Commentary for Bava Batra 240:9

ולבית שמאי דלית להו גזרה שוה הפרת נדרים בשלשה הדיוטות מנא להו נפקא להו מדתניא (ויקרא טז, א) וידבר משה את מועדי ה' אל בני ישראל ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר

is not [applicable] to consecrated objects; as we learnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naz. 30b. ');">³⁰</span> 'Beth Shammai maintains [that] mistaken consecration is [regarded as proper] consecration, and Beth Hillel maintains [that] it is not [regarded as proper] consecration,' — to what [other] purpose do they apply,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what do they do to it'. ');">³¹</span> this and this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This, mentioned with the law of animals slaughtered outside the Temple and this of the laws of vows. Maintaining that 'mistaken consecration is regarded as proper consecration', Beth Shammai is obviously of the opinion that the low of absolution is never applicable to consecrated objects. Hence, the comparison made above between the similar expressions of 'this' (from which the law of absolution has been derived) is not required. What, then, is the purpose of the employment of this expression in the Biblical text. ');">³²</span> [The expression], This is the thing, [used in connection] with [animals] slaughtered outside the Temple is required [for the inference that] one is guilty [only] for slaughtering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Outside the Temple. ');">³³</span> but not for 'pinching'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Melikah, [H] 'pinching off the head of a bird with the finger nails' (cf. Lev. I, 15). The expression, this, implies that only what was mentioned in the text, viz., slaughtering, is prohibited. ');">³⁴</span> [The express sion] This is the thing, [mentioned in connection] with the 'heads of the tribes', is required [for the inference that only] a Sage can dissolve [a vow], but a husband cannot dissolve<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By using the formula, [H], the Sage has the right of disallowing, or dissolving a vow ([H] 'unbinding', 'dissolving'), if a good reason for his action can be found. If, e.g., the man who vowed can show that his vow was made under a misapprehension. ');">³⁵</span> [a vow], [only] a husband can declare [a vow] void, but a Sage cannot declare [it] void.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By using the formula, [H] a husband is entitled to declare as void, ([H] 'breaking' destroying'), any vow made by his wife, without the necessity for her finding any reason for its annulment. Unlike the sage who must first inquire whether grounds exist for dissolving it (v. previous note), the husband may, as soon as he hears of the vow, 'destroy' it at once retrospectively. This, implies that only the expressions of the Biblical text as interpreted in Ned. 77b may be used and that only the procedure they imply must be followed. ');">³⁶</span> Whence does Beth Shammai, who does not use the inference from the similarity of expression,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Requiring the two expressions of this for other purposes, as just explained. ');">³⁷</span> derive the law [that] the annulment of vows [may be performed] by three laymen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or by a Sage, who is regarded as of equal status to that if a lay court of three. ');">³⁸</span> They derive it from what was taught [in the following Baraitha]: And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 44 ');">³⁹</span> R. Jose the Galilean said:

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 240:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.