Nedarim 56a — the Talmud in English

The Mishnayot before us discuss several expressions that a person uttered, what they include, in order to know by what he is forbidden and by what he is not forbidden.

Mishna:

One who vows

and accepts upon himself a prohibition of benefit

from the house

is forbidden only in the first storey of the house, and

is permitted

to derive benefit

in the upper storey.

For the expression “house” includes only the house itself and not the upper storey of the house,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: The upper storey is included in the house

for when a person forbids a house to himself, the entire house is included in this, and this includes the upper storey, and the upper storey is also forbidden.

However, the Sages concede in the reverse case, that

one who vows from the upper storey,

the law is that he

is permitted

to derive benefit

in the house.

Since certainly the expression “upper storey” does not include the entire house, but only the upper storey, and only it is forbidden.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages: whether the expression “house” includes the upper storey or does not include the upper storey. And according to Rabbi Meir, the expression “house” does not include the upper storey.

And the Gemara wishes, on this basis, to prove who is the tan­nay who taught the following beraita:

Who is the tannay

who is the tannay who innovated for us concerning the affliction of houses, for from the fact that the Torah wrote

“in the house”

and did not write “house,” from here it follows that the Torah came

to include the side chamber.

And they further learn from the fact that the Torah wrote

“in the house”

and did not write “house,” we see that the Torah intended

to include the upper storey,

for the laws of the affliction of houses apply also to it.

And it is proven that the plain meaning of “house” does not include the upper storey, for only because there is an explicit inclusion in the Torah is the upper storey included within “house.” And who is the tannay who holds this view?

Rav Hisda said:

It is the view of

Rabbi Meir,

who said in our Mishna that a person who forbade a house to himself does not include the upper storey.

For if it is the Sages

of our Mishna,

the Sages say

in the Mishna that a person who forbade a house to himself is also forbidden in the

upper storey,

for it is

included in the

expression

“house”

and the upper storey as well. If so,

why do I need a verse

why does a special verse need to be written concerning the afflictions of houses, from the superfluity of the expression

“in the house”

to learn

for inclusion

also of the upper storey?

For in any event, this is included in the meaning of the expression!

Rather, necessarily, this beraita is according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that this is not included in the expression “house,” and therefore a special verse is needed to include the upper storey.

Abaye said:

It is possible to understand the beraita

even

if

you say [that it be said] that

that

the Sages

said it.

And regarding what we raised: If so, why

is a verse needed,

why does the Torah need to include the upper storey through a special verse?

Since

it might have entered your mind to say

that since concerning the afflictions of houses

“in the house of the land of your possession,” it is written,

if so, I would say

that

specifically the house itself, which is

connected to the ground,

specifically it

is called “house.”

But

the upper storey,

which

it

is

not con

nected

to the ground

would

not be considered a “house”

with regard to the afflictions of houses, even though it is included in the expression “house,” since we would have thought that the Torah was particular about that which is connected to the ground.

Therefore, there is a need for a special verse to include the upper storey, despite our holding like the Sages that the upper storey is included in the house.

The Gemara discusses another law, which apparently depends on the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Meir whether the upper storey is included in the house or not. And this is the law of Rav Huna, which is brought before us:

According to whom does this statement that Rav Huna bar Hiyya said in the name of Ulla go:

A person said to his fellow:

“A house from within my houses I sell to you,”

he does not need to give him the entire house, but

shows him

the

upper storey,

and says to him: Here is what you bought!

Since he did not say that he was selling him the house, which would then have indicated the entire house, but rather he said “a house from within my houses,” which can be interpreted as the upper storey, he cannot take from him more than this.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that he said to him, “A house that is within my houses I sell to you,”

only because of this can he reject him and give him only the upper storey.

But

if he said, “I sell you a

house,”

and said this

without specification,

and did not add “a house that is within my houses,”

he does not show him the upper storey,

but is obligated to give him the entire house.

Let us say that it is Rabbi Meir’s view

and not according to the Sages, for according to the Sages, when a person says “house,” the upper storey is also included in his words. Therefore, when a person says that he sold the house, he can claim that he sold the upper storey, which is also called a house; so why did Rav Huna say that only if he said “a house from within my houses” can he claim that he intended the upper storey?

