POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi N. Slifkin
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf
Nedarim 87
|
NEDARIM 87 & 88 (First days of Sukos) - dedicated by Mrs. G. Turkel (Rabbi
Kornfeld's grandmother), an exceptional woman who accepted all of Hashem's
Gezeiros with love and who loved and respected the study of Torah. Tehei
Nafshah Tzerurah bi'Tzror ha'Chaim.
|
1) ONE MUST KNOW WHAT HE ANNULS
(a) "For Sha'ul and for Yonason" - this teaches that if one
hears of multiple deaths, one must tear his clothing for
each one.
(b) Question (Beraisa): They told a man that his father died,
and he tore his clothing; later, he learned that it was
his son that died - he fulfilled the Mitzvah of tearing.
(But in our Mishnah, such a case of mistaken annulment is
invalid!)
(c) Answer #1: In the Beraisa, the man was only told that a
relative died; he thought it was his father, but he did
not say that he is tearing for his father;
1. In our Mishnah, he specified whose vow he is
annulling.
2. [Version #1 (Ran, Rosh) Support (Beraisa): They told
a man that his father died, and he tore his
clothing; later, he learned that it was his son that
died - he did not fulfill the Mitzvah of tearing;
i. They told a man that a relative died; he
thought it was his father, and he tore; later,
he learned that it was his son that died - he
fulfilled the Mitzvah.]
3. [Version #2 ('Rashi') Contradiction (Beraisa): They
told a man that his father died, and he tore his
clothing; later, he learned that it was his son that
died - he did not fulfill the Mitzvah of tearing;
i. They told a man that a relative died; he
thought it was his father, and he tore; later,
he learned that it was his son that died - he
fulfilled the Mitzvah.]
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): If he learned of his mistake Toch
Kedei Dibur (within the time needed to say 3 or 4 words),
he fulfilled the Mitzvah; after this, he did not.
1. This resolves the contradiction between the 2
clauses of the above Beraisa - in the 1st case, he
found out after Toch Kedei Dibur; in the latter
case, within Toch Kedei Dibur.
2. Support (Beraisa): A sick person fainted; it
appeared as though he died. His relative tore;
later, the sick person really died - the relative
did not fulfill the Mitzvah.
i. (R. Shimon Ben Pazi): If the sick man died Toch
Kedei Dibur of the tearing, the relative
fulfilled the Mitzvah.
(e) The law is, one may retract or correct anything within
Toch Kedei Dibur, with 4 exceptions: blasphemy, idolatry,
engagement, and divorce.
2) A VOW ON 2 SPECIES
(a) (Mishnah): A wife vowed 'Figs and grapes are forbidden to
me' - if her husband affirmed the vow regarding figs, the
entire vow is affirmed;
(b) If he annulled the vow regarding figs, this does nothing
- he must annul the entire vow.
(c) 'Figs are forbidden to me, and grapes are forbidden to
me' - these are 2 vows.
(d) (Gemara): Our Mishnah is as R. Yishmael.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "Her husband will affirm
(her vows), and her husband will annul them": if she
said 'Figs and grapes are forbidden to me', and her
husband affirmed the vow regarding figs, the entire
vow is affirmed;
87b---------------------------------------87b
(e) If he annulled the vow regarding figs, this does nothing
- he must annul the entire vow;
(f) R. Akiva says, "Her husband Yekimenu (will affirm them),
and her husband will annul them" - just as by
affirmation, it suffices Yekimenu (the suffix is as
Mimenu, part of it), also regarding annulment.
1. R. Yishmael: It does not say "He will annul part of
it"!
2. R. Akiva equates annulment to affirmation; just as
affirming part of a vow affirms the whole vow, also
regarding annulment.
(g) (R. Chiya Bar Aba): Chachamim argue on R. Yishmael and R.
Akiva; they equate affirmation to annulment.
1. Just as partial annulment only annuls (that) part of
the vow (Ramban's text - does not work at all), also
partial affirmation.
(h) (Mishnah): 'Figs are forbidden to me ...'
(i) (Rava): Our Mishnah is as R. Shimon, who says that an
oath made to many people is considered 1 oath, unless he
says 'oath' to each person.
3) ONE WHO THOUGHT HE CANNOT ANNUL
(a) (Mishnah): A husband knew about vows, but did not know
about annulment - he can annul when he finds out;
(b) If he knew about annulment, but did not know that what
his wife said is a vow - R. Meir says, he cannot annul;
Chachamim say, he can.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah) Contradiction: "Without
seeing" - this excludes a blind person (from being exiled
to a refuge city if he unintentionally kills someone);
1. R. Meir says, this comes to include a blind person.
Next daf
|