Nedarim 111

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הנודר מן הבית מותר בעלייה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים עלייה בכלל הבית הנודר מן עלייה מותר בבית:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO VOWS [NOT TO BENEFIT] FROM A HOUSE IS PERMITTED THE UPPER STOREY:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were quite distinct, often belonging to separate owners; cf. B.M. 116b. ');">¹</span> THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. BUT THE SAGES SAY: THE UPPER STOREY IS INCLUDED IN 'HOUSE'. HE WHO VOWS [NOT TO HAVE THE USE OF] THE UPPER STOREY IS PERMITTED [THE USE OF] THE HOUSE.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאן תנא (ויקרא יד, לה) בבית לרבות את היציע בבית לרבות את העלייה אמר רב חסדא רבי מאיר היא דאי רבנן האמרי רבנן עלייה בכלל הבית למה לי קרא בבית לריבויא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Which Tanna taught: [And I put a plague of leprosy] in a house [of the land of your possession]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 34. ');">²</span> this includes the side-chambers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], V. B.B. 61a. So curr edd. Ran and Wilna Gaon emend it to [H] painted walls, because side chambers are excluded in the Sifra from the laws of leprosy, and the teaching is that even these are subject to the laws of house leprosy. This is necessary, because leprosy in garments only applies to undyed materials. — Neg. XI, 3. ');">³</span>

אביי אמר אפי' תימא רבנן בעיא קרא דסלקא דעתך אמינא (ויקרא יד, לד) בבית ארץ אחזתכם כתיב דמחבר בארעא שמיה בית עלייה הא לא מחבר בארעא

'in a house', this includes the upper storey? — R. Hisda said, It is R. Meir's teaching. For if the Rabbis', why require 'in a house' to include the upper storey, since they say that an upper storey is an integral part of the house? Abaye said, it may agree even with the Rabbis, yet a verse is necessary. For you might think, [since] it is written, 'in a house of the land of your possession': that which is [directly] attached to the land<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This soil. ');">⁴</span> is called 'house', but the upper storey, not being attached to the land, [is not called 'house']. With whom does the following dictum of R. Huna b. Hiyya in 'Ulla's name agree? Viz., [If one says,] I sell you a house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] may mean either an apartment or a whole house, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 247. n. 6.] ');">⁵</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב הונא בר חייא משמיה דעולא בית בביתי אני מוכר לך מראהו עלייה טעמא דא"ל בית שבביתי אני מוכר לך אבל בית סתם אינו מראהו עלייה לימא רבי מאיר היא אפילו תימא רבנן מאי עלייה מעולה שבבתים:

within my house,' he can offer him an upper storey. Hence it is only because he says, 'I sell you a house within my house';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Apartment'. ');">⁶</span> but in the case of 'house' without definition he cannot offer him the upper storey. Shall we say, It agrees with R. Meir? — You may even say, It agrees with the Rabbis: by 'aliyyah, the best<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] fr. [H], lit., 'the highest'. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הנודר מן המטה מותר בדרגש דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א דרגש בכלל מטה הנודר מן הדרגש מותר במטה:

of his houses is meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the purchaser can demand the best of his houses, the phrase in Hebrew [H] denoting the superlative. But if he simply sold him a [H] he could give him an upper storey. ');">⁸</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO VOWS [ABSTINANCE] FROM A BED IS PERMITTED DARGESH:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gemara. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי דרגש אמר עולא ערסא דגדא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא הא דתנן כשהן מברין אותו כל העם מסובין על הארץ והוא מיסב על הדרגש כולה שתא לא יתיב עלה ההוא יומא יתיב עלה מתקיף לה רבינא מידי דהוה אבשר ויין דכולה שתא אי בעי אכיל ואי בעי לא אכיל ההוא יומא אנן יהבינן ליה

THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. BUT THE SAGES SAY: DARGESH IS INCLUDED IN 'BED'. IF HE VOWS [ABSTINENCE] FROM A DARGESH, HE IS ALLOWED [THE USE OF] A BED. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is dargesh? — 'Ulla said: A bed reserved for the domestic genius.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one not put to any use, but to bring good luck to the house. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא הא קשיא דתניא דרגש לא היה כופהו אלא זוקפו ואי אמרת ערסא דגדא הוא והתניא הכופה את מטתו לא מטתו בלבד הוא כופה אלא כל מטות שיש לו בתוך הבית הוא כופה הא לא קשיא

Said the Rabbis to 'Ulla: But we learnt, When he [sc. the High Priest] was given the mourner's meal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first meal eaten by mourners after the funeral was called the [H] meal of comfort or restoration, v. Sanh. 20a. ');">¹¹</span> all the people sat on the ground, whilst he reclined on the dargesh. Now, in normal times<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the whole year'. ');">¹²</span> he does not sit upon it, yet on that day he does! Rabina demurred to this: Let it be analogous to meat and wine, of which at other times<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the whole year'. ');">¹²</span> he partakes or not, as he pleases, whereas on that day we give them to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [On the wine drunk at the house of the mourner, v. Keth. 8a. There is however no law stated anywhere else that meat had to form part of the mourner's meal of comfort. The only reference in Sem. XIV speaks merely of a local custom (cf. Tur Yoreh De'ah, 282). It should however be noted that the parallel passages (Sanh. 20a and M.K. 57a) read: 'Let it be analogous to eating and drinking', and this is also the reading of MS.M. here.] ');">¹³</span> But this is the difficulty. for it was taught: The dargesh was not lowered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the rule with all other stools and beds in a house of mourning. ');">¹⁴</span> but stood up [on its legs]. Now if you say that it is the bed of the domestic genius, has it not been taught: He who lowers his bed, lowers not merely his own bed [as mourner], but all the beds of the house? — This is no difficulty: