Nedarim - Daf 7
- יש יד לבית הכסא או לא
Ravina asked: יש יד לבית הכסא או לא - are yadayim effective for designating a lavatory or not, (in regard to the prohibition to reciting Shema, learning Torah or praying within it)? The Gemara clarifies the question was asked where he said on the second structure, והדין - “and this,” without saying “also.” Do we say: והדין נמי בית הכסא - he meant and this should also be a lavatory, או דלמא מאי והדין לתשמישא בעלמא קאמר - or perhaps what is intended by “and this,” is that he is saying it is for ordinary use? When the Gemara says Ravina’s question implies he holds יש זימון לבית הכסא – there is effectiveness in designation of a lavatory, to give it the status of unholy place to prohibit holy activities in it even before it is used, it notes that Ravina himself had the question if יש זימון לבית הכסא or not. Perhaps doing a holy activity in such a place would not be prohibited. The Gemara concludes that Ravina was in fact in doubt if יש זימון לבית הכסא, and if the conclusion is that there is, he questioned if yadayim are effective for designations of a lavatory. Ravina leaves the question unresolved.
- השומע הזכרת השם מפי חבירו צריך לנדותו
Rav Chanin said in the name of Rav: השומע הזכרת השם מפי חבירו צריך לנדותו - one who hears mention of Hashem’s name in vain from his friend’s mouth, he must excommunicate him.ואם לא נידהו הוא עצמו יהא בנידוי - and if he did not excommunicate him, he himself should be excommunicated. שכל מקום שהזכרת השם מצויה - Because all places where mention of Hashem’s name in vain is common, שם עניות מצויה - there, poverty is common. The Gemara adds that poverty is likened to death. Rebbe Abba said he once stood before Rav Huna and heard a woman mention Hashem’s name in vain, and שמתא ושרה לה לאלתר באפה - Rav Huna excommunicated her and released it immediately in front of her. The Gemara adds that three halachos can be learned from this incident: השומע הזכרת השם מפי חבירו צריך לנדותו- that one who hears mention of Hashem’s name in vain from his friend’s mouth, must excommunicate him, נידהו בפניו אין מתירין לו אלא בפניו - and that if he excommunicated someone in his presence, he must release him in his presence, and אין בין נידוי להפרה ולא כלום- and that there is no time required between the excommunication and the release, i.e., it may be annulled immediately.
- ת"ח מנדה לעצמו ומיפר לעצמו
Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: תלמיד חכם מנדה לעצמו ומיפר לעצמו - A Talmid Chochom may excommunicate himself and then annul it for himself. When the Gemara asks what the novelty is in this ruling, it explains that מהו דתימא אין חבוש מתיר עצמו מבית האסורין - you may have said that a prisoner cannot release himself from prison, so Rav Gidel taught us that he may. The Gemara cites, as an example of this principle, the practice of Mar Zutra Chasida, כי מחייב בר בי רב שמתא - when a student required excommunication, משמית נפשיה ברישא והדר משמת בר בי רב - he would excommunicate himself first, and only then excommunicate the student. וכי עייל לביתיה, שרי לנפשיה והדר שרי ליה – and when he came home, he would release himself and then release the student. Tosafos explains that he would excommunicate himself first to ensure he would remember to release the student.
