Nedarim 61

Sugya Map

This sugya in Nedarim 61a navigates several intricate hilchot nedarim related to temporal specifications, particularly the interpretation of "until" and the duration of unspecified time periods.

• Issue 1: The Semantics of Temporal Vows ("שנה" vs. "השנה", "יום" vs. "היום")

  • Core Question: Does a vow stating "שנה" (a year) refer to a fixed twelve-month period, or does it align with "השנה" (this year), meaning the current calendar year up to Rosh Hashana, including an intercalated (עיבור) month if applicable? Conversely, does "יום" (a day) mean twenty-four hours (me'et le'et), or "היום" (today), meaning until nightfall?
  • Nafka Mina(s): Whether an intercalated month extends the vow's duration for "שנה," and the precise expiration of a "יום" vow.
  • Primary Sources: Nedarim 61a (initial Gemara discussion), Mishna Nedarim 61a.

• Issue 2: The Jubilee Year's (יובל) Calendrical Status

  • Core Question: Is the 50th year (Yovel) counted as part of the preceding 49-year cycle, or does it also initiate the subsequent 7-year Shemitta cycle?
  • Nafka Mina(s): If one vows "wine for a Jubilee," is the 50th year included? More broadly, agricultural prohibitions (sowing, reaping) in the 50th year and its impact on the cheshbon for the next Shemitta cycle.
  • Primary Sources: Nedarim 61a (dilemma: "קונם יין שאיני טועם יובל מהו"), Vayikra 25:3, 25:10, 25:21.

• Issue 3: Defining "Until" (עד) in Vows and Fixed vs. Unfixed Times

  • Core Question: How do we interpret "עד הפסח" (until Passover) versus "עד שיגיע הפסח" (until Passover arrives) versus "עד שיהא הפסח" (until Passover will be)? Does "until" include or exclude the specified time/event, and does this change for fixed versus unfixed times?
  • Nafka Mina(s): The precise moment a vow expires relative to a holiday or harvest season; resolving apparent contradictions between Tannaitic opinions.
  • Primary Sources: Nedarim 61a (Mishna regarding "עד הפסח", "עד הקציר", "עד הקיץ"), Kiddushin 64b (contradictory Mishna re: R. Meir and R. Yosei).

Text Snapshot

The sugya opens with a sharp inquiry into the Mishna's phrasing:

אילימא כדקתני למה לי למימרא? [Nedarim 61a] If we say that it is exactly as it teaches, why do I need to state this halakha? This introduces the Gemara's initial attempt to distinguish between "שנה" and "השנה." The Mishna states a vow "השנה" lasts until Rosh Hashana. The Gemara asks: Isn't this obvious? Therefore, perhaps the Mishna is teaching us that even "שנה" (a year, unspecified) is like "השנה" (this year, calendar year).

The Gemara refutes this, providing the Mishna's true chiddush:

לא לעולם דאמר השנה, ומהו דתימא אזלינן בתר רוב שנים דלית בהו עיבור, קא משמע לן. [Nedarim 61a] No, actually, he said "this year," and lest you say: Follow the majority of years, which do not have an intercalated month, the Tanna teaches us [that it lasts until the end of the year, including an intercalated month]. The nuance here is that "השנה" (this year) refers to the specific calendar year, complete with its intercalated months, contrary to a potential assumption that it would refer to a mere 12-month period based on the majority of years. The dikduk of "השנה" (the definite article "ה") emphasizes the specific, current calendar year.

Later, a critical dilemma concerning Yovel is raised:

בעו מיניה: קונם יין שאיני טועם יובל מהו? שנת החמישים כשקודם חמישים, או כשלאחר חמישים? [Nedarim 61a] A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one said: Any wine that I taste for a Jubilee is hereby forbidden to me, what is the halakha? Is the fiftieth year considered as before fifty, or is it considered as after fifty? The question probes the halachic identity of the 50th year: is it an extension of the previous cycle or the inauguration of the next? This is further explored through a baraita citing a machloket between Rabban and R. Yehuda: מכאן אמרו: יובל אינו עולה למניין שבוע. רבי יהודה אומר: יובל עולה למניין שבוע. [Nedarim 61a] From here they stated: The Jubilee Year is not included in the counting of the seven-year cycle of the Sabbatical Year. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Jubilee Year is included in the counting of the following seven-year cycle of the Sabbatical Year. The Rabbis hold that Yovel is a standalone year, distinct from the next Shemitta count, while R. Yehuda views it as the first year of the subsequent Shemitta cycle.

Finally, the sugya tackles the "עד" nuance, leading to a major re-evaluation of Tannaitic attributions:

אמר רב חנינא בר אבדימי אמר רב: הפכו את המדות. [Nedarim 61a] Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avdimi said that Rav said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed. This radical statement reconciles a contradiction between the Mishna in Nedarim and a Mishna in Kiddushin regarding R. Meir and R. Yosei's interpretations of temporal vows.

