Nedarim - Daf 14
- הרי עלי כאימא
The Mishnah on 13b stated: One who says to his wife: הרי את עלי כאימא- “you are forbidden to me like my mother,” פותחין לו פתח ממקום אחר - we make an opening (i.e., a heter nedarim) for him from elsewhere as a basis for annulling the neder, שלא יקל ראשו לכך - so he will not take such matters lightly. Although the neder is not valid, since his mother is a דבר האסור - an inherently forbidden entity, he is required מדרבנן to seek an annulment of his neder so he should not come to be lenient in a case where he used a proper דבר הנדור. The Gemara on our Daf brings a contradictory Baraisa, which states: הרי את עלי כבשר אימא – “you are forbidden to me like the flesh of my mother,” כבשר אחותי – “like the flesh of my sister,” כערלה וככלאי הכרם – “like orlah,” or “like kilayim of a vineyard,” לא אמר כלום - he has said nothing. This implies he does not even need to find an annulment for his neder!? Abaye answers, that in truth, the Baraisa also agrees that he needs a heter for his neder מדרבנן but means to say that מדאורייתא his neder is ineffective. Alternatively, Rava answers that the Baraisa, which does not require a heter, is speaking of talmidei chochomim, who will not come to be lenient in such matters. The Mishnah, which requires a heter, is speaking about an am ha’aretz, who is suspect to be lenient.
- הנודר בתורה
It was taught in a Baraisa: הנודר בתורה לא אמר כלום - one who vows by the Torah (which the Ran first explains refers to swearing), he has said nothing. במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין - If he swears by what is written therein, his words are effective [because he is swearing by Hashem’s name, which is written in the Torah]. בה ובמה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין- If he swears by it and by what is written therein, his words are effective. The Gemara asks what the final case is teaching, since it has already taught that במה שכתוב בה is sufficient. Rav Nachman answers that the final case is speakingדמחתא אורייתא אארעא - that the Torah was lying on the ground, in which case דעתיה אגוילי- his mind is on the parchment alone, so if he merely said במה שכתוב בה, we would interpret it as “by what the Torah is written in,” meaning the parchment [Ran]. Only by saying בה ובמה שכתובה בה, where he has separately mentioned the Torah itself, do we say that the second clause clearly refers to that which is written in the Torah. The earlier part of the Baraisa is speaking דנקיט לה בידיה- where he is holding the Torah in his hand, in which case we say even by simply saying במה שכתוב בה, that דעתיה על האזכרות שבה - his mind is on the Names of Hashem written in it. The Gemara gives two more answers.
- עיני בשינה היום אם אישן למחר
The Gemara says: If one says, קונם עיני בשינה היום אם אישן למחר – “my eyes are konam for sleep today if I sleep tomorrow,” Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav: אל ישן היום שמא ישן למחר - he may not sleep today (although sleeping today is thus far permitted), for perhaps he will sleep tomorrow and cause the previous day’s sleep to be in violation of his neder. Rav Nachman argues: ישן היום ולא חיישינן שמא ישן למחר - he can sleep today, and we are not concerned that he will sleep tomorrow. The Mefaresh explains that we may rely on the vower to remain awake tomorrow in order not to violate his neder. The Gemara adds that Rav Yehudah would agree if he said the reverse, קונם עיני בשינה למחר אם אישן היום - my eyes are “konam” tomorrow if I sleep today, שישן היום – that he may sleep today. This is because according to Rav Yehudah, כי לא מזדהיר בתנאה - When is a person not careful? It is only with the tannai on which his neder hinges, אבל באיסור מזדהר - but in the prohibition component itself, he is careful. Since the prohibition is against sleeping tomorrow if he sleeps today, we may be sure that if he sleeps today, he will be careful not to sleep tomorrow.
