## Nedarim Daf 15a

###### Nedarim 15a:1
[Nedarim 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:1)

כִּי לָא מִזְדְּהַיר — בִּתְנָאָה, אֲבָל בְּאִיסּוּרָא — מִזְדְּהַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Sleeping today is not prohibited for him. Rather, it causes sleeping to be prohibited for him tomorrow, because **when** one **is not careful,** it is only **with regard to a condition.** In the former case, sleeping on the second day merely fulfills the condition on which the prohibition was based, causing it to take effect retroactively. Therefore, there is concern that he will not be careful and retroactively cause a violation. **However,** one **is careful with regard to a prohibition.** In the latter case, sleeping on the second day is directly prohibited. Therefore, there is no concern that he will violate the prohibition.


###### Nedarim 15a:2
[Nedarim 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:2)

תְּנַן: קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי יָשֵׁן, שֶׁאֲנִי מְהַלֵּךְ, שֶׁאֲנִי מְדַבֵּר וְכוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, ״שֶׁאֲנִי יָשֵׁן״ מִי הָוֵי נִדְרָא? וְהָתְנַן: חוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת, שֶׁהַשְּׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ וְעַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּנְּדָרִים. וְשֵׁינָה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ הוּא! אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר: ״קֻוֽנָּם עֵינַי בְּשֵׁינָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rav Yehuda: **We learned** in the mishna that one who says: **Sleeping is *konam* for me,** or: **Walking is** *konam* **for me,** or: **Speaking is** *konam* **for me,** may not violate his vow. **What are the circumstances? If we say** that the wording of the vow is precisely **as** the mishna **teaches, is** the vow: **Sleeping is** *konam* **for me,** a valid **vow? But didn’t we learn** in a *baraita*: There is **stringency with regard to oaths** vis-à-vis vows, in **that oaths apply to something that has actual** substance **and to something that does not have actual** substance, **which is not the case with regard to vows. And sleep is something that does not have actual** substance, so how can a vow apply to sleep? **Rather,** the mishna must be referring to a case **where he said: Sleeping is *konam* for my eyes.**


###### Nedarim 15a:3
[Nedarim 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:3)

וְאִי דְּלָא יָהֵיב שִׁיעוּרָא, מִי שָׁבְקִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דְּעָבַר אִיסּוּר ״בַּל יַחֵל״? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אִישַׁן שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים״ — מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְיָשֵׁן לְאַלְתַּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this interpretation: **And if he did not give a measurement** to the prohibition created by the vow, but rather prohibited himself from sleeping for an unlimited period of time, **do we let him** be **until he** inevitably **transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane,** by falling asleep? **But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that if one says: I hereby take **an oath that I will not sleep for three days,** the court **flogs him** for taking an oath in vain, **and he may sleep immediately,** as he is incapable of fulfilling his oath? Here too, if the prohibition has no time frame, the vow should not take effect.


###### Nedarim 15a:4
[Nedarim 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:4)

אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר ״קֻוֽנָּם עֵינַי בְּשֵׁינָה לְמָחָר אִם אִישַׁן הַיּוֹם״. הָא אָמְרַתְּ כׇּל בְּאִסּוּרֵיהּ, מִזְדְּהַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna must be referring to a case **where** one **said: Sleeping is *konam* to my eyes tomorrow if I sleep today.** The mishna rules that he may not sleep today, lest he transgress the prohibition of: He shall not profane, by sleeping tomorrow. However, **didn’t you say** that with regard to this vow it is agreed that he may sleep today, as one **is careful with regard to any** direct **prohibition** and will not violate the vow tomorrow? If so, why is it prohibited for him to sleep today?


###### Nedarim 15a:5
[Nedarim 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:5)

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאָמַר ״קֻוֽנָּם עֵינַי בְּשֵׁינָה הַיּוֹם אִם אִישַׁן לְמָחָר״. וְאִי לָא נָיֵים הַיּוֹם, כִּי נָיֵים לְמָחָר מַאי ״בַּל יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״ אִיכָּא? אֶלָּא לָאו בִּדְנָיֵים. אַלְמָא אִיתֵיהּ דְּנָיֵים. וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְרַב יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it **is obvious** that the mishna is referring to a case **where** one **said: Sleeping is *konam* to my eyes today if I sleep tomorrow.** The Gemara asks: **And if he does not sleep today, when he sleeps tomorrow, what** transgression of: **He shall not profane his word, is there? Rather, is it not with regard to** a case **where he slept** on the first day, and therefore the mishna warns him not to sleep on the second day lest he transgress the prohibition retroactively? **Apparently, there is** a situation **in which he sleeps** on the first day. **And** this is **a refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Yehuda** that he may not sleep today lest he sleep tomorrow as well, thereby violating the prohibition.


###### Nedarim 15a:6
[Nedarim 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:6)

כִּי קָתָנֵי, דְּאִי נָיֵים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When** the mishna **teaches** that he may not sleep tomorrow, it does not mean that today he may sleep *ab initio*. Rather, it means **that if he did sleep** today he must be careful not to sleep tomorrow.


###### Nedarim 15a:7
[Nedarim 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:7)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי וּמַאי ״בַּל יַחֵל״ — מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said** a different answer: **Actually,** the mishna may be interpreted **as it teaches,** i.e., sleeping is *konam* for me. The vow does not take effect, as sleep does not have actual substance. **And** if so, **what** is the reason the mishna states that if he sleeps he is in violation of the prohibition: **He shall not profane?** He transgresses the prohibition **by rabbinic law.** Although the vow does not take effect by Torah law, the Sages prohibited him from breaking his word.


###### Nedarim 15a:8
[Nedarim 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:8)

וּמִי אִיכָּא ״בַּל יַחֵל״ מִדְּרַבָּנַן? אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: דְּבָרִים הַמּוּתָּרִין וַאֲחֵרִים נָהֲגוּ בָּהֶן אִיסּוּר — אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְהַתִּירָן בִּפְנֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is there a** prohibition of: **He shall not profane, by rabbinic law?** The Gemara answers: **Yes, and it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **matters that are permitted, but others are accustomed to observe a prohibition with regard to them, you may not permit** these matters **before** those people, **as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word”** (Numbers 30:3). If they contravene their custom they are in violation of the prohibition: He shall not profane his word, by rabbinic law, as that is similar to violating a vow.


###### Nedarim 15a:9
[Nedarim 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:9)

תְּנַן: ״שֶׁאַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד הַפֶּסַח אִם תֵּלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ עַד הֶחָג״, הָלְכָה לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ עַד הַפֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts again to raise a difficulty with regard to Rav Yehuda’s opinion. **We learned** in a mishna (57a) that if a man said to his wife: **Deriving benefit from me until Passover** is *konam* **for you if you go to your father’s house until the** following **festival** of *Sukkot*, then, if **she went** to her father’s house **before Passover, she is prohibited from deriving benefit from him until Passover,** as she violated the condition, thereby enabling the vow to take effect.


###### Nedarim 15a:10
[Nedarim 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:10)

הָלְכָה לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — אֲסוּרָה, לֹא הָלְכָה — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: Only if **she went before Passover** is it **prohibited for her** to derive benefit from him. However, if **she did not go,** she is **not** prohibited from deriving benefit from him. Apparently, even though she can transgress the condition retroactively until *Sukkot* by going to her father’s house, there is no concern that she will do so. This is difficult according to Rav Yehuda, who prohibits transgression of a conditional vow that may take effect retroactively.


###### Nedarim 15a:11
[Nedarim 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָלְכָה לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — אֲסוּרָה, וְלוֹקָה. לֹא הָלְכָה — אֲסוּרָה בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said** that the *baraita* can be interpreted as follows: If **she went before Passover, she** is **prohibited from** deriving benefit from him, **and** if she does so **she is flogged.** If **she did not go** before Passover, it is **merely prohibited for her** to derive benefit from him, lest she violate the condition and cause the vow to take effect retroactively. However, she is not liable to be flogged for it, as the vow has not yet taken effect.


###### Nedarim 15a:12
[Nedarim 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15a:12)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אַחַר הַפֶּסַח בְּ״בַל יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״. וְאִי דְּלָא אִיתְהֲנִי לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח, מִי אִיכָּא ״בַּל יַחֵל״? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאִיתְהֲנִי. אַלְמָא מִיתְהֲנֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **Say the latter clause** of that mishna, which states that if she goes to her father’s house **after Passover** she is **in** violation of: **He shall not profane his word. And if** the mishna is referring to a case **where she did not derive benefit** from him **before Passover, is there** a transgression of: **He shall not profane?** Clearly the vow was not violated. **Rather,** it **is obvious that she derived benefit** from him before Passover, and therefore if she goes to her father’s house between Passover and *Sukkot* she violates the vow retroactively. **Apparently, she may derive benefit** from him, even though she can subsequently violate the vow by transgressing the condition.