Nedarim - Daf 12
- כיום שמת בו אביו
The Gemara attempts to bring a second proof to Rami bar Chama’s inquiry whether one is מתפיס his neder to an item in its original state of issur or to its current state of heter, from a Baraisa which states that if one vows not to eat meat nor drink wine on a given day, כיום שמת בו אביו - like the day his father died (in addition to other examples), the neder is effective. Shmuel had said about this Barasia: והוא שנדר ובא באותו היום - it is effective only if he was once before bound by such a neder on this day, meaning he had previously vowed to refrain from the above on the anniversary of his father’s death. Even though there were many such anniversaries thereafter on which he did not refrain, the neder is effective. We see, then, that בעיקר קא מתפיס - one links his neder with the original state of this day, which is the first anniversary when he did refrain from meat and wine. The Gemara deflects this proof by emending Shmuel’s statement to be: והוא שנדור ובא מאותו היום ואילך - it is effective only if he was bound by such a neder from this day on, i.e., every anniversary until now. Thus, the neder is effective irrespective of which anniversary he may be referencing.
- כחלת אהרן וכתרומתו
The Gemara attempts a third proof from a Mishnah on 13b which states: If one declares an item,כחלת אהרן וכתרומתו מותר - “like Aharon’s challah” [i.e., challah that is separated from dough for a Kohen] or “like his terumah,” it is permitted. This is because these are considered a דבר האסור - an inherently forbidden item, as opposed to a דבר הנדור - an item prohibited through vowing. The Gemara infers that had he said כתרומת לחמי תודה - like the terumah of the breads of a korbon todah, i.e., the four loaves separated from the forty loaves, to be given to the Kohen, the vow would be effective, because this is a דבר הנדור. Tosafos and Rosh explain that with ordinary terumah, the grain is forbidden beforehand as well because of the tevel prohibition, thus, it is not his terumah designation that makes it prohibited, as opposed to the loaves of Todah, which were originally chullin. The Gemara suggests this should be a proof that בעיקר קא תפיס, because the loaves were presumably designated for the Kohen after the zerikah, since only then are they fit for consumption. The Gemara answers that the first case of “terumah” in the Baraisa may actually refer to this terumah of לחמי תודה, in which case they are permitted.
- Separatingלחמי תודה in the dough state
The Gemara offers an alternative answer to its third proof, that terumah ofלחמי תודה is not included in the category of “Aharon’s terumah,” and can actually be taken long before zerikah, even in the dough state, at which time it is not yet permitted to be eaten. The Gemara shows this by quoting Shmuel, as having said: לחמי תודה שאפאן בארבע חלות יצא - loaves of todah that he baked as four large loaves [i.e., he baked each of the four types as a single large loaf, instead of forty consisting of ten each], he is יוצא . After clarifying שלא יטול מקרבן אחד על חבירו - that one cannot take terumah from one type of loaf for another, and שלא יטול פרוסה - and that the terumah cannot be a piece of the loaf but a loaf itself, the Gemara concludes that the process must have been where he separated terumah at the dough stage. He prepared four different types of dough, separated each one into ten “loaves” of unbaked bread, took one loaf from each as terumah, and then combined the nine remaining loaves of each type into one large dough and baked it, resulting in four different breads. Since terumah may be taken from לחמי תודה at the dough stage, before the zerikas hadam, it can certainly be used as a הנדור דבר. As a result, Rami bar Chama’s question is still left unresolved.
