Nedarim 166

Chapter 166

א דלמא מיין דאית לה צערא הפר לה מטומאת מת דלית לה צערא לא הפר לה

1 perhaps he disallowed her [only] in respect of wine, [abstention from] which is a real hardship, but not in respect of defilement through the dead, since no hardship is involved?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On 'perhaps etc.' v. p. 258, n. 1. Hence in spite of the annulment she ought to complete the full period and then offer the usual sacrifices. Tosaf. objects that the same answer could be given here as above, viz., there is no state of semi-neziruth; and replies that this perhaps holds good only of the kernels and husks of grapes, and everything appertaining thereto. But the prohibition of defilement is quite distinct from that of wine, (as is illustrated by a Samson nazirite. V. Nazir 4a) and therefore one may exist without the other. ');">1

ב אמרי טומאת מת נמי אית לה צערא דכתיב (קהלת ז, ב) והחי יתן אל לבו ותניא היה ר' מאיר אומר מאי דכתיב והחי יתן אל לבו דיספוד יספדון ליה דיבכון יבכון ליה דיקבר יקברוניה

2 I will tell you: [The prohibition of] defilement through the dead too involves hardship, for it is written, and the living will lay it to his heart;2

ג <big>מתני׳</big> קונם שאני נהנה לבריות אינו יכול להפר ויכולה היא ליהנות בלקט שכחה ובפאה

3 whereon it was taught: R. Meir used to say, What is meant by. and the living will lay it to his heart? He who laments will be lamented; he who weeps will be wept for; he who buries will be buried.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one who pays the last respects to the dead will be similarly honoured, and, by implication, he who refrains will be likewise treated with contempt. It is therefore a matter of self-denial to abstain from death defilement, since thereby one forfeits the respects of his fellow-men at his own death. ');">3

ד קונם כהנים לוים נהנים לי יטלו על כרחו כהנים אלו ולוים אלו נהנים לי יטלו אחרים

4 MISHNAH. [IF SHE VOWS], 'KONAM, IF I MIGHT BENEFIT FROM MANKIND,'4

ה <big>גמ׳</big> אלמא אפשר דמתזנה מדיליה מכלל דבעל לאו בכלל בריות הוא אימא סיפא יכולה ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה אבל מדבעל לא אכלה אלמא בעל בכלל בריות הוא

5 HE CANNOT ANNUL,5

ו אמר עולא לעולם לאו בכלל בריות הוא ועוד אין יכול להפר מפני שיכולה ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה

6 AND SHE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE GLEANINGS, FORGOTTEN SHEAVES, AND PE'AH.6

ז רבא אמר לעולם בעל בכלל בריות הוא ומה טעם קאמר מה טעם אין יכול להפר מפני שיכולה ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה

7 [IF A MAN SAYS] 'KONAM BE THE BENEFIT WHICH PRIESTS AND LEVITES HAVE FROM ME, THEY CAN SEIZE (THEIR DUES] AGAINST HIS WILL.7

ח ר"נ אמר לעולם בעל לאו בכלל בריות הוא והכי קתני נתגרשה יכולה ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה

8 [BUT IF HE VOWS,] 'KONAM BE THE BENEFIT THESE PRIESTS AND LEVITES HAVE FROM ME,' OTHERS TAKE [THE DUES]. GEMARA. Thus we see that she may derive her sustenance from his [her husband's goods],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As otherwise it is certainly a vow of self-denial, which he may annul. It is now assumed that 'AND SHE CAN … PE'AH' does not give the reason why he cannot annul, but is an independent statement. For surely abstention from all mankind, including her husband, is no less deprivation than abstention from a tradesman from whom alone the husband can obtain supplies, which is regarded as mortification (v. supra 79b), though there too recourse might be had to gleanings, etc.! (Ran.). ');">8 thus proving that her husband is not included in 'MANKIND' (in the sense of her vow]. Then consider the second clause: AND SHE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE GLEANINGS, FORGOTTEN SHEAVES, AND PE'AH; but she may not eat of her husband's, which proves that he is included in 'MANKIND'? — Said 'Ulla: After all, the husband is not included, and [the Mishnah] teaches thus: moreover, he cannot annul because SHE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE GLEANINGS, FORGOTTEN SHEAVES, AND PE'AH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the first place he cannot annul because his own substance is available to her, but an additional reason is that SHE CAN, etc. This furnishes a reason only when taken in conjunction with the first, but not independently (Ran. v. n. 5). ');">9 Raba said: In truth, the husband is included in 'mankind', and (the second clause] states a reason. [Thus:] Why cannot he annul?10 Because SHE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE GLEANINGS, FORGOTTEN SHEAVES, AND PE'AH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As for the argument in n. 5, Raba will maintain that abstention from a tradesman from whom alone the husband can obtain supplies constitutes mortification only in winter, when gleanings, etc. are not available (Ran). ');">11 R. Nahman said: In truth, the husband is not included in 'MANKIND', and the Mishnah teaches thus: if she was divorced, SHE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE GLEANINGS, FORGOTTEN SHEAVES, AND PE'AH.12

Previous Chapter Next Chapter