Readings

Ran (Nedarim 61a) on "שנה" vs. "השנה"

The Ran offers a meticulous unpacking of the Gemara's initial kushya regarding "שנה" (a year) versus "השנה" (this year). The Mishna states that if one vows "השנה" (this year), it is forbidden until Rosh Hashana. The Gemara's initial query, "אילימא כדקתני למה לי למימרא?" (Nedarim 61a), questions the chiddush. The Ran clarifies that the obvious understanding of "השנה" is indeed the entire calendar year until Rosh Hashana, including any עיבור. Therefore, the Gemara's initial line is trying to propose that the Mishna must be teaching something less obvious.

The Gemara initially suggests that the Mishna is equating "שנה" with "השנה." The Ran explains this hypothetical:

ושמע מינה שנה כהשנה - דאי דיניה כשנה אחת לא מתסר בעבורה אלא בשנים עשר חדש כרוב שנים. [Ran on Nedarim 61a s.v. ושמע מינה שנה כהשנה] And from here infer that "a year" is like "this year" - for if its law were like one year, he would not be forbidden for its intercalated month, but only for twelve months, like most years. Here, the Ran elucidates the proposed distinction: if "שנה" meant a fixed 12-month period, it would not include an intercalated month. "השנה," however, would by definition include it as it refers to the calendar year. The Gemara's initial thought, then, is that the Mishna teaches that even "שנה" follows the calendar year, extending to Rosh Hashana, including עיבור.

However, the Gemara refutes this. The Ran then explains the Gemara's final conclusion:

מהו דתימא הלך אחר רוב שנים - דלית בהן עבור ונימא דאע"ג דאמר השנה לא ליתסר אלא כרוב שנים קמ"ל: ולענין הלכה כיון דבעיין לא אפשיטא נקטינן לחומרא דיום כיום אחד דמי ואסור מעת לעת. [Ran on Nedarim 61a s.v. מהו דתימא הלך אחר רוב שנים] Lest you say: Follow the majority of years, which do not have an intercalated month, and we might say that even though he said "this year," he should not be forbidden for more than the majority of years [i.e., 12 months], it comes to teach us [that it includes the intercalated month]. And regarding the halakha, since the dilemma [regarding "יום" vs. "היום"] was not resolved, we adopt the stringent approach, that "a day" is like "one day" and is forbidden for twenty-four hours. The Ran highlights the chiddush: even if one says "השנה," one might mistakenly believe it only means 12 months, following the majority of non-leap years. The Mishna, therefore, teaches that "השנה" always means the entire calendar year, including עיבור. Crucially, the Ran then gives a practical psak for the parallel "יום" vs. "היום" dilemma, which the Gemara left unresolved: we rule לחומרא that "יום" (a day) means a full 24-hour period (me'et le'et).

Rashash (Nedarim 61a) on Ran's Consistency

The Rashash zeroes in on a potential inconsistency within the Ran's commentary regarding the interpretation of "שנה" (a year) versus "השנה" (this year) and the inclusion of עיבור. He quotes the Ran's statement above ("דאי דיניה כשנה אחת לא מתסר בעבורה אלא בשנים עשר חדש") which implies "שנה אחת" (one year) means a fixed 12 months, excluding עיבור.

ר"ן ד"ה וש"מ שנה. דאי דיניה כשנה אחת לא מיתסר בעבורה. לכאורה סותר א"ע למש"כ לקמן (סג) בסוף המשנה ואני חוכך עוד לומר דאפי' בנודר שנה אחת סתם אסור בעבורה. וכבר הרגיש עליו הש"ך בסי' ר"כ סקט"ו ומיישב דהכא מיירי בעומד בר"ה ושם בעומד באמצעה וע"ש טעם החילוק. אבל קשה דא"כ איכא למימר דלעולם דיניה כשנה אחת ומיירי בעומד באמצע השנה. וי"ל: [Rashash on Nedarim 61a s.v. ר"ן ד"ה וש"מ שנה] Ran s.v. "And from here infer a year." For if its law were like one year, he would not be forbidden for its intercalated month. Seemingly, he contradicts himself with what he wrote later (63a) at the end of the Mishna, and I am inclined to say further that even if one vows "one year" unqualifiedly, it is forbidden for its intercalated month. And the Shach already took note of this in Siman 220, section 15, and he resolves it by saying that here it deals with one who stands at Rosh Hashana, and there with one who stands in the middle [of the year], and see there the reason for the distinction. But it is difficult, for if so, one could say that its law is always like one year and it deals with one who stands in the middle of the year. And it can be said: The Rashash identifies a kushya: the Ran on Nedarim 63a seems to imply that even "שנה אחת" does include עיבור. The Rashash himself leans towards "שנה אחת" always including עיבור, thus challenging the Ran's initial distinction on 61a. He then cites the Shach (YD 220:15) who attempts to resolve the Ran's apparent contradiction by differentiating the context: if the vow of "שנה אחת" is made at Rosh Hashana, it refers to the calendar year (including עיבור); if made mid-year, it refers to 12 months. The Rashash, however, finds even this terutz problematic, leaving the matter open for further iyun. His chiddush lies in pushing for a more consistent interpretation of "שנה אחת" to always include עיבור, regardless of the explicit "ה."

Friction

The Great Reversal: R. Meir and R. Yosei

The most direct and striking kushya in this sugya is the Gemara's confrontation of contradictory Tannaitic opinions. The Mishna on Nedarim 61a states:

כי קתני עד הפסח אסור עד שיגיע הפסח. עד משיגיע הפסח אסור. עד משיגיע הפסח דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יוסי אומר עד שיצא הפסח. [Nedarim 61a, Mishna] When it teaches "until Passover," he is prohibited until Passover arrives. If he said, "until Passover arrives," he is prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: until Passover ends. According to this Mishna, R. Meir holds that "עד משיגיע" (until it arrives) means the vow expires at the beginning of the event, while R. Yosei says it expires at the end.

The Gemara immediately raises a contradiction from a Mishna in Kiddushin 64b:

האומר קידשתי בתי גדולה ואיני יודע אם גדולה שבגדולות אם גדולה שבקטנות אם קטנה שבגדולות שהיא גדולה מגדולות שבקטנות כולן אסורות חוץ מקטנה שבקטנות דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יוסי אומר כולן מותרות חוץ מגדול שגדולה. [Kiddushin 64b] One who said, "I betrothed my older daughter," and he does not know if [he meant] the older of the older group [of daughters], or the older of the younger group, or the younger of the older group who is older than the older of the younger group – all of them are forbidden, except for the younger of the younger group. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: All of them are permitted, except for the older of the older group. In Kiddushin, R. Meir takes a broader, more stringent approach to uncertainty, prohibiting all but the youngest daughter. R. Yosei, conversely, takes a narrower, more lenient approach, prohibiting only the most obvious "older" daughter. This machloket (dispute) in Kiddushin reflects a general principle concerning safek (doubt): R. Meir is generally machmir (stringent), while R. Yosei is meikel (lenient).

The Kushya: The positions in Nedarim 61a are the opposite of what one would expect based on the general principles established in Kiddushin 64b. In Nedarim, R. Meir (usually machmir) is meikel (vow expires sooner), and R. Yosei (usually meikel) is machmir (vow expires later). This is a direct, head-on contradiction of the Tannaim's characteristic approaches.

The Terutz: The Gemara's solution is both simple and radical:

אמר רב חנינא בר אבדימי אמר רב: הפכו את המדות. והיינו דתניא זה הכלל כל דבר של זמן קבוע ואמר עד משיגיע רבי מאיר אומר עד שיצא ורבי יוסי אומר עד שיגיע. [Nedarim 61a] Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avdimi said that Rav said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed. And this is what is taught in a baraita: This is the principle: With regard to any fixed time, if one said "until it arrives," Rabbi Meir says it applies until it ends, and Rabbi Yosei says it applies until it arrives. Rav declares that the attributions in the Nedarim Mishna must be reversed. What was attributed to R. Meir belongs to R. Yosei, and vice versa. The Gemara immediately brings a baraita that explicitly states this inverted assignment, confirming Rav's terutz. This "הפכו את המדות" (reverse the opinions) is a powerful hermeneutic tool, demonstrating that where a textual contradiction exists, the problem might lie in the attribution rather than the substance of the halakha itself. It underscores the fluidity of oral tradition before final redaction and the editorial work of later Amoraim to harmonize the mesorah.

Intertext

A. Shulchan Aruch: Codifying Temporal Vows (Yoreh De'ah 220)

The sugya's detailed analysis of temporal vows finds its direct halachic expression in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah Siman 220. This section meticulously outlines the precise expiration of various vows, incorporating the Gemara's conclusions.

1. "Until" and Fixed/Unfixed Times:

• Shulchan Aruch YD 220:15: "כל דבר של זמן קבוע, ואמר: 'עד שיגיע', רבי יוסי אומר: עד שיגיע; רבי מאיר אומר: עד שיצא. וזה הכלל: כל דבר שזמנו קבוע, ואמר 'עד שיגיע', אסור עד שיגיע. אמר 'עד שיהא', אסור עד שיצא. וכל דבר שאין זמנו קבוע, בין אמר 'עד שיגיע' ובין אמר 'עד שיהא', אינו אסור אלא עד שיגיע."
  • This psak directly reflects the Mishna on Nedarim 61a and Rav's "הפכו את המדות" terutz. The Shulchan Aruch codifies the reversed opinions, stating that for a fixed time: "עד שיגיע" (until it arrives) means it ends at the arrival (R. Yosei's position after reversal), and "עד שיהא" (until it will be) means it ends at the conclusion (R. Meir's position after reversal). For unfixed times, it always expires at the arrival. This demonstrates the immediate halachic impact of the Gemara's reconciliation.

2. "Year" and "Day" Vows:

• Shulchan Aruch YD 220:17: "הנודר שנה, אסור י"ב חדש מעת לעת. אמר 'השנה', אסור עד ראש השנה הבא."
  • This psak addresses the opening discussion of our sugya. It codifies that "שנה" (a year) means a fixed 12-month period from the time of the vow (me'et le'et). "השנה" (this year), however, means until the next Rosh Hashana, including any intercalated month. This aligns with the Gemara's final conclusion (that the Mishna's chiddush for "השנה" is to include עיבור) and the Ran's psak regarding "יום" (a day) also meaning me'et le'et, though not explicitly stated for "יום" in this specific seif. The distinction between "שנה" and "השנה" is critical for calendar reckoning in halacha.

B. Maimonides' Hilchot Shemitta VeYovel: The Counting of Yovel

The debate between R. Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding the Yovel year's integration into the Shemitta cycle is fundamental for the halachic calendar.

• Rambam, Hilchot Shemitta VeYovel 10:1: "כיצד מונין שמיטין ויובלות? שש שנים אדם זורע, ובשביעית שומט. והשמיטה נכנסת בשנה השביעית, ושוב מונה שש ושביעית שומט. וכן עד סוף ארבעים ותשע שנה שהם שבע שמיטין. והשנה החמשים היא שנת היובל והיא שמיטה בפני עצמה, ואינה עולה למנין השבוע הבא אחריה אלא היא שנה בפני עצמה."
  • The Rambam explicitly rules in accordance with the Rabbis' opinion (majority view) from our sugya: the 50th year (Yovel) is a Shemitta in its own right, not counting as the first year of the subsequent 7-year cycle. This means the 51st year is the actual first year of the new Shemitta cycle. This psak is crucial for understanding the chronological structure of Shemitta and Yovel and their agricultural implications, even in periods when Yovel itself is not fully observed.

Psak/Practice

The sugya's discussions translate directly into halachic practice, primarily in the domain of hilchot nedarim and the calendrical cheshbon for Shemitta.

1. Temporal Vows and "Until": The Gemara's conclusion that Rav's "הפכו את המדות" is accurate is universally accepted. Thus, for vows concerning a fixed time (like a holiday):

   • "עד שיגיע [הפסח]" (until Passover arrives): The vow expires when the event begins. This is the psak of R. Yosei (after the reversal).
   • "עד שיהא [הפסח]" (until Passover will be): The vow expires when the event ends. This is the psak of R. Meir (after the reversal). For unfixed times (like a harvest, which depends on conditions), both "עד שיגיע" and "עד שיהא" mean the vow expires when the event begins. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch YD 220:15.

2. Duration of "Year" and "Day" Vows:

   • "שנה" (a year): The vow lasts for 12 complete months from the time it was made (מעת לעת). This reflects the understanding that an unspecified "year" refers to a duration, not a calendar year.
   • "השנה" (this year): The vow lasts until the next Rosh Hashana, including any intercalated (עיבור) month that may occur within that period. This is the chiddush of the Mishna, as explained by the Gemara and Ran.
   • "יום" (a day): Although the Gemara leaves the dilemma unresolved, the psak follows the chumra (stringency) of the Ran (Nedarim 61a s.v. מהו דתימא הלך אחר רוב שנים), that "יום" (a day) means a full 24-hour period (מעת לעת) from the time of the vow. These distinctions are codified in Shulchan Aruch YD 220:17.

3. Jubilee Year Counting: The halacha follows the Rabbis' opinion that the Yovel year (the 50th) is a distinct Shemitta in itself and does not count as the first year of the subsequent Shemitta cycle. Thus, the year after Yovel is counted as the first year of the new cycle. While Yovel is not currently observed in its full halachic capacity (due to ein yovel noheg ela bizman shekol yoshveha aleha), this calendrical principle remains foundational for the ongoing cheshbon of Shemitta years.

Takeaway

The meticulous analysis of temporal expressions in Nedarim 61a, from the subtle nuances of "שנה" versus "השנה" to the dramatic "הפכו את המדות," underscores the critical importance of linguistic precision in halacha. It demonstrates the interpretive tools Chazal employed to harmonize Tannaitic sources and establish clear halachic parameters for vows, revealing how seemingly minor lexical distinctions can bear significant practical weight.