(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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

Previous daf

Nedarim, 65

1) THE UNNECESSARY MISHNAH OF "NEDER TA'US"

QUESTION: The Mishnah describes Nedarim which "are like Nolad, but they are not Nolad." According to Rebbi Meir, when a person makes a Neder that he will not marry a certaom woman because her father is wicked, and then he was informed that her father died or did Teshuvah, the Neder is no longer binding. The Mishnah says that "the Chachamim disagree" and say that the Neder is binding.

The Gemara cites a Machlokes Amora'im how to understand the opinion of Rebbi Meir. Rav Huna says that when a person makes a Neder and includes a reason "because of such and such," it is as if he specified a clause that his Neder should be valid only as long as that reason exists (it is like he made the Neder with a Tenai). If the father is no longer wicked, then the Neder will no longer apply.

Rebbi Yochanan argues and says that Rebbi Meir permits these Nedarim only if it turns out that the father was dead already, or had done Teshuvah already, before the Neder was made. In such a situation, the Neder is permitted because it is a Neder Ta'us, a Neder made in error.

The Gemara cites support for Rav Huna from the Mishnah later (66a). The Mishnah says that if a person makes a Neder that he will not marry "this ugly woman" and it turns out that the woman is attractive, it is a mistaken Neder, a Neder Ta'us, and he is permitted to marry her. Why does the Mishnah need to tell us both the Halachah of the Neder concerning the wicked father in our Mishnah, and the Halachah of the Neder concerning the ugly woman in the following Mishnah? According to Rebbi Yochanan, both Mishnayos are not necessary, because both Mishnayos are telling us the same Halachah of Neder Ta'us! It must be that the first Mishnah is teaching the Halachah of a Tenai in a Neder (like Rav Huna explains) and the second Mishnah is teaching the Halachah of a Neder Ta'us.

What is the Gemara's question on Rebbi Yochanan? There is a rule that when there is a "Machlokes v'Achar Kach Stam" -- a Machlokes Tana'im in a Mishnah followed by a "Stam" Mishnah (which mentions one of the opinion of the previous Mishnah without attributing it to any name), the Mishnah means to teach that the Halachah is like the "Stam" opinion. In our Mishnah, Rebbi Meir argues with the Chachamim. In the Mishnah later (66a), the only ruling in the MIshnah is that the Neder is a Neder Ta'us, a Neder made in error. Perhaps the second Mishnah is coming to teach us that the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir!

Even if we suggest that in the case in that Mishnah the Chachamim, for some reason, agree with Rebbi Meir that it is a Neder Ta'us, then that Mishnah is still necessary to teach that very fact -- that the Chachamim agree with Rebbi Meir in that case! Hence, there is no repetitiveness in the Mishnayos at all! What, then, is the Gemara's question on Rebbi Yochanan?

ANSWERS:

(a) The ROSH here (in TOSFOS HA'ROSH he cites this explanation in the name of Rebbi Eliezer mi'Mitz and rejects it) explains that according to Rebbi Yochanan it is not clear why Rebbi Meir says that the Nedarim in our Mishnah are "like Nolad." (The RAN at the end of 65a leaves this question unanswered.) It is clearly not a case of Nolad, but a cases of a Neder Ta'us, a Neder made under mistaken pretenses in the first place. Nothing new came about after the Neder.

The Rosh therefore explains that the Mishnah is saying the opposite of the conventional interpretation. Rebbi Meir is saying that there are some Nedarim that are *not* like Nolad (and should be permitted), but nevertheless the Rabanan decreed that such Nedarim are *not* to be annulled and permitted, because people might confuse them with a real case of Nolad and mistakenly be Matir a real case of Nolad. The Chachamim argue with Rebbi Meir and say that not only are these cases not like Nolad, but even a Heter is not required to permit them, because they are cases of Neder Ta'us. Accordingly, it is the *Chachamim* who hold that the Neder is a Neder Ta'us, and not Rebbi Meir, and therefore the Mishnah later (66a) did not have to teach this Halachah again and say that the Neder is a Neder Ta'us like the Chachamim, because we would have ruled like the Chachamim (because the Halachah follows the majority opinion) even without having a "Machlokes v'Achar Kach Stam."

(b) The PISKEI HA'ROSH cites a Girsa in our Mishnah that says "the Chachamim *agree*" to Rebbi Meir that the Neder is a mistaken Neder, a Neder Ta'us. The Rosh adds that the Gemara implies that this is the correct Girsa. (See KORBAN NESANEL and RASHASH. The Rashash (citing Lechem Mishnah, Hilchos Nedarim 8:1) explains that the Rosh's inference from the Gemara is the question that we asked, why does the Gemara say that the Mishnah on 66a is unnecessary if the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Meir? Perhaps the whole point of that Mishnah is to teach that the Halachah follows Rebbi Meir? It must be that the Chachamim *agree* that it is a Neder Ta'us, and hence the Mishnah later is superfluous, like the Gemara asks.) This is also the Girsa of the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi.

(c) TOSFOS and the ROSH (in his second explanation here, and in TOSFOS HA'ROSH) write that the Chachamim certainly agree with Rebbi Meir in the case of the Neder concerning the ugly woman in the Mishnah later (66a). They are only Machmir in the case here, when the man thought that the woman's father was wicked, when her father had actually done Teshuvah. In that case they are Machmir because it is common for a person to do Teshuvah, and people might think that he did Teshuvah only after the Neder was made (and they will erringly think that Nolad is acceptable grounds for annulment of a Neder). In contrast, it is uncommon for a woman who is ugly to become attractive, and therefore everyone will know that if the woman is attractive, the Neder must have been a mistake in the first place.

What, then, is the Gemara's question when it asks that the Mishnah later (66a) is repeating the same Halachah as the Mishnah here? They are two different Halachos! Tosfos explains that the Gemara is asking that the Mishnah should not have separated between the Halachah of the Neder concerning the wicked father and the Halachah of the Neder concerning the ugly woman with numerous other Halachos. Rather, these two Halachos should have been placed next to each other, since they are two aspects of the laws of Neder Ta'us. That is what the Gemara is asking.


65b

Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il