With much admiration for your work, I am a bit behind in daf yomi and got stuck on the first mishna in Nedarim:
The first gemara explains that a neder makes an issur in an item. However, the cases of the mishna seem to address an action - eating, she'ani ochel. I saw R' Akiva Eiger in gilyon hashas 3b explains that many understand it to work as a yad, which I assume means an unfinished declaration, so he left out the issur cheftza from his statement but we put it in.
Then I saw that Tosfos 2a asks this question, but only is bothered if the girsa is she'Eini but not she'Ani, and I didn't understand why that makes a difference.
Thanks a lot!
-Sender
Sender Klein, New York, USA
Dear Sender,
Saying "she'Ani" is not a verb form. It means: "[On] that what I eat (Cheftza)," as if the word "Mah" is added: "... Mah she'Ani Ochel Lecha." It is totally an Isur Cheftza, as opposed to "she'Eini" which means "I do not eat" (a verb form).
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
Got it, thanks so much! So it only becomes assur when he eats it?
You are in the right direction, but I would say differently. The Isur never sits on the food. It's the person's obligation not to eat it (Isur Gavra as opposed to Isur Cheftza.)
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
Thanks for the response. Why then doesn't this get us back to the first issue - it's a neder, and must be on a cheftza as the Gem. says on 2b?
I'll try to be more clear. Saying "she'Ani Ochel" is for Nedarim. It puts an Isur on the food ("Mah she'Ani Ochel"), and thus it is an Isur Cheftza.
Saying "she'Eini Ochel" (verb form) is a Shevu'ah, an Isur Gavra, that the person is now forbidden from eating (but not the food has actually become prohibited).
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
I understood that, but I think my previous question wasn't stated clearly enough. The reason it's on the cheftza, is, as you wrote earlier " Saying "she'Ani" is not a verb form. It means: "[On] that what I eat (Cheftza)," as if the word "Mah" is added: "... Mah she'Ani Ochel Lecha." "
If so, then it seems the food is really mutar - until he eats it. This is a very interesting framework. (For example, would hatfasa work here, if he says zeh k'zeh about that person's food?)
Thanks
Dear Sender,
Now I follow you. However, everyone learns that when putting the Isur on the food, this happens immediately with his speech.
What he is saying is: this food is forbidden to me (from now) concerning my eating it (as opposed to the possibility of being forbidden from all enjoyment, such as feeding his animals, selling to others, using it not for food).
All the best,
Reuven Weiner