Nedarim 60b — the Talmud in English

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

—

let us also decree

in the opposite direction,

with

one who forbade upon himself

“one day,”

so that he should not be released in the middle of the following day, a decree

because of

one who said

“today,”

who is not released in the middle of the day but is forbidden until it grows dark; and let us be concerned lest he come to permit it also when he said “today,” before it grows dark!?

“today,”

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye: “ Today”

is confused with “

one day.”

If we permit “today” when it grows dark, there is concern for exchange and error, that he will likewise permit “one day,” mistakenly saying: just as “today” means “that day,” so “one day” means “that day.”

But

“one day”

is not confused with “

today.”

If we permit “one day” before it grows dark, after he has already observed a “day” of prohibition, there is no concern for exchange and error, to permit “today” immediately, without his having observed any “day” of prohibition.

in

Ravina said, Marimar said to me: This is what your father said

(thus said your father)

in the name of Rav Yosef:

According to whom does this statement of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba proceed, according to whose words did Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba say that one who says “today” must seek a sage’s ruling in order to permit it when it grows dark?

[this is what your father said]

According to Rabbi Natan,

who says that it is not proper to vow at all.

That is, the reason they required him to seek a ruling is not only because of the decree, for that is insufficient to obligate him to seek a ruling, since it is not common that people will err because of this. Rather, the Sages penalized him because he vowed, for it is not proper to do so; and they penalized him only where this decree is also joined.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says: Everyone who vows— as though he built a private altar during the time when private altars were forbidden. And one who maintains it,

who says that one should not make a vow at all.

That is, the reason they required him to ask is not only the decree, since the decree alone is insufficient to require him to ask: it is not common for a person to make this mistake because of it. Rather, the Sages penalized him for making a vow, because it is improper to do so. They imposed this penalty only where this decree also applies.

who does not seek a ruling concerning it, is

as though he offered an offering upon it.

during the period when private altars were forbidden.

And one who upholds it,

meaning that he does not ask about it and have it annulled,

We learned in the Mishna:

“This Shabbat” is forbidden throughout the entire Shabbat.

And Shabbat, in the past.

“This Shabbat”—

And we challenge: Is it not

obvious

that he is forbidden even on Shabbat, since it is included in the week preceding it and included in his statement, “this Shabbat”!? And we answer: This was needed for our Mishna to inform us that he is forbidden even on Shabbat, because

Is it not obvious

that he is forbidden even on Shabbat, since it is part of the preceding week and is included in his statement, “this Shabbat”!?

it might have entered your mind

([A0217]I would have said): He did not intend to forbid even Shabbat, but

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

the days of Shabbat

(the days of the week)

he said,

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

Therefore,

it informs us

our Mishna that he is forbidden even on Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

“This month”

is forbidden throughout the entire month, and the beginning of the month is for the future:

And we challenge:

Obvious,

that he is not forbidden on the beginning of the month of the coming month, since it does not belong to the month in which he vowed!?

And we answer:

When was it needed

for our Mishna to inform us that he is not forbidden on the beginning of the month of the coming month?

In a deficient month.

That is, the coming month is a “deficient” month, of twenty-nine days, and therefore its beginning of the month is two days.

For the month preceding a deficient month is a full month, of thirty days. It follows that the two days of the beginning of the month of a deficient month are: the thirtieth day of the completed full month, and the first day of the deficient month now beginning.

And this is the way with most months, that one is full and one is deficient —

it might have entered your mind

([A0240]perhaps you would say): The first day of the

belongs to the past and should be forbidden

beginning of the month

that is coming, which is the thirtieth day of this month,

is considered in the past, and let it be forbidden

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

It informs us

that it belongs to the coming month, because

people call

it

“the beginning of the month”

[in the language of people, it is called the beginning of the coming month].

We learned in the Mishna:

“This year is forbidden throughout the entire year.”

They raised a question before them:

If

he said: “Konam, wine that I taste”

“a day,”

what is its law

([A0261]what is its law)?

Is it

Is it

like

one who said

“today,”

and he is forbidden only until it grows dark,

or like

“

one day,” and he is forbidden for a complete twenty-four hours?

“An offering: I shall not taste wine”

Come and hear from the Mishna:

“Konam, wine that I taste

“today”

is not forbidden except until it grows dark,

and it implies:

this

if he said

“a day,”

its law is not so, but

like

one who said

“one day,”

it is considered.

And we reject: On the contrary,

say the latter clause: “If he said

‘one day,’ he is forbidden from day to day,”

and it implies:

this

if he said

“a day,”

its law is not so, but

like

one who said

“today,”

it is considered.

Rather, nothing can be inferred from this,

Rather, nothing can be inferred from this, for we do not know which clause is meant precisely, whether the first clause or the last clause.

Rav Ashi said: let us consider a proof

Rav Ashi said: ta shma

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

“Konam, wine that I taste, this year"

and

and the year was intercalated,

he is

he is forbidden regarding it and its intercalation

until the year ends.

until the year ends. But behold,

what exactly is the case,

what are the circumstances, in what manner does our Mishna speak?