The Elliot B. Sit edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. Today's daf has been dedicated by Mr. Uri Niddam, Hashem yishmerehu v'yechayehu, in honor of all the members of the minyan, all the members of the Daf HaYomi, and in honor of the rabbi, tizkeh l'mitzvot, may he continue to succeed, hatzlacha v'harvacha b'chol maasei yadecha amen. We are studying Gemara Nedarim Daf Kaf Zayin. Today's daf is being studied l'ilui nishmat Avraham ben Ester, ruach Hashem tenicheinu b'gan eden amen. We also study for the refuah shleimah of Yosef ben Sarah, Sarah bat Rachel, Shlomo ben Miriam, tinok ben Dinah, and Shaul Chai Gavriel ben Sarah. El na refa na lahem, El na refa na lahem, El na refa na lahem, for the healing of the soul and the healing of the body, refuatam k'karov lavo b'toch shear cholei ammo, and may it be Your will, and let us say amen v'chein yehi ratzon v'nomar amen.
We begin today's daf on Kaf Vav Amud Bet, three lines from the bottom, where we find ourselves in the middle of a sugya discussing a machlokeit between Rabbah and Rava regarding the interpretation of the disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in our mishnah. The case presented in the mishnah involves a man who saw others eating te'enim (figs) and declared, "All of you are asur to these figs like a korban." He later discovered that his father was among those eating. The mishnah states that according to Beit Shammai, the figs are divided: everyone else remains asur, while his father becomes mutar. In contrast, Beit Hillel holds that once his father is excluded from the neder, everyone else is also excluded, as per the principle of neder she-hutar miktzato hutar kulo.
Rabbah interprets the machlokeit as concerning a case of meshaneh, meaning he changed his wording. When asked if he knew his father was present, he would say, "I didn’t know my father was part of the group. Had I known, I would have said: 'These figs are asur to all except my father.'" Here, the machlokeit arises because he altered his original statement. However, if he simply maintains his original declaration, saying, "No, I would have said the same thing: 'All of you are asur, except for my father,'" then all agree that his father is mutar and everyone else remains asur. This is because he is merely clarifying his initial statement and not retracting any neder—it is not a case of neder she-hutar miktzato.
Rava, on the other hand, understands the situation differently. He maintains that in a case of meshaneh, everyone is mutar, including both his father and the others. The reasoning is that when he changes his wording, he indicates a retraction of his original statement, which did not include his father. Consequently, when he states that everyone is asur, he inadvertently retracts the neder entirely. Thus, in this case, the neder is not chal at all.
The Gemara attempts to support Rabbah's interpretation but ultimately fails to do so, as Rava successfully counters all objections raised against him. The Gemara then presents a question from Ravina against Rava. Rabbi Natan states that there exists a type of neder that is partially permitted and partially forbidden. For example, if a person made a neder against a basket of figs, and within that basket were superior figs, he could claim, "Had I known that superior figs were in the basket, I would not have made such a neder." The Gemara then concludes that the basket remains asur, while the superior figs become mutar.
However, Rabbi Akiva later teaches that once one excludes himself from the superior figs, the entire basket becomes mutar. The Gemara then questions how this aligns with Rava's view, as it suggests that in a case of meshaneh, everyone should be mutar, whereas Rabbi Akiva seems to imply otherwise. Rava defends himself, asserting that the case involves an amida—a statement of intent rather than a change in wording. Thus, Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree, with the Rabbis maintaining that the neder remains chal in this context.
The Gemara then shifts focus to a new mishnah regarding nedrei onsin, or vows made under duress. It illustrates that a person cannot fulfill a neder due to circumstances beyond their control. For instance, if a host made a neder against a friend for not eating at his home, but circumstances arose that prevented the friend from attending, the neder is not chal because the host did not intend to impose restrictions under such conditions.
A case arises where a man, who had his rights to a property held in a beit din, declared that if he did not return within thirty days, he would relinquish his rights. If he fails to return due to an ones, Rav Huna rules that he loses his rights. Rava challenges this, asserting that an anus is exempt from responsibility. The Gemara then discusses whether this principle applies universally or only in specific cases, such as monetary obligations.
The discussion continues, presenting various scenarios that highlight the distinctions between asmachta and kinyan, and how these principles interact with the laws of neder. The Gemara concludes with the understanding that asmachta is valid only under certain conditions, particularly when there is no ones involved, and that a valid kinyan must occur in a significant beit din to ensure sincerity in the transaction.
Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that the rules of neder and asmachta are intricate and nuanced, requiring careful consideration of intent and context in each case. The Gemara emphasizes the importance of understanding these distinctions to apply halachic principles correctly in our daily lives.
In this way, we navigate the complexities of Jewish law, guided by the teachings of the sages, ensuring that our actions align with the values and principles of our tradition. As we conclude today's study, we reflect on the depth of these discussions and the lessons they impart, striving to integrate them into our lives.