daf bit: Nedarim 6

[cellio]

This week the daf yomi moves on to tractate Nedarim (vows -- you know this word from "kol nidrei", "all vows", part of the Yom Kippur liturgy).

The wording of vows is very important; the gemara has a long discussion of whether a person can be held to a vow (such as "this is a sin-offering for me") if he does not explicitly say "for me". Without those words he could be making a statement about someone else's sin-offering, after all; with them he is making a pledge, according to the rabbis. The gemara gives divorce as an exception to this rule, since "no man divorces his neighbor's wife" -- the get (divorce document) is obviously "from me" even if that is not stated. (6a)

Comments

[sethg]

IIRC the late Rabbi Blumenkrantz used to say that when you're preparing some meat for the Passover seder that could in theory be offered in the Temple (e.g., roast lamb), you need to be very careful not to say "this is for Pesach", lest you accidentally dedicate the food for the Temple (and therefore make it too holy to eat as a regular meal). Instead, you have to say something like "this is for the holiday".

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

That isn't just Blumenkrantz, that is actually in Shulchan Aruch. I was shocked when I saw it too.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Is that part of the reason for the minhag of many people not to eat lamb for the seder?

[cellio]

Wow, I didn't know that. This still seems dangerously-subtle, though; it might be better to eliminate "this is for" entirely, in favor of something like "we'll eat this at the seder" (or even "on Pesach" should be safe that way).

Lost in all of this, so far at least, is intent. For a pledge to a person words and appearance might dictate (if it looks like a pledge it's a pledge), but for God, who knows your intentions, too? I guess it builds discipline, and avoids opening the "you know what I meant" door to sloppiness.