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


POINT BY POINT SUMMARY

Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Nedarim 25

1) OATHS OF EXAGGERATION

(a) Answer (Rav Ashi): A person swears as we understand; we do not call ants 'as those that left Mitzrayim'.
(b) Question: Is it really true that a person does not swear according to his own interpretation?
1. (Beraisa): When we make him swear, we tell him - 'We are not making you swear on a condition in your heart, rather, on our understanding and the understanding of Beis Din'.
2. Question: What do we exclude by saying this?
3. Suggestion: That he should not use 'coins' as a nickname for wood chips (and swear that he gave the coins to his creditor).
i. Since we had to say that he swears on our understanding, we see, a person normally swears on his own understanding!
4. Rejection: No - rather, to exclude Rava's case of the reed.
i. Reuven claimed that he paid his debt to Shimon; Rava told him to swear. Reuven concealed coins in a reed, and was using it as a cane. Before swearing, he asked Shimon to take the reed. Reuven held a Sefer Torah and swore that he paid Shimon.
ii. Upon hearing the oath, Shimon broke the reed in anger; the coins fell out, and it was seen that the oath was true.
(c) Reiteration of question: A different source shows that a person swears on his own understanding!
1. (Beraisa): When Moshe Rabeinu made Yisrael swear at Arvos Moav, he told them that they are not swearing on their understanding, rather on Moshe's and Hash-m's understanding.
i. Suggestion: Moshe had to say this, so they should not nickname idolatry as 'G-d' (and have this in mind when swearing to serve G-d), because a person swears on his own understanding.
ii. Rejection: No, idolatry really is called 'god' - "Against all the gods of Mitzrayim..."
2. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep Mitzvos?
3. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean (only) the Mitzvos of appointing a king.
4. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep all the Mitzvos?
5. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, which measures up to all the Mitzvos.
6. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep Torah?
7. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only 1 Torah (written or oral).
8. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep Toros?
9. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only Toros (the laws) of flour-offerings, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.
10. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep Toros and Mitzvos?
11. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only Toros of flour (and sin...) offerings, and the Mitzvos of appointing a king.
12. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep the entire Torah?
13. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean (observing the prohibitions of) idolatry.
i. (Beraisa): Idolatry is severe - anyone who denies idolatry is as one that confirms the entire Torah.
14. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep the prohibitions of idolatry and the entire Torah; or, to keep 613 Mitzvos?
15. Answer: It was easier to make them swear on the understanding of Moshe and Hash-m.
2) OATHS OF EXAGGERATION
(a) (Mishnah): If I did not see a snake like an olive-press ...
(b) Question: Why can't this be true?
1. In the days of Shvor Malka, there was a snake that ate 13 storehouses of straw!
2. Answer (Shmuel): The intention was, a snake that is Taruf (Ran - creviced; Rosh - wide, not round) as an olive press.
3. Objection: All snakes are like this!
4. Answer: The Mishnah refers to its back, which is never Taruf.
5. Question: Let the Mishnah say, if I did not see a snake whose back was Taruf!
6. Answer: In passing, the Mishnah teaches that the back of an olive press should be Taruf.
i. This is relevant to one who sells an olive press - its back must be Taruf.
25b---------------------------------------25b

3) MISTAKEN VOWS

(a) (Mishnah): Mistaken vows - 'If I ate or drank (I forbid ...)', and he later remembered that he had done so;
(b) 'If I will eat or drink (I forbid ...)', and he later forgot that he said this and ate or drank;
(c) 'I forbid my wife to get benefit from me, for she stole my wallet or hit my son', and he later learned that she did not;
(d) He saw people eating his figs, and said 'They are forbidden to them as a sacrifice'; he found that his father and brothers were among the people;
1. Beis Shamai says, only his father and brothers are permitted; Beis Hillel says, the vow is totally void.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa): Just as mistaken vows are permitted, also mistaken oaths.
1. Question: What is a case of a mistaken oath?
2. Answer: As the case of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.
i. They argued over what Rav had said; each swore that he was right.
ii. Each swore to what he truly believed.
(f) (Mishnah): He saw people eating ...
(g) (Mishnah): We suggest to a person that he overlooked that his vow will include Shabbos and Yom Tov.
1. At first, Chachamim said that those days are permitted and other days are forbidden; later, R. Akiva taught that a vow that was partially permitted is totally permitted.
(h) (Rabah): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree, if he says, 'Had I known that father was among them, I would have said, they are all forbidden except for father' - they are all forbidden except for his father;
(i) They argue when he says, 'Had I known that father was among them, I would have said, Ploni and Ploni are forbidden, and father is permitted'.
Next daf

Index


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