Necessarily, he holds like Rabbi Meir, that the expression “house” without specification does not refer to the upper storey, and only when he said “a house from within my houses” can he claim that he sold the upper storey.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Even

if

you say [that it be said] that Rav Huna holds like

that Rav Huna follows

the Sages, even so, he shows him the upper storey.

Even so, he shows him the upper storey.

Rather, the intention is not that he can reject him and say that he sold him the upper storey and not the house.

Rather,

what

is the meaning of “he shows him”

the upper storey

that Rav Huna said?

Since he said “a house from within my houses,” he must give him

the finest of the houses,

for this is what he intended to include in his expression “a house from within my houses”: the finest house among the houses that I have.

And consequently, it is possible to explain Rav Huna also according to the Sages.

Mishna:

One who vows

benefit

from a bed,

he

is permitted to use a dargesh,

whose meaning will be explained in the Gemara, because the dargesh is not included in the expression “bed,”

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

He is forbidden to derive benefit also from a

dargesh,

for it is

included

in the expression

“bed”

it is.

For since he forbade the bed to himself, his prohibition applies also to the dargesh.

And below, in the Gemara, what is called a dargesh will be explained.

And the Sages concede in the reverse case, that

one who vows

and accepts upon himself a prohibition

from a dargesh,

only the dargesh itself is included in this, and therefore he

is permitted to use a bed,

for the bed was not forbidden when he forbade the dargesh to himself, since the bed is not included in a dargesh.

Gemara:

What is a dargesh?

What is the dargesh concerning which Rabbi Meir and the Sages disputed whether it is included in the expression “bed” or not?

Ulla said:

The meaning of dargesh is

a bed of fortune.

An empty bed that they place in the house, and it is made for good fortune.

The Sages said to Ulla:

According to your explanation of dargesh, it is not understood

that which we learned

concerning the mourning of the High Priest, when the people come to comfort him, and we learned in a Mishna in tractate Moed Katan:

When they,

the comforters of the High Priest,

provide him with the mourning meal,

they eat a mourners’ meal with him; the order of sitting is as follows:

All the people recline on the ground, and he,

the High Priest,

reclines on the dargesh.

And if it is said that a dargesh is a bed made for good fortune, and throughout the entire year it is empty and no one sits upon it, is it possible that

the entire year,

all year,

he does not sit upon it,

and specifically now, on

that day,

when he is mourning,

he sits upon it!?

Ravina challenged this:

What is surprising about this? After all, we have found that the conduct of the day of mourning differs from that of the other days?!

As is the case with

m

meat and wine, for throughout the entire year, if he wishes he eats, and if he wishes he does not eat.

For throughout all the days of the year, it depends on his will whether to eat and drink meat and wine, and he does as he wishes, whereas on

that day

of mourning,

we give him

wine to drink in order to provide him with the mourning meal!

And therefore there is no difficulty concerning the dargesh if throughout the entire year no one sits upon it, whereas on the day of mourning one does sit upon it.

Rather,

if you have come to raise a difficulty and prove that a dargesh is not a bed of fortune,

this is the difficulty:

For it was taught

concerning the laws of mourning that one must overturn the beds of the house, meaning that one turns the beds over.

What are the circumstances? With regard to beds, which must be turned onto their other side, when they are overturned completely; but the

dargesh, he would not overturn it, but would set it upright

when it was lying on its side, on its two legs on one side, and he would not overturn it completely like the bed.

And if you say

that

it is a bed of fortune,

a dargesh, which is in fact an ordinary bed, difficult, why is it not necessary to overturn the dargesh as well?

But it was taught:

A mourner

who overturns his bed does not overturn only his bed, but rather he overturns all the beds that he has in the house.

If so, he should also have to overturn the dargesh, since it is like an ordinary bed?

This is not difficult!

Because of this difficulty, we will not prove that a dargesh is not a bed of fortune, since it is possible to resolve it and say,