, but He will sink him into the ground ("ve'Nishkafah al-P'nei ha'Yeshimon").

(c) And he explained the Pasuk "Kol Gei Yinasei" (even though it is written in a different Seifer) - to mean that should he do Teshuvah, Hashem will elevate him once more.

(d) Rav Yosef asked Rava for this explanation specifically now - to teach him (before Yom Kipur, or perhaps he suspected that this was the root of his ['unwarranted'] She'eilah) that pride doesn't pay (and perhaps the power of Teshuvah too).

6)

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'ha'Noder min ha'Dagan, Asur Af be'Pul ha'Mitzri Yavesh, u'Mutar be'Lach '. He is also permitted to eat - rice and wheat which is divided into two, three or four.

(b) If someone declares ...

1. ... 'Peiros ha'Shanah Alai' - kid-goats, lambs, milk, eggs and fledglings are not included.
2. ... 'Gidulei Shanah Alai' - they are.

(c) The latter Neder will not be valid at all - if it is for an unlimited time-period (or perhaps if it covers a time-period that is not possible to adhere to).

(d) If someone declares ...

1. ... 'Peiros ha'Aretz Alai' - mushrooms are not included.
2. ... 'Gidulei Karka Alai' - they are.

(a) The B'rachah that one recites over salt, brine and mushrooms - is 'she'ha'Kol Nihyah bi'Devaro'.

(b) We do not recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' over mushrooms - because they receive their nourishment from the air, and not from the ground.

(c) The Tana describes the above as 'Ein Gidulo min ha'Aretz'. We amend this to read - 'Ein Yonek min ha'Aretz'.

(a) The Tosefta states that a Neder from 'Tirosh' incorporates all sweet drinks but not wine - because as regards Nedarim, we follow the vernacular, and in the vernacular, that is what 'Tirosh means.

(b) It might well be however, that if *we* were to say 'Konem Alai Tirosh', we would be forbidden to drink wine, but not other sweet drinks - because the Tosefta's ruling is confined to people who speak in Lashon ha'Kodesh. As far as those who speak other languages is concerned, 'Tirosh' means wine, and wine only.

(c) Someone who declares ...

1. ... 'Konem Alai Mazon' - is forbidden to eat only things that are prepared from the five species of grain.
2. ... 'Kol ha'Zan Alai' - may not eat anything other than salt and brine.

(a) If someone declared 'Konem Alai K'sus' - he would be allowed to wear sack-cloth, a curtain and a Chamilah (a kind of curtain).

(b) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, if someone declared 'Konem Alai Tzemer' or 'Konem Alai' Pishtan', he would be permitted to wear pieces of raw wool or flax, respectively.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah maintains - that it depends on the circumstances. He illustrates this - with a case of someone who perspired or who suffered from bad breath when he carried raw wool or linen, and who subsequently declared a Neder forbidding raw wool or linen to go on him. *He* would be permitted to wear them.

(a) All the following are listed in a Beraisa:

1. A money-belt, a band that goes round the legs, a leather-maker's shirt and apron, socks, an apron, pants and a hat - are included in the Neder not to wear clothes.
2. One may walk in the street on Shabbos wearing a thick sackcloth, thick cloth (Sigus) and curtains ...
3. ... but one may not do so, wearing an ark, a box or a mat.

(b) One is permitted to go out into the street on Shabbos - wearing a sack to protect oneself from the rain.

(c) The reason that the Tana of the Beraisa specifically mention shepherds - is (not to preclude other people, but) because they would be the ones who would most likely take advantage of this concession.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, whether or not, 'ha'Noder min ha'Kesus' incorporates raw wool and flax, depends on circumstances. He illustrated the case where the Noder obviously had in mind not to carry them. In a Beraisa - he presents the case where the Noder obviously had in mind ...

1. ... not to wear raw wool - when he suffered from wearing raw wool (which shrank and was too tight on him), and subsequently declared 'Konem Tzemer Oleh Alai'.
2. ... not to wear raw linen - when he perspired heavily from wearing raw linen, and subsequently declared 'Konem Pishtan Oleh Alai'.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah and the Tana of the Beraisa argue over Rebbi Yehudah's S'vara. According to the Tana of our Mishnah - Rebbi Yehudah (who does not give the first example mentioned in the Beraisa) agrees with the Tana Kama that, wherever there is no indication what the Noder means, the Lashon implies wearing and not carrying. Whereas according to the Tana of the Beraisa, unless there is an indication to the contrary, the Lashon implies both.

(c) We rule in this issue - like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah. (d) The Rambam however - rules like Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa.