Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
The Ra”n Elucidated
LINKAGE - Rami bar Chama inquired (Nedarim 11b - 12a): A piece of korban shelamim was sitting next to a loaf of bread, and he said, “This (bread) should be like this (shelamim).” Is he referring to the prohibition that the meat originally had before its blood was sprinkled on the Altar, or is he referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted? If he is referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted, the neder is not effective.
The Ran asks: Even if he is referring to the present status of the meat, the neder should be valid, for there are prohibitions that still exist in the shelamim? A tamei is prohibited against eating from the korban! The “chest and the thigh” are forbidden to any non-Kohen!
He answers: We are only concerned with prohibitions that emerge because of his vow. Any prohibition coming from his vow will be forbidden to everyone because he sanctified this animal. A prohibition that is limited to a select group of people cannot be on account of his vow and therefore, such prohibitions may not serve as an association to his present vow.
Hatfasah to a Shelamim
Rami bar Chama inquired: If someone states, “This is upon me like meat of a korban shelamim after it its blood is sprinkled (on the Altar),” what is the law? The Gemora asks: If he uses this terminology, he is essentially saying that it is permitted to him (as everyone is allowed to eat the meat of a shelamim after its blood has been sprinkled on the altar)! Rather, it must that his question was in a case where a piece of korban shelamim was sitting next to a loaf of bread, and he said, “This (bread) should be like this (shelamim).” Is he referring to the prohibition that the meat originally had before its blood was sprinkled on the Altar, or is he referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted?
Reb Chaim Brisker explains: The inquiry of the Gemora is not regarding the vower’s intention (does he mean to link the object of his vow to the original status of the shelamim or to its present status?); rather, Rami bar Chama’s uncertainty is in respect to the laws of this association. Does one associate the object of his neder with prohibitions that are now present or is the association with the essential state of the shelamim, i.e. its previous state, which is the sanctity that brought about its prohibition?
According to Reb Chaim’s explanation, we can answer a challenge to this Gemora posed by Reb Shmuel Rozovsky and Reb Naftoli Trop. They ask: Why don’t we apply the principle of “undefined nedarim are treated stringently” (we are strict in regard to its meaning until the vower explains differently)? They answer that this principle is applicable only when the vower has declared a valid neder, consisting of a legitimate language fit for a neder; however, there was uncertainty regarding his true intent. In such cases, we apply this principle and we assume that a person does not express himself for nothing. He probably meant to invoke a neder. However, in Rami bar Chama’s inquiry, the question is regarding the explanation of his words; did the vower mean to associate the object of his neder with the original prohibition of the shelamim or to its present status? If he meant to link the object of his neder to the present (permitted) status of the shelamim, he is not invoking a neder at all! When one fails to express his neder with his mouth, we cannot rule stringently.
According to Reb Chaim Brisker’s explanation, however, their question does not even begin. For Rami bar Chama’s inquiry has nothing to do with the vower’s intent. Rami bar Chama is inquiring into the mechanics of invoking a neder through an association. Is the association to the object’s present status or to its previous condition? The principle of “undefined nedarim are treated stringently” does not apply here.
LINKAGE - Rami bar Chama inquired (Nedarim 11b - 12a): A piece of korban shelamim was sitting next to a loaf of bread, and he said, “This (bread) should be like this (shelamim).” Is he referring to the prohibition that the meat originally had before its blood was sprinkled on the Altar, or is he referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted? If he is referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted, the neder is not effective.
The Ran asks: Even if he is referring to the present status of the meat, the neder should be valid, for there are prohibitions that still exist in the shelamim? A tamei is prohibited against eating from the korban! The “chest and the thigh” are forbidden to any non-Kohen!
He answers: We are only concerned with prohibitions that emerge because of his vow. Any prohibition coming from his vow will be forbidden to everyone because he sanctified this animal. A prohibition that is limited to a select group of people cannot be on account of his vow and therefore, such prohibitions may not serve as an association to his present vow.
Hatfasah to a Shelamim
Rami bar Chama inquired: If someone states, “This is upon me like meat of a korban shelamim after it its blood is sprinkled (on the Altar),” what is the law? The Gemora asks: If he uses this terminology, he is essentially saying that it is permitted to him (as everyone is allowed to eat the meat of a shelamim after its blood has been sprinkled on the altar)! Rather, it must that his question was in a case where a piece of korban shelamim was sitting next to a loaf of bread, and he said, “This (bread) should be like this (shelamim).” Is he referring to the prohibition that the meat originally had before its blood was sprinkled on the Altar, or is he referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted?
Reb Chaim Brisker explains: The inquiry of the Gemora is not regarding the vower’s intention (does he mean to link the object of his vow to the original status of the shelamim or to its present status?); rather, Rami bar Chama’s uncertainty is in respect to the laws of this association. Does one associate the object of his neder with prohibitions that are now present or is the association with the essential state of the shelamim, i.e. its previous state, which is the sanctity that brought about its prohibition?
According to Reb Chaim’s explanation, we can answer a challenge to this Gemora posed by Reb Shmuel Rozovsky and Reb Naftoli Trop. They ask: Why don’t we apply the principle of “undefined nedarim are treated stringently” (we are strict in regard to its meaning until the vower explains differently)? They answer that this principle is applicable only when the vower has declared a valid neder, consisting of a legitimate language fit for a neder; however, there was uncertainty regarding his true intent. In such cases, we apply this principle and we assume that a person does not express himself for nothing. He probably meant to invoke a neder. However, in Rami bar Chama’s inquiry, the question is regarding the explanation of his words; did the vower mean to associate the object of his neder with the original prohibition of the shelamim or to its present status? If he meant to link the object of his neder to the present (permitted) status of the shelamim, he is not invoking a neder at all! When one fails to express his neder with his mouth, we cannot rule stringently.
According to Reb Chaim Brisker’s explanation, however, their question does not even begin. For Rami bar Chama’s inquiry has nothing to do with the vower’s intent. Rami bar Chama is inquiring into the mechanics of invoking a neder through an association. Is the association to the object’s present status or to its previous condition? The principle of “undefined nedarim are treated stringently” does not apply here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment