Nedarim 56b — the Talmud in English

It is not necessary to overturn the dargash, even though it is a type of bed,

just as is the case with a bed designated for utensils,

which is an ordinary bed in terms of its form, except that one does not sleep on it, and therefore it is not necessary to overturn it. The same applies: it is not necessary to overturn the dargash, despite the fact that it is a bed.

For it was taught in a beraita: If it was a bed designated for utensils, it is not necessary to turn it over.

And

this is the reason that it is not necessary to overturn the dargash, even though it is a type of bed: since, in the end, one does not sleep on it.

Rather, if it is difficult,

if we wish to prove that a dargash is not an arsa de-gada, this should be proved from that

which was taught

at the continuation of that beraita, that all this is the opinion of the Sages.

But

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A dargash

also requires that a sign of mourning be made in it.

And what does he do?

He loosens its karbitin [

leather straps],

and it falls by itself.

And if we say that a dargash

is an arsa de-gada—

does it have karbitin [

leather straps]

at all?

After all, you said that a dargash is an ordinary bed, except that one does not sit on it because it is made for good fortune?

And it follows that we still do not know what a dargash is.

When Ravin came

when Ravin came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said:

I asked

what a dargash is

of one of the Sages, and his name was Rav Taḥlifa bar Ma'arava, who was frequently found in the market of tanners [

a market of shoemakers].

And he said to me: What is a dargash?—

An arsa de-tzeli!

A leather bed, whose bed surface is made not from ropes, but from leather straps.

And over this matter the Sages and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel differed in the beraita above: according to the Sages, since the edge of the bed is made of leather, one does not overturn the bed; whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that although one does not overturn the dargash, one loosens the leather straps that form the bed surface, so that it will not be possible to use it.

It was stated: Which is a bed and which is a dargash?

What is the difference between them?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

The difference is in the manner of tying and attaching the surface to the frame of the bed.

A bed: they weave [

tie]

it over its back

by winding the ropes that form the bed surface over the frame, so that ultimately the frame cannot be seen.

Whereas

a dargash: they weave it from its body.

There are holes in the frame, and the leather straps are inserted there, so that the frame of the dargash remains visible.

He raised an objection

against Rabbi Yirmeya from that which was taught in a beraita:

Wooden utensils—from when do they contract impurity?

For a utensil contracts impurity only after the completion of its manufacture; if so, what is the completion of the manufacture of

the bed and the cradle?

When they have been smoothed with fish skin,

when they complete the final smoothing that they used to perform with fish skin.

And if

we say that

a bed is woven over its back,

it should be difficult, for through such a manner of tying the frame of the bed cannot be seen at all; if so,

why do I need the smoothing with fish skin?

Rather,

Rabbi Yirmeya retracts his earlier statement and says:

Both this and that,

both a bed and a dargash, their tying is

from their body, by means of the

holes that are in the frame, and not over its back.

Rather, the difference is that

with a bed, insertion and removal are through loops,

they insert the ropes into the holes themselves.

Whereas with

a dargash, insertion and removal are through a loop.

They insert loops into the holes, and into the loops they insert the leather straps.

And the Gemara returns to add concerning overturning the beds in the house of the mourner:

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi: A bed

that cannot be overturned because

its naklitei,

that is, the legs of the bed do not extend only up to the bed surface but continue and

protrude

upward, and because of this it cannot be overturned,

he stands it upright

on its side,

and that is sufficient,

for he cannot overturn it.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

concerning the dispute above regarding a dargash in the house of the mourner, in which the Sages said that he stands it upright, while Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that he loosens its karbitin:

The halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel!

Mishna:

Like the preceding mishnayot, our Mishna too deals with explaining what is included in a person's words when he prohibits something to himself.

Here it is explained what is prohibited to a person who prohibited the city to himself, what is included in the city, and what is not.

One who vows

benefit

from the city.

The city is divided into three areas:

The city itself.

The extension of a city, which is seventy cubits and remnants that are given to the city around it, and only from there onward does one begin to measure the Shabbat boundary.

The boundary of a city, which is two thousand cubits left empty outside the city, in which it is forbidden to build.

And this person, who prohibited benefit from the city to himself, is prohibited only from the area of the city itself, because this is the principal meaning of the name “city,” and therefore this is what is included in his words.

But

it is permitted

for him

to enter the boundary of the city,

within the two thousand cubits surrounding the city, since the boundary of the city was not prohibited together with the city as part of the city.

And it is forbidden to enter its extension,

because the extension of the city is included in the city, and it too was prohibited as part of his words.

