Commentary for Pesachim 106:6

איבעיא להו תודוס איש רומי גברא רבה הוה או בעל אגרופין הוה

Surely then, since R'Simeon agrees with R'Jose, R'Jose also agrees with R'Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a vow made in an unusual manner is not binding. Hence the same difficulty arises according to R. Jose.');">⁷</span> - No: R'Simeon agrees with R'Jose, but R'Jose does not agree with R'Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He maintains that even when a vow is not made in a usual manner it must be taken into account, because no man speaks without a purpose. Hence though R. Simeon bases his ruling on R. Jose's view, R. Jose himself does indeed hold that a man is held responsible for his last words too, but only when both his first words and his last can take effect (v. Tem. 25b) ; but where his last words would completely nullify his statement, as here, they are disregarded; hence the vower is liable to a wheat meal-offering (Maharsha) . So here too, if he declared at the roasting, 'This be for a Passover sacrifice', though such a vow is unusual, I would say that he means that a sacrifice shall be bought with its monetary value. Thus it is 'near to sacred flesh' on R. Jose's view. But according to R. Simeon this is a real difficulty, which remains unanswered.');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Pesachim 106:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.