THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
NEDARIM 2,3,4,5 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in honor of Rav
Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.
1) "YADAYIM SHE'EINAM MOCHICHOS"
QUESTION: Shmuel teaches that if a person attempts to make a Neder by
declaring simply, "Mudrani Mimcha," the declaration is considered "Yadayim
she'Einam Mochichos," and thus the person is not prohibited from benefiting
from his friend. This is because Shmuel and others rule that "Yadayim
she'Einam Mochichos" are *not* considered Yadayim.
The RAN explains that according to Shmuel, when a person declares, "Mudrani
Mimcha" alone it has no effect whatsoever. However, the Ran cites another
opinion that rules that even according to Shmuel, a person who says "Mudrani
Mimcha" *does* become prohibited to speak with the other person, but he is
not prohibited from receiving benefit from him. This seems to be the opinion
of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Nedarim 1:23).
According to this second opinion, how can the statement of "Mudrani Mimcha"
prohibit the person from talking to his friend, if "Yadayim she'Einam
Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim?" Since the intention of his words is not clear,
he should not be Asur at all!
(a) The RAMBAM apparently holds that "Mudrani Mimcha" is a Yad *Mochi'ach*
for a prohibiting Dibur (speaking with the other person). When a person wants
to make himself Asur to speak to someone else, he uses the phrase, "Mudrani
Mimcha." The Gemara calls it a "Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach" only with regard to
the Isur of Hana'ah. (If a person says "Mudrani Mimcha *she'Ani Ochel Lecha,"
though, it is clear that he is prohibiting himself only from eating the food
of the other person, and not from speaking with him.)
According to the Rambam, what does the opinion that holds that "Yadayim
she'Einam Mochichos" *are* considered Yadayim hold in such a case? That
opinion must agree that he is Asur to speak with the other person, since it
is a Yad Mochi'ach for the Isur of Dibur. But that opinion must also hold
that there is an Isur of Hana'ah (benefiting) as well, since it is a Yad
she'Eino Mochi'ach for such an Isur. How can one phrase imply two completely
different concepts, an Isur Dibur and an Isur Hana'ah, and be a Yad for both
of them? Besides, since the phrase "Mudrani Mimcha" implies an Isur of Dibur
much more strongly than it implies an Isur of Hana'ah, why should there be an
Isur Hana'ah altogether? (ROSH)
The Rambam might have learned that according to the opinion that holds
"Yadayim she'Einam Mochichos" *are* Yadayim, "Mudrani Mimcha" is a Yad for
Isur Hana'ah only if the person who made the Neder clarifies afterwards that
he indeed meant to create an Isur Hana'ah. If not, it only creates an Isur of
Dibur. (M. Kornfeld)