## Nedarim Daf 7a

###### Nedarim 7a:1
[Nedarim 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:1)

״מֵעִמָּךְ״, זֶה לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse states with regard to offerings: “When you shall take a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you” (Deuteronomy 23:22). With regard to the term **“of you”** the *baraita* states: **This is** a reference to **gleanings, forgotten** sheaves, **and *pe’a*.**


###### Nedarim 7a:2
[Nedarim 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:2)

יֵשׁ יָד לִצְדָקָה, אוֹ אֵין יָד לִצְדָקָה? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר: ״הָדֵין זוּזָא לִצְדָקָה, וְהָדֵין נָמֵי״ — הָהוּא צְדָקָה עַצְמָהּ הִיא! אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״הָדֵין״ וְלָא אָמַר ״נָמֵי״, מַאי? ״הָדֵין נָמֵי צְדָקָה״ קָאָמַר, אוֹ דִּלְמָא [מַאי] ״וְהָדֵין״ (נָמֵי) — לְנַפְקוּתָא בְּעָלְמָא קָאָמַר, וְדִבּוּרָא הוּא דְּלָא אַסְּקֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **Is there intimation for charity or is there no intimation for charity?** The Gemara clarifies the question: **What are the circumstances** of such a case? **If we say that** it is a case where **one said: This dinar is for charity and this also, that itself is** an explicit statement of donating to **charity. Rather,** it is a case **where he said: This, and did not say: Also. What** is his intention? Is he understood to be **saying: This is also charity, or perhaps what is the meaning of: And this?** He is **saying** that this coin is **merely for general use, and he did not complete his statement.**


###### Nedarim 7a:3
[Nedarim 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:3)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְקׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּפִיךְ״ — זוֹ צְדָקָה. מָה קׇרְבָּנוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֶן יָד, אַף צְדָקָה יֵשׁ לָהּ יָד. אוֹ דִלְמָא לְ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״ הוּא דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: **Do we say** that **since** charity is **juxtaposed to offerings, as it is written** in a verse following the prohibition against delaying an offering: “That you have spoken **with your mouth”** (Deuteronomy 23:24) and the Sages expounded that **this is** a reference to **charity,** therefore, **just as there is intimation,** i.e., intimation is effective, **with regard to offerings, so too, there is intimation with regard to charity? Or perhaps** it is only with regard to the prohibition: **You shall not delay, that it is juxtaposed,** but not with regard to other *halakhot*?


###### Nedarim 7a:4
[Nedarim 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:4)

יֵשׁ יָד לְהֶפְקֵר, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֵין יָד לְהֶפְקֵר? הַיְינוּ צְדָקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **Is there intimation for** rendering one’s property **ownerless, or perhaps there is no intimation for** rendering one’s property **ownerless.** Does an incomplete expression employed by an owner to relinquish property take effect or not? The Gemara notes: **This is** the same as the previous question with regard to **charity,** which is comparable to rendering one’s property ownerless for the benefit of the poor.


###### Nedarim 7a:5
[Nedarim 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:5)

אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר קָאָמַר. אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר יֵשׁ יָד לִצְדָקָה, דְּאֵין הֶיקֵּשׁ לְמֶחֱצָה. הֶפְקֵר מִי אָמְרִינַן הַיְינוּ צְדָקָה, אוֹ דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי צְדָקָה, דִּצְדָקָה לָא חַזְיָא אֶלָּא לַעֲנִיִּים, אֲבָל הֶפְקֵר בֵּין לַעֲנִיִּים בֵּין לַעֲשִׁירִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This question is **stated** in the style of: **If you say,** as follows: **If you say there is intimation for charity, as there is no partial** analogy based on **juxtaposition, do we say** that rendering one’s property **ownerless is** the same as **charity; or perhaps charity is different, as charity is suitable only for the poor, but ownerless property** is suitable for **both the poor and the wealthy,** and therefore it cannot be derived from the *halakha* with regard to charity.


###### Nedarim 7a:6
[Nedarim 7a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:6)

בָּעֵי רָבִינָא: יֵשׁ יָד לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, אוֹ לָא? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵימָא דַּאֲמַר ״הָדֵין בֵּיתָא לֶיהֱוֵי בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא, וְהָדֵין נָמֵי״, הַהוּא בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא נָמֵי הָוֵה! אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״וְהָדֵין״ וְלָא אָמַר ״נָמֵי״. מַאי ״הָדֵין״ דְּאָמַר — ״וְהָדֵין נָמֵי בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא״, אוֹ דִלְמָא מַאי ״וְהָדֵין״ — לְתַשְׁמִישָׁא בְּעָלְמָא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina raised** another **dilemma: Is there intimation for** designating a location as **a bathroom or not?** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of the case? **If we say that** it is a case where **one said: Let this structure be a bathroom and this** one **also, that** second structure **is** certainly **also a bathroom. Rather,** it is a case **where he said: And this, and he did not say: Also. What** is his intention? Is the expression: **And this, that he said,** understood to mean: **And this** shall **also be a bathroom? Or perhaps what** is the meaning of: **And this? He is saying** that it is designated **for general use** rather than as a bathroom.


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

מִכְּלָל דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרָבִינָא דְּיֵשׁ זִימּוּן לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא? וְהָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָבִינָא: הִזְמִינוֹ לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא מַהוּ? הִזְמִינוֹ לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ מַהוּ? זִימּוּן מוֹעִיל, אוֹ אֵין זִימּוּן מוֹעִיל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Can it be derived **by inference that it is obvious to Ravina that there is designation for a bathroom,** i.e., that if one explicitly designates a location as a bathroom, it attains that status even before it is used for that purpose, so that one may not bring sacred items to that location? **Didn’t Ravina raise this as a dilemma?** He asked: If one **designated** a particular location **as a bathroom, what is** the *halakha*? If one **designated it as a bathhouse, what is** the *halakha*? In other words, **is designation effective** to grant the location a particular status, **or is designation not effective?**


###### Nedarim 7a:8
[Nedarim 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:8)

רָבִינָא חֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: זִימּוּן מוֹעִיל אוֹ אֵין זִימּוּן מוֹעִיל. אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר יֵשׁ זִימּוּן: יֵשׁ יָד אוֹ אֵין יָד תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Ravina raised one dilemma within another** dilemma: **Is designation effective or is designation not effective?** And **if you say there is designation,** i.e., designation is effective, **is there intimation or is there not intimation,** i.e., is designation via intimation effective? The Gemara concludes: **The dilemma remains** unresolved.


###### Nedarim 7a:9
[Nedarim 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:9)

מְנוּדֶּה אֲנִי לָךְ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. דְּאִם כֵּן, נִיתְנֵי ״רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַחְמִיר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that if one said: **I am ostracized from you,** Rabbi Akiva was uncertain about the *halakha* but was inclined to rule stringently about this. **Abaye said: Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to flogging that one is not flogged** if he violates a vow that was expressed in this way. **As, if so,** if Rabbi Akiva held that one is liable to be flogged, **let** the mishna **teach: Rabbi Akiva is stringent.** The fact that it states: Rabbi Akiva was uncertain but was inclined to rule stringently, indicates that although Rabbi Akiva holds that one may not violate this vow, he concedes that one is not liable to be flogged if he does violate the vow.


###### Nedarim 7a:10
[Nedarim 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/7a:10)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בִּ״נְדִינָא מִינָּךְ״ — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר. ״מְשַׁמַּתְנָא מִינָּךְ״ — לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא שְׁרֵי. בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: With** regard to a vow that one expressed with the phrase: **I am distanced [*nadeina*] from you, everyone agrees that he is prohibited** from deriving benefit from the other individual, as this is an intimation of a vow. If he employs the expression: **I am excommunicated [*meshamattena*] from you everyone agrees** that he is **permitted** to derive benefit from the other person, even though he meant to distance himself from the other individual, because this is not the terminology of a vow. **With regard to what do they disagree?**