Mátot / lifné ivér - gondolatbűn (donuts)

·12 views
במדבר ל׳:י״ג

But if her husband does annul them on the day he finds out, then nothing that has crossed her lips shall stand, whether vows or self-imposed obligations. Her husband has annulled them, and יהוה will forgive her.

וְאִם־הָפֵר֩ יָפֵ֨ר אֹתָ֥ם ׀ אִישָׁהּ֮ בְּי֣וֹם שׇׁמְעוֹ֒ כׇּל־מוֹצָ֨א שְׂפָתֶ֧יהָ לִנְדָרֶ֛יהָ וּלְאִסַּ֥ר נַפְשָׁ֖הּ לֹ֣א יָק֑וּם אִישָׁ֣הּ הֲפֵרָ֔ם וַיהֹוָ֖ה יִֽסְלַֽח־לָֽהּ׃

Érdekes, ez nem a Chágigá elején van (pedig oda illik):

קידושין פ״א ב:ה׳

The Gemara explains the source that one who intended to transgress is punished even though he did not actually sin. As it is taught in a baraita concerning a husband who nullified the vow of his wife: “Her husband has made them null; and the Lord will forgive her” (Numbers 30:13). With regard to what case is the verse speaking? Why would the woman require forgiveness if her husband has nullified her vow? It is referring to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and her husband heard and nullified her vow. And she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she drank wine and contracted impurity from a corpse, violating her presumed vow.

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישָׁהּ הֲפֵרָם וַה׳ יִסְלַח לָהּ״, בַּמָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר, וְשָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה שֶׁהֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ, וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה יַיִן וּמִטַּמְּאָה לְמֵתִים.

קידושין פ״א ב:ו׳

The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat pork, and kosher lamb came up in his hand, like this woman who intended to violate her vow but in fact did not, the Torah nevertheless says: She requires atonement and forgiveness, all the more so does one who intended to eat pork and pork came up in his hand require atonement and forgiveness.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כִּי הֲוָה מָטֵי לְהַאי פְּסוּקָא הֲוָה בָּכֵי, אָמַר: וּמָה מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר טָלֶה, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: צְרִיכָה כַּפָּרָה וּסְלִיחָה, מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

A híres Toszfot, amit RSZA paszkenol (R Lebowitz siur): https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/1181790

קידושין ל״ב א:ז׳

And this is as reflected in an incident involving Rabba bar Rav Huna, when Rav Huna tore silk garments in front of his son Rabba. Rav Huna had said to himself: I will go and see if he becomes angry or does not become angry, i.e., he wanted to test him and see whether his son Rabba would honor him. The Gemara asks: But perhaps his son would become angry and Rav Huna would thereby violate the prohibition of: “Nor put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as by testing his son Rav Huna would have caused him to sin. The Gemara answers: It was a case where the father had forgone his honor from the outset. Consequently, even if the son grew angry with him, he would not have violated the mitzva.

וְכִי הָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. דְּרַב הוּנָא קְרַע שִׁירָאֵי בְּאַנְפֵּי רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ. אָמַר: אֵיזִיל אִיחְזֵי אִי רָתַח אִי לָא רָתַח. וְדִלְמָא רָתַח וְקָעָבַר אַ״לִּפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! דְּמָחֵיל לֵיהּ לִיקָרֵיהּ.

תוספות על קידושין ל״ב א:ז׳:א׳

...

דמחיל ליה ליקריה - וצריך לומר שהודיעו קודם לכן שלא יהא כמו נתכוין לאכול [בשר] חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה דאמר לקמן בפ' בתרא (קידושין דף פא:) שצריך מחילה וכפרה: