Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 9

1) A NEDER MADE BY RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that when a person who makes a Neder using the term "k'Nidrei Resha'im" ("like the Nedarim made by Resha'im"), his statement creates a binding oath of Nezirus, Korban, or Shevu'ah. This is because it is the normal manner for Resha'im to make Nedarim, and thus "k'Nidrei Resha'im" is a truthful statement. If, on the other hand, he makes a Neder with the term "k'Nidrei Kesherim" ("like the Nedarim made by Kesherim"), his statement is meaningless, since Kesherim do not make Nedarim. If he says "k'Nidvos Kesherim," though, his statement does create an obligation of Nezirus and Korban, but not an Isur Shevu'ah.

The Mishnah only mentions whether the terms "k'Nidrei Resha'im" and "k'Nidvos Kesherim" create obligations of Nezirus, Korban, or Shevu'ah. It does not say whether such a statement creates an obligation of Neder, though. What is the Halachah if a person attempts to create a Neder by saying "k'Nidrei Resha'im?"

(a) TOSFOS, the ROSH and the ME'IRI write that the Halachos of Neder and Shevu'ah are the same. The reason "k'Nidvos Kesherim" does not create a Shevu'ah is because a Kasher person does not create an Isur on something that is Mutar to him. Accordingly, the same should apply to a Neder, and therefore the Neder will not take effect when one says "k'Nidvos Kesherim."

The reason the Mishnah does not mention Neder explicitly is because it includes it in the Halachah of Shevu'ah.

(b) RABEINU ELIEZER M'MITZ, cited by Tosfos (9a and 9b), explains that the word "Korban" in the Mishnah includes either an actual Korban or a Neder that is made by comparing something to a Korban. Hence, the Mishnah is saying that when one makes a Neder by saying "k'Nidvos Kesherim," it indeed takes effect. Why, though, should a Neder be different than a Shevu'ah? It is clear why a Korban takes effect when one obligates himself to bring it "k'Nidvos Kesherim" -- a person could bring a Korban in the manner of Hillel by first bringing the animal to the Azarah and then sanctifying it there, and this is the Korban of Kesherim. A Neder, though, like a Shevu'ah, can only be made in one way -- by making Asur something that is Mutar. Why, then, should it take effect when it is made "k'Nidvos Kesherim?"

Rabeinu Eliezer answers that since a person could bring an actual Korban in the way that a Kasher person brings it (by being Makdish the animal in the Azarah, like Hillel), there exists therefore such a thing as a Korban Nedavah of a Kasher. Hence, even if a person makes an animal a Korban by saying "k'Nidvos Kesherim" while standing far away from the Azarah, the animal will become a Korban since there exists such a thing as a Korban Nedavah of a Kasher. Similarly, if a person makes a Neder by comparing an object to a Korban Nedavah of a Kasher, the Neder will take effect and create an Isur, because there is such a thing as a Korban Nedavah of a Kasher, even though Kesherim do not create Isurim.

(c) The RITVA writes that the reason a Kasher does not make a Shevu'ah is because he must use the Name of Hashem to do so, and out of respect for Hashem he does not make Shevu'os. Moreover, he refrains from making Shevu'os because every Shevu'ah poses the risk of being a Shevu'as Sheker, which is a very severe Aveirah (see Shevu'os 39a). This implies that a Neder -- which does not involve using the Name of Hashem and is not as severe as a Shevu'ah -- is indeed made by Kesherim. Why, though, would a Kasher person want to make something that is Mutar to him Asur? The reason a Kasher would make a Neder is in order to weaken his Yetzer ha'Ra if he has a strong Ta'avah for something, or in order to exercise Perishus and to separate himself from the material pleasures of this world (see Tosfos in Kesuvos 104a).

When a Kasher makes such a Neder, it is called a Nedavah, as opposed to a Neder, because a Nedavah denotes something that is acceptable to Hashem (like the Ran says with regard to a Nezirus of Nedavah) and such a Neder of a Kasher is indeed acceptable to Hashem.

(The Me'iri also considers such an explanation, that a Neder is desirable under these circumstances, but he rejects it saying that the main Perishus from the pleasures of this world is the separation from wine, and if a person wants to separate from wine he would make himself a Nazir and does not resort to a Neder. Thus, he concludes, a Neder is not something that Kesherim make.)

9b

QUESTION: The Gemara says that an example of a Neder to bring a Korban that even righteous people make is the way Hillel used to bring his Korbanos. He would first bring the animal to the Azarah while it was Chulin, and then he would be Makdish it.

How, though, could he bring Chulin into the Azarah, which is prohibited?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAN writes that he did not actually bring it into the Azarah. Rather, he brought it near to the Azarah and there he was Makdish it.

(b) TOSFOS in a number of places (Pesachim 66b, DH Mevi'ah; Chulin 130b, DH Iy; Bava Basra 81b, DH v'Dilma) says that the prohibition of bringing Chulin into the Azarah applies only to objects with which some form of Avodah is being performed (such as Tenufah or Hagashah). Bringing an animal which is Chulin into the Azarah is not prohibited unless one does Shechitah with the animal, which is a form of Avodah. Hence, if he is Makdish the animal before doing Shechitah, there is no problem with bringing the animal into the Azarah while it is Chulin.

Tosfos proves this from the Gemara in Menachos (21b) that says that the Kohanim would bring spices and condiments into the Azarah with which to eat their Menachos, so that they should be eaten with appetite. Moreover, Tosfos points out, how could Kohanim enter the Azarah with Bigdei Chol, clothing of Chulin (see Yoma 30a)?

The Ran clearly disagrees with Tosfos and does not allow bringing Chulin into the Azarah at all, even when no form of Avodah is done with it (see also TOSFOS in Beitzah 20b, v'Hevi, and RASHI in Temurah 23a, DH Yochlu). This also appears to be the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shechitah 2:3) who writes that it is not permitted to bring any Chulin into the Azarah, whether it is a live animal or whether it is merely meat, fruit, or bread.

How will the Ran and Rambam answer the question of Tosfos from the Gemara in Menachos, regarding spices of Chulin that the Kohanim would bring into the Azarah?

The RASHBA (Chulin 130b) suggests that perhaps the Rambam, when he wrote "fruit and bread," was referring specifically to bread such as Lechem ha'Panim or fruits such as Bikurim, on which Tenufah and Hagashah are practiced. However, the Ran in our Sugya clearly does not mean that. How, then, will the Ran answer the question of Tosfos?

1. The RITVA suggests that the Mitzvah d'Oraisa not to bring Chulin into the Azarah is transgressed only when some form of Avodah was done with the Chulin, as Tosfos explains. However, even if an Avodah was not done with the Chulin, an Isur *d'Rabanan* still prohibits its entry into the Azarah unless it is needed for the performance of a Mitzvah (such as spicing Korbanos) or is necessary for some other reason.

2. The MISHNEH LA'MELECH (Hilchos Shechitah 2:3, DH v'Im Tomar) explains that spices were only added to Kodshim Kalim, which were then eaten *outside* of the Azarah. Similarly, Rashi in Temurah says that the spices were eaten outside of the Azarah, and then immediately afterwards they entered the Azarah to eat the Minchah.

3. Perhaps the Ran and Rambam learn that the prohibition applies only to items which could be brought upon the Mizbe'ach as offerings, such as animals, fruit (which are placed on the Mizbe'ach as Bikurim), and bread (such as the Minchah). (This will also explain why Bigdei Chol are permitted in the Azarah.) (M. Kornfeld)