Torah Community Connections

Week 70 - Sunday - 25 March 2001

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 6

If one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from his fellow and he has nothing to eat, he may give it to another as a gift, and this one is permitted it. It happened that a person in Bet Horon, whose father was prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from him, and he was giving his son in marriage, and he said to his fellow, "The courtyard and the banquet are given to you as a gift, and are yours only so that Father will come and eat with us at the banquet." He said to him, "If they are mine, then they are consecrated to Heaven." He said to him, "I did not give mine so that you would consecrate them to Heaven." He said to him, "You gave to me yours only so that you and your father would eat and drink, and be reconciled with one another, and that the sin should rest on his head." And when the matter came before the Sages, they said, Any gift which is not, for if he consecrated it, it is not consecrated, is not a gift.

Kehati

This mishnah begins with a halakhah that had already been taught (4:8, above), and which is cited here only because of the second section of this mishnah. Others explain that the halakhah taught in mishnah 4:8 deals with a case in which the people were travelling, and the current mishnah teaches that the same halakhah applies in the city.

If one is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from his fellow and he -- the one prohibited by a vow, has nothing to eat -- and one from whom he is prohibited to derive benefit wants to give him of his food, he may give it -- the food -- to another as a gift, and this one -- who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit, is permitted -- to receive -- it -- this gift from the person. If, however, it is evident from his action that he gave it to the third party as a gift only in order that he give it to the one prohibited from deriving benefit, it is prohibited for the one prohibited from deriving benefit (Gemara).

It happened that a person in Bet Horon -- a city in northern Judea, whose father was prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from him, and he -- the son, was giving his son in marriage -- and wanted to invite his father to the wedding banquet of the grandson, and he said to his fellow, "The courtyard -- in which I will hold the wedding banquet, into which my father is prohibited from entering, and the banquet -- itself -- are -- all -- given to you as a gift, and are yours only so that Father will come and eat with us at the banquet" -- he indicated in his words that this is only a fiction.

He -- the fellow, said to him, "If they are mine, then they are consecrated to Heaven" -- i.e., his fellow consecrated the courtyard and the banquet to the Temple.

He -- the son, said to him, "I did not give -- to you -- mine -- the courtyard and the banquet, so that you would -- do with them as you wished and -- consecrate them to Heaven -- but rather so that my father, who is prevented by vow from deriving benefit from me, could derive benefit from them." He -- his fellow, said to him, "You gave to me yours only so that you and your father would eat and drink, and be reconciled with one another, and that the sin should rest on his head" -- i.e., on my head, since you wanted to violate the vow through me. And when the matter came before the Sages, they said, Any gift which is not -- the unqualified property of the recipient, that if he -- the recipient, consecrated it it is not consecrated -- as in the case in Bet Horon, in which the son stated explicitly that he did not give the gift to his fellow so that the recipient could consecrate it to Heaven, but rather he wanted to create a fiction so that his father could eat, is not a gift -- and the person prohibited by vow from deriving benefit may not derive any benefit from it, just as if it had not been given to a third party.

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 6: MISHNAH 1

If a person prohibits himself by vow from cooked food, he is permitted roast and shaluk. If a person said, "Konam cooked food that I do not taste" -- he is prohibited what is cooked soft, and he is permitted thick; and he is permitted a teremita egg, and a hermutzah gourd.

Kehati

We have already mentioned that "Vows are interpreted according to their popular meaning" (3:6, above), i.e., we interpret the vow according to its popular usage in that place, in that language, and at the time the person took the vow. This chapter continues to deal with the meaning of the words of the vower, based on that rule. This whole chapter teaches us that if one prohibits certain food to himself by a vow, he is permitted all other foods which are not included under the name of that prohibited food in popular usage.

If a person prohibits himself by vow from cooked food [mevushal] -- e.g., he said, "Konam may cooked food be for me," i.e., he forbade himself everything that is called "cooked food," he -- the person taking the vow, is permitted -- to eat -- roast and shaluk -- since roast and shaluk are not called "cooked" in popular usage. According to Rashi and Bartenura, shaluk is any food which is over-cooked; according to Rabbeinu Nissim, it is undercooked, and anything which is overcooked is included in "cooked." However, wherever the word "cooked" is used to include roast and shaluk, all is prohibited to the vower (Rambam, Hil. Nedarim 9:1).

If a person said, "Konam cooked food [tavshil] that I do not taste" -- he prohibited himself by vow from tasting any food which is called "cooked," he -- the vower, is prohibited what is cooked soft -- a food containing sauce, and is permitted -- what is cooked -- thick -- such as porridge and similar foods. The Gemara explains that the term "tavshil" was used in referring only to cooked food eaten with bread, and not for foods which were not eaten with bread; and he -- the person prohibited by a vow from tavshil,

Is permitted a teremita egg -- an egg which was soft-boiled in hot water; since it was the practice to swallow such an egg for medicinal purposes, and not to eat it with bread, it is not considered to be a "tavshil" (teremita is a Greek word meaning "soft-boiled"), and a hermutzah gourd -- a bitter gourd which was cooked in hot ashes (remetz) in order to draw out its bitterness; and is not called "tavshil," and is permitted to one prohibited by vow from any tavshil.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives