Mesorat%20hashas for Nedarim 8:10

אלא אמר שמואל טעמא דאמר שאני אוכל לך שאני טועם לך הוא דאסור וחבירו מותר

IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW' etc. Samuel said: In all these instances he must say, 'in respect of aught that I might eat of yours or that I might taste of yours'. An objection is raised: [If one says to his neighbour], 'I am debarred from you by a vow,' [or] 'I am separated from you.' [or] 'I am removed from you', he is forbidden [to derive any benefit from him]. [If he says,] 'That which I might eat or taste of yours' [shall be to me prohibited], he is forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause proves that the vow is valid without the addition. ');">¹⁰</span> — This is what is taught: When is this? If he adds 'in respect of aught that I might eat or taste of yours.' But the reverse was taught: [If one says to his neighbour,] 'That which I might eat or taste of yours' [shall be prohibited to me], he is forbidden; 'I am debarred from you by a vow', [or] 'I am separated from you', [or] 'I am removed from you,' he is [likewise] forbidden! — Read thus: Providing that he had first said, 'I am debarred from you, etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to this rendering, the bracketed 'shall be prohibited to me' must be deleted. ');">¹¹</span> If so, it is identical with the first [Baraitha]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is the order reversed? This difficulty arises in any case. But if each clause is independent, it can be answered that the second Baraitha intentionally reverses the clauses, so as to make their independence obvious, since the interpretation 'providing that he had first said' is forced; whilst in the first Baraitha the assumption that the second clause is an addition to the first is quite feasible. ');">¹²</span> Moreover, why teach further, 'he is forbidden' twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the whole refers to one vow. ');">¹³</span> — But this is what Samuel really said: Because he said, 'in respect of aught that I might eat of yours or that I might taste of yours', the maker of the vow alone is forbidden while his neighbour is permitted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To benefit from him. ');">¹⁴</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Nedarim 8:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.