But

although we said that one who vows benefit from the city does not have the city’s boundary included in the city so as to be prohibited with it, regarding a house the law is not so.

Rather,

one who vows benefit from the house is forbidden from the “wing” inward.

For even the place where the door is closed is included in the house, and this place too is prohibited.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that one who vows benefit from the city is also forbidden in the extension of the city.

And it is proved that the extension of the city is also called “city.”

And the Gemara asks:

From where do we know that the extension of the city

the extension of the city,

is considered like the city

itself?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the verse says

concerning the siege that Joshua imposed on the city of Jericho before conquering it: “

And it came to pass when Joshua was in Jericho.” And it concludes.”

And seemingly it is difficult:

What

is the intention of the verse that Joshua was

in Jericho?

If you say

that the intention is

in

the city

of Jericho itself, but it is written, “And Jericho was shut up and barred,” and

it cannot be that Joshua was in the city itself.

Rather, derive from it,

that he was not in Jericho itself but

in its extension.

And nevertheless the verse said that Joshua was in Jericho. And it is proved that the extension of a city is like the city.

But the Gemara objects:

Perhaps,

let us say that Joshua was in the boundary of the city and not in its extension, and it too was considered as though he were in the city, and let us learn from this that

even in its boundary

of the city, it is like the city.

And the Gemara answers: This cannot be said.

For

it is written in

the Torah concerning measuring the

boundary

of a city, two thousand cubits around the city:

“And you shall measure—

outside the city.”

For the Torah called the boundary of the city “outside the city,” because the boundary of the city is not included within the city.

And therefore, if he vows benefit from the city, the city’s boundary is not prohibited to him.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who vows benefit from the house is forbidden only from the wing inward:

That is, the entire house, up to the place where the door is closed, is prohibited.

And the Gemara says: Only from the place where the door is closed and inward is he prohibited,

but from the wing outward, he is not.

Rav Mari raised an objection

from that which was taught in a beraita:

The Torah said concerning the affliction of houses that the koen must come and say, “The house is impure.”

And the beraita discusses where the koen must be standing when he declares the house impure:

It is written

“And the koen shall go out from the house.”

One might have thought that he should go

the koen

to his house,

his own house,

and

from there

declare confined

the impure house?

The verse says: “To the entrance of the house.”

It follows that the koen must remain near the impure house, and there declare it impure.

And since the verse said

“to the entrance of the house,” one might have thought that he should stand

the koen

under the lintel

of the impure house

and declare it confined

while standing there.

The verse says: “From the house”—

until he has gone out of the entire house!

And seemingly one can object: on the one hand, from this verse we learn that the koen should not distance himself from the impure house, and on the other hand, from that same verse we learn that he should not be in that house—

how is this so?

He stands beside the lintel, and declares it confined.

For

when the koen stands outside beside the lintel, he is not far from the house, and at the same time he is not inside the house.

And it is proved from the words of the beraita that the koen is forbidden to stand beneath the lintel itself, since this place is considered inside the house; even from the doorway outward, as long as it is beneath the lintel, it is part of the house.

If so, how did we say that one who vows benefit from the house is permitted to stand on the threshold of the house from the wing outward, when the entire threshold beneath the lintel is part of the house!

And later the Gemara will resolve this.

Meanwhile, the Gemara continues to bring the words of the beraita, further on:

And from where

do we know that although the koen may not distance himself from the impure house when declaring it impure, nevertheless,

if he went to his house and declared it confined

while he was in his house, the koen’s confinement of the afflicted house is effective?

Or if

he acted improperly and

stood beneath the lintel

on the thickness of the threshold beneath the lintel,

and declared it confined—is his confinement a valid confinement?

The verse says: “And he shall declare the house confined”—in any event,

meaning that after the fact it is effective even in these manners.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And now the Gemara comes to answer the difficulty from the beraita, from which it is proved that the entire area beneath the lintel, even the outer part, is considered like the house itself; so why did we say that one who vows benefit from the house is permitted on the threshold beneath the lintel outside the place where the doors are closed?

And the Gemara answers:

It is different with regard to

the law of the affliction of a

house, for it is written

there

“from the house,” which

gives us a special indication from the verse that

until he has gone out of the entire house,

including beneath the entire lintel, only then can the koen declare the house impure.

But certainly in general, such as regarding one who prohibits the house to himself, the threshold beneath the lintel and outward is not considered inside the house.

The Mishna before us was brought above in the Gemara, page 47a. There Rami bar Ḥama was uncertain about its interpretation. Here the Mishna will be explained according to the first side of Rami bar Ḥama’s uncertainty, and according to the interpretation of the Ran.