Nedarim - Daf 28
- נודרין להרגין וכו' שהיא תרומה אע"פ שאינו תרומה וכו'
The Mishnah on Daf 27b stated: נודרין להרגין ולחרמין ולמוכסין - One may make a neder to murderers, plunderers, and tax collectors, שהיא תרומה אף על פי שאינו תרומה - that his grain is terumah, even though in truth it is not terumah. To persuade his assailants, whom are Jewish, not to take his grain, he claims that it is terumah and prohibited to them, and to bolster his [false] claim, he makes a neder to forbid all fruit on himself if the grain is not terumah. The Gemara asks that all fruit should become forbidden to him through his neder, and initially explains that he said that the fruit would only be prohibited for that day, which he can easily keep. When the Gemara objects that the assailant would not be convinced by such a minimally impactful neder, it clarifies that in his mind he intended for the neder to only prohibit fruit for a day, but verbally expressed the neder without limitations. The Gemara adds that although generally דברים שבלב אינן דברים - words of the heart are not words, meaning his private intent cannot impact his spoken words, לגבי אונסין שאני - a case of forcing is different, because the circumstances indicate that he intends differently than the simplest implication of his words.
- הרי נטיעות האלו קרבן אם אינן נקצצות
The next Mishnah states: הרי נטיעות האלו קרבן אם אינן נקצצות - If one said, “These saplings are hereby [kadosh as] a korban if they are not cut,” טלית זו קרבן אם אינה נשרפת - or “this tallis is [kadosh as] a korban if it is not burned,” יש להן פדיון - they may be redeemed, meaning that the neder is effective and the items are prohibited, and can subsequently be redeemed for their value to become permitted. The Gemara asks how the neder of the sapling can take effect, since all trees will eventually be cut, and answers that the stipulation made was that the saplings would not be cut that day, and the day passed. The Gemara proceeds to explain the novelty of this ruling: כגון דאיכא זיקא נפישא - it is in a case of a great wind blowing, just as in the case of tallis, he made a stipulation regarding its burning presumably because there is a fire nearby. The Gemara continues:וסלקא דעתך דמסיק אדעתיה דלא מיתנצלן - you might think that he assumed they would not be saved from the wind and fire, ומשום הכי קא נדר - and it was because of this assumption that he made the neder, and it should not be valid, קא משמע לן - the Mishnah therefore teaches us that it is.
- הרי נטיעות האלו קרבן עד שיקצצו...אין להם פדיון
The Mishnah had stated: הרי נטיעות האלו קרבן עד שיקצצו - If one said, “These saplings shall be [kadosh as] a korban until they are cut,” and similarly, if he said his tallis should be kadosh as a korban until it is burned, אין להם פדיון - they do not have redemption. The Gemara wonders, ולעולם - is it forever that they cannot be redeemed? Why should this be so? Bar Padda explains:פדאן חוזרות וקודשות פדאן חוזרות וקודשות עד שיקצצו - if he redeems them, they become kadosh again, if he again redeems them, they become kadosh again, until they are cut. The Ran explains that we consider his neder to mean they should remain kadosh until they are cut, meaning that even if they are redeemed, they should again become kadosh as if an additional neder was made. Bar Padda continues, that once they are cut, פודן פעם אחת ודיו - he redeems them once and they are then permitted. Ulla argues and says, כיון שנקצצו שוב אין פודן - once they are cut, he no longer needs to redeem them and they are automatically permitted. He interprets the neder to mean they should be kadosh only until the time they are cut. The Gemara on the following Daf will discuss this machlokes at length.
