The Elliot B. Sitt edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, dedicates today’s Daf to Mr. Uri Nidman, may Hashem protect and sustain him, in honor of all the members of the Minyan, all the members of the Daf Yomi, and in honor of the Rabbi, that he may continue to succeed in all his endeavors. This Daf is also being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham Ben Esther, may his spirit find rest in Gan Eden, and for a complete recovery for Yosef Ben Sarah and Sarah Bat Rachel, may the Almighty heal them among all the sick of His people Israel. We begin today’s Daf on Gimmel Amud Rishon, three lines from the top, starting with the words “Ve'iba'it Eima.”
We find ourselves in the midst of a question posed by the Gemara on the previous Daf, Daf Beis. The Mishnah discusses two types of Nedarim: it introduces the concept of Kinnuyim, which are terms that are not the primary terminology for a Neder, but rather additional words that the Rabbis included. When a person uses these terms, they are considered a form of Nedarim. The Mishnah then discusses Yadot, which are partial statements made when someone makes a vow. Even if a person does not articulate the full terminology, this partial statement is still regarded as a legitimate Neder.
The Mishnah first addresses Kinnuyim and then Yadot, leading to a discussion about the details of Yadot. The Gemara questions this order, suggesting that it would be more appropriate to first discuss the details of the first subject before moving on to the second. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the Tanna may choose to discuss either subject first, as seen in various Mishnayot. Thus, the Mishnah follows the order of mentioning Kinnuyim first, then Yadot, and proceeds to elaborate on Yadot without any specific reasoning required.
The Gemara continues with another explanation: we learn about Yadot from a Midrash on a Pasuk. A general rule, as noted by Rashi in Yevamot, is that whenever a Midrash is involved, it holds a special significance for the Tanna. Since Yadot is derived from a Midrash of the Chachamim, the Rabbis decided to analyze this topic first. The Gemara then inquires why the discussion does not begin with Yadot if it is indeed favored.
The Gemara answers that the Mishnah opens with Kinnuyim, which are more straightforward, and subsequently moves to Yadot, which are derived from a Midrash. The reasoning is that the Gemara prefers to start with concepts that are more apparent. Kinnuyim are considered more obvious than Yadot, so the Mishnah begins with Kinnuyim and then elaborates on Yadot due to their derived nature.
The Gemara then raises a question regarding Kinnuyim: if they are considered straightforward, it aligns with the opinion that views them as foreign language terms, thus validating their use in any language. However, if one argues that Kinnuyim are terms created by the Rabbis, this introduces a complexity, as it suggests that these terms did not exist prior and are a new Chidush. This would mean that the Tanna could not have opened with Kinnuyim as they are not as straightforward.
The Gemara thus concludes that the Mishnah should indeed have opened with Yadot. In light of this, the Gemara revisits the earlier discussion, indicating that the Mishnah actually begins with Yadot followed by Kinnuyim, and it modifies the previous understanding accordingly. This allows for a more coherent flow in the discussion of Nedarim.
Next, the Gemara seeks to understand the source of Yadot. It references a Pasuk that discusses a person making a Neder, indicating that even vague language can constitute a Neder. The Gemara explains that the double language in the Pasuk serves to teach that Yadot are valid. The Gemara then poses a question: if the Pasuk already states the concept of Nedarim, why do we need a Hekesh to derive the laws of Yadot?
In response, the Gemara clarifies that if the Pasuk had stated Neder in an unconventional manner, it would indeed be a Chidush. However, since it uses a standard phrasing, it does not imply an additional lesson. Therefore, the Gemara concludes that the wording of the Pasuk reflects common speech, which does not necessitate further derivation.
In summary, the Gemara has established that both Nedarim and Nizirut can incorporate Yadot, and it has drawn parallels between their respective laws. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuances of language and the implications of different terms used in the context of Nedarim.