Nedarim - Daf 18
- The source that nezirus can take effect upon nezirus
On the previous Daf, Rav Huna said that the case of יש נדר בתוך נדר – a neder takes effect within the term of another neder, applies when one said, הריני נזיר היום הריני נזיר למחר – “I am hereby a nazir today,” “I am hereby a nazir tomorrow.” Rav Hamnuna questions his opinion from a Baraisa, which taught: The passuk states: “נזיר להזיר” – a nazir to abstain, מכאן שהנזירות חל על הנזירות – from the redundant word להזיר, we learn that nezirus takes effect upon nezirus. What is the case the Baraisa is referring to? The Gemara argues that it cannot be in a case of הריני נזיר היום הריני נזיר למחר, because the additional day should certainly enable the second nezirus to take effect, and a passuk would not be needed to teach this. Rather, it must be speaking in a case of הריני נזיר היום הריני נזיר היום, and the passuk is teaching that the second nezirus is valid despite not adding any extra time, like Shmuel’s opinion and not like Rav Huna’s!? The Gemara answers that the passuk is needed in a case where one declared two nezirus vows simultaneously. The Ran explains that they are effective as two thirty-day periods. Without the passuk, one might have thought that one would be chayav to observe them as one long sixty-day period of nezirus.
- נשאל על שבועה ראשונה שניה חלה עליו
The Mishnah on Daf 17a had stated: שבועה שלא אוכל שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל – “I swear I will not eat this,” “I swear I will not eat this,” and he ate it, אינו חייב אלא אחת - he is only liable for one set of malkos. This implies that the second shevuah does not take effect at all. Rava, on this Daf, qualifies this by saying: אם נשאל על הראשונה שניה חלה עליו - if he asks for a heter for the first shevuah, the second takes effect on him. The second shevuah is valid, insofar as the first is not active to prevent it from taking effect. Rava adduces support for this from the language of the Mishnah. מדלא קתני אינו אלא אחת - Since it did not state “it is only one” [shevuah], וקתני אינו חייב אלא אחת - and it stated instead “he is only liable for one,” this implies רווחא הוא דלית לה - it is merely missing space to have practical effect, כי מיתשיל על חבירתה חיילא - when he asks for a heter on the other shevuah, it takes effect.
- סתם נדרים להחמיר
The next Mishnah states: סתם נדרים להחמיר - Unspecific nedarim are treated stringently, ופירושם להקל - but their explanation is accepted even leniently. The Mishnah gives numerous illustrations of this principle, the first being, אמר הרי עלי כבשר מליח כיין נסך- if he said “it is to me like salted meat,” or “like poured wine,” אם בשל שמים נדר אסור - if he vowed by referencing “of Heaven” (i.e., the salted meat of a korban, or the poured wine of נסכים), then it is forbidden because the neder is valid.אם בשל עבודת כוכבים נדר מותר - If he vowed by referencing avodah zarah (i.e., the meat and wine served to an idol), it is permitted, since he has linked his neder with a דבר האסור, an inherently forbidden item, the neder is invalid. ואם סתם אסור - And if he was unspecific, it is forbidden. If he did not specify which type of meat or wine he was referencing, we assume he intended to make a valid neder, for otherwise, as the Rosh explains, he had no reason to say anything.
