The Elliot B. Sit edition of the audio series on the Talmud Bavli continues with a study of Gemara Nedarim Daf Nun-Gimel. Today’s daf is dedicated to the memory of Rabbi Yosef ben Sarah and Rabbi Avraham ben Esther. May their souls be elevated in Gan Eden, and may we also pray for a complete recovery for Moshe ben Dinah, Golda bat Miriam, Sarah bat Rachel, and Shlomo ben Miriam. May healing come swiftly and surely, and may we see it soon in our days, and let us say Amen.
We begin our exploration on Nun-Gimel Amud Rishon with a new Mishnah. The Mishnah states: “Ha-noder min ha-temarim,” which translates to someone who makes a neder against dates. The ruling is that he is permitted to consume honey that comes from the dates, as devash temarim is considered a separate item from the dates themselves. Thus, even though he has prohibited himself from the dates, he can still partake in the honey derived from them.
The Mishnah continues with another case involving “setoniyot,” or winter grapes, which are not yet ripe and have a bitter taste due to their high vinegar content. If a person makes a neder against these grapes, he is still allowed to consume the vinegar that comes from them. This is the opinion of Tanna Kamma.
However, Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera takes a stricter stance. He asserts that if the name of the original item is attached to a derivative, then the derivative is also prohibited. Therefore, if someone declares, “I am prohibiting myself from temarim,” then devash temarim is also off-limits because it includes the name of the dates. The same applies to the case of setoniyot and chometz setoniyot. For Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera, as long as the name is present, the derivative is also forbidden.
In contrast, the Chachamim disagree and permit the consumption of the derivatives, stating that they are allowed. This presents a complex situation in the Mishnah, as we see three distinct opinions: Tanna Kamma, Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera, and Chachamim. To understand these perspectives, we need to analyze the construction of the Mishnah more closely.
Initially, we can grasp the first opinion, where Tanna Kamma indicates that when someone says temarim, it does not extend to devash temarim. Similarly, in the case of setoniyot, it does not include chometz setoniyot. However, Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera argues that the name's attachment does indeed include the derivative. This leads us to question the role of the Chachamim in this debate, as their ruling appears redundant if it echoes the first opinion.
The Gemara addresses this by examining the implications of Chachamim matirin. The Ran adds clarity, suggesting that the Gemara questions why the opinion of Tanna Kamma is not attributed to either Rabbi Yosef or the Rabbis. It highlights a prior discussion concerning the neder on chalav, where there was a consensus that if the name is attached, it is forbidden.
Thus, we must explore what Tanna Kamma is asserting here. If someone declares a neder on temarim, he is allowed to have devash temarim. This seems contradictory, as the honey includes the name of the dates. The Ran explains that the distinction lies in the transformation of the item. In the case of chalav, it remains the same entity, while devash temarim is a different item entirely due to the processing it undergoes.
Furthermore, the Ran elaborates that when it comes to devash and temarim, the honey is seen as a separate food item, thus allowing for its consumption. The Gemara then introduces Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who provides a different perspective. He states that if the item is typically eaten, and what comes from it is also edible, then a neder on the original item extends to the derivative.
In cases where the original item is not edible, but its derivative is, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar opines that the individual making the neder intends to prohibit the edible derivative. This contrasts with Tanna Kamma, who maintains that the original item is what is prohibited, while the derivative remains permissible.
As we navigate through these opinions, we see that Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera aligns with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in that both items being edible leads to a prohibition on both. However, he diverges when the original item is inedible, asserting that both items are still forbidden.
The Gemara continues to explore these distinctions, particularly focusing on the implications of making a neder during the shmita year. The Mishnah notes that if a person prohibits himself from yarak in a year outside of shmita, he is forbidden from garden vegetables, but permitted to consume wild vegetables. Conversely, during shmita, the opposite applies, as garden vegetables become permissible while wild vegetables are prohibited.
In conclusion, the discussion of nederim highlights the intricate relationships between language, intent, and halachic rulings. As we study these cases, we deepen our understanding of how the Torah's teachings guide our actions and decisions in daily life. The distinctions made in these rulings are not mere academic exercises; they reflect the complexities of human intent and the careful consideration required in our observance of Jewish law.