Nedarim 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to

Abaye Rav Yosef:

If so, since we decree “today” because of “one day”—

let us also decree

the reverse,

as well:

with regard to

one who prohibited himself

“one day,”

that he should not become permitted in the middle of the following day, a decree

because of

one who said

“today,”

who does not become permitted in the middle of the day but is prohibited until nightfall; and let us be concerned lest he come to permit it even when he said “today,” before nightfall!?

Rav Yosef said

to Abaye:

“Today”

and “

one day”

are liable to be confused.

If we permit him in the case of “today” at nightfall, there is concern that he will confuse the expressions and permit himself likewise in the case of “one day,” mistakenly reasoning that just as “today” means “that day,” so “one day” means “that day.”

But

“one day”

and “

today”

are not liable to be confused.

If we permit him in the case of “one day” before nightfall, after he has already observed a “day” of prohibition, there is no concern that he will confuse the expressions and permit himself immediately in the case of “today,” without having observed any “day” of prohibition.

Ravina said: Marimar said to me: “So said your father”

[this is what your father said]

in the name of Rav Yosef:

Consistent with whom is this teaching of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba,

according to whose words did Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba say that one who says “today” must undergo questioning by a sage in order to permit it at nightfall?

With Rabbi Natan,

who says that it is improper to vow at all.

That is, the reason they required him to undergo questioning is not only because of the decree, for that alone would not suffice to obligate him to undergo questioning, since it is not common for someone to err on account of this. Rather, the Sages penalized him because he vowed, as it is improper to do so; but they imposed the penalty only where this decree also applies.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says: Everyone who vows— it is as though he built a high place

during the time when high places were prohibited.

And one who upholds it,

who does not undergo questioning concerning it,

—

it is as though he offered incense upon it.

“This Shabbat” is forbidden throughout the entire Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna: “

This Shabbat”

is prohibited throughout the entire Shabbat.

And Shabbat, retrospectively.

And we challenge this: Is it not

obvious

that he is prohibited even on Shabbat, since it is included in the preceding week and included in his statement, “This Shabbat”!?

And we answer: Our Mishna needed to teach us that he is prohibited even on Shabbat, because

one might have thought

[I would have said]: He did not intend to prohibit Shabbat itself, but rather

the days of Shabbat

[the weekdays]

he said,

since the weekdays are called “the days of Shabbat”; and one might have said that he intended “the days of Shabbat,” and not Shabbat itself.

Therefore,

it teaches us

our Mishna that he is prohibited even on Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna: “

This month”

is prohibited throughout the entire month, and the beginning of the following month is in the future:

And we challenge this:

Is it not obvious

that he is not prohibited on the beginning of the month following it, since it does not belong to the month during which he vowed!?

And we answer:

Our Mishna was needed

to teach us that he is not prohibited on the beginning of the month following it

when the month is deficient.

That is, when the following month is a deficient month of twenty-nine days, and therefore its beginning of the month lasts two days.

For the month preceding a deficient month is a full month of thirty days. Consequently, the two days of the beginning of the deficient month are the thirtieth day of the full month that has ended and the first day of the deficient month that is now beginning.

This is the pattern in most months, one being full and one deficient —

one might have thought

[perhaps you would say]: The first day of the following

beginning of the month,

which is the thirtieth day of this month,

is retrospective, and he should be prohibited on it

[it should belong to the previous month], since it belongs to this month, and the following month begins only on the second day of the beginning of the month—

It teaches us

that it belongs to the following month, because

people call

it

“the beginning of the month”

[in ordinary speech, it is called the beginning of the following month].

We learned in the Mishna:

“This year is prohibited throughout the entire year”:

They raised a dilemma:

If

he

said: “Konam: wine that I taste

a day,”

what is its law

[what is its status]?

Is it

like

one who said

“today,”

and he is prohibited only until nightfall,

or like “

one day,”

and he is prohibited for a full twenty-four hours?

Come and hear a proof from the Mishna:

“Konam: wine that I taste

‘today’

is not prohibited except until nightfall,”

and it implies:

but

if he said

“a day,”

its law is not so, but

like

one who said

“one day,”

it is considered.

And we reject this: On the contrary,

say the latter clause: “If he said”

“one day,”

he is prohibited from day to day,”

and it implies:

but

if he said

“a day,”

its law is not so, but

like

one who said

“today,”

it is considered.

it is considered.

Rather, nothing can be inferred from this,

because we do not know which clause is intended precisely—whether the first clause or the last.

Rav Ashi said: Ta shma

from the Mishna below, on 63a, which establishes that the law governing one who says “a year” is the same as that governing one who says “this year”: “

from the Mishna below, 63a, that the law of one who says “a year” is like the law of one who says “this year”: "

A vow: wine that I taste this year”

and

the year was intercalated,

he is

prohibited during it and its intercalation

until the year ends.

But

how is this

—in what manner does our Mishna speak?