ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 4
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.
(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov establishes 'bal Te'acher' with regard to Nezirus
by someone who undertook to become a Nazir whilst standing in a graveyard.
'bal Te'acher' then applies - the moment he fails to leave the graveyard,
purify himself and accept his Nezirus from afresh.
(b) This answer goes well with the opinion of Resh Lakish, but not with that
of Rebbi Yochanan - in whose opinion Nezirus accepted in a graveyard is
immediately effective (and he will receive Malkos should he eat grapes or
drink wine there).
(c) According to Mar bar Rav Ashi, even Resh Lakish concedes that the
Nezirus begins immediately - only according to him, the Nazir does not
receive Malkos for contravening his Nezirus, whereas according to Rebbi
Yochanan, he does.
(a) We nevertheless establish Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's answer - because
although the Nezirus is effective immediately, he transgresses 'bal
Te'acher' for failing to take the necessary steps to bring into effect
Nezirus of Taharah.
(b) Rav Ashi extrapolates from Rav Acha bar Ya'akov - that a Nazir who
deliberately rendered himself Tamei - transgresses 'bal Te'acher'.
(c) He will now receive three sets of Malkos - because of "Lo Yitama",
because of "ve'Al Kol Nafshos Meis Lo Yavo" and because of 'bal Te'acher'.
(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika establishes 'bal Te'acher' with regard to the
Mitzvah of Tiglachas (shaving, which the Nazir had to do after he had
brought all his Korbanos) - even according to the Rabbanan, who permit him
to drink wine immediately after bringing his Korbanos.
(b) Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Mari establishes the 'bal Te'acher' of Nezirus -
with regard to the Korbanos of a Nazir, in which case, he will only
transgress after three Regalim.
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Darosh Yidreshenu" - that Chata'os and
Ashamos are subject to the laws of 'bal Te'achar'.
(d) We nevertheless need "Nazir Lahazir" to include the Chatas of Nazir in
'bal Te'acher' - because Nazir has a Chidush which might render it different
than other areas of Halachah.
(a) The Chidush of Nazir cannot be that ...
1. ... a Chatas Nazir cannot be donated (only a Nazir can actually bring
it) - because neither can a Chatas Cheilev, (only someone who actually
sinned can bring it).
(b) The (lenient) Chidush that causes the Chatas of Nazir to require its own
D'rashah for 'bal Te'acher' is - that although a Nazir has to bring three
Korbanos, he is allowed to shave off his hair already after only one of
2. ... someone who undertakes Nezirus only as far as eating grapes is
concerned becomes a Nazir in all regards (besides the fact that this is not
a unanimous opinion [Rebbi Shimon in fact, argues]) - because that is a
Chidush le'Chumra, so why should it prevent us from learning a Chumra from
(a) Alternatively, we reinstate the initial answer that one cannot volunteer
a Chatas Nazir (and that is why we would not have known the Din of 'bal
Te'acher from a regular Chatas). True, one cannot donate a Chatas Cheilev
either. A Chatas Cheilev however - comes to atone, whereas a Chatas Nazir
(b) This goes even with Elazar ha'Kapar, in whose opinion a Nazir has sinned
too (by abstaining from those things that the Torah permits) - because that
is not the real reason that he brings his Korban. Even according to him,
that is only a D'rush. Officially, the Korban does not come as a Kaparah.
(c) We can in fact - learn 'bal Te'acher' by a Nazir from a 'Mah ha'Tzad'
from Chatas Cheilev and Shelamim. Only we prefer to learn it from a Pasuk,
because a Mah ha'Tzad is easy to break (with any form of Kashya).
(a) So we try to learn it from a Chatas Yoledes, which is not brought as a
Kaparah, yet it is subject to 'bal Te'acher'. This will go even like Rebbi
Shimon, in whose opinion a Yoledes brings a Chatas because she sinned, by
swearing that she would have no more children - because that is not the real
reason that she brings the Chatas (proof of this lies in the fact that she
is obligated to bring the Chatas, even if no such oath ever passed her
(b) A Chatas Yoledes, which is subject to 'bal Te'acher' even though it can
also not be donated - is different again inasmuch as it permits the Yoledes
to eat Kodshim.
(c) Her Chatas is different than that of a Nazir - inasmuch as eating
Kodshim is a Mitzvah, whereas drinking wine is not.
(a) The Tana also learned from the Hekesh (between Nezirus and Neder) that a
father can annul his daughter's Nedarim and a husband, his wife's. The Torah
did not rely on a 'Mah Matzinu' alone - because that we could break by
pointing out that a Neder is different because there is no time-limit (which
is perhaps why the Torah adds a La'av of 'bal Te'acher', whereas Nezirus
normally lasts only thirty days.
(b) We did not ask this Kashya above, with regard to learning Yados from the
Hekesh - because there, since it involves a regular La'av, we require the
Hekesh for Malkos (which, due to the principle 'Ein Onshim min ha'Din' one
would not receive from a 'Mah Matzinu').
(c) Despite the fact that 'S'tam Nezirus Sh'loshim Yom', we cannot learn
from the Hekesh that 'S'tam Nedarim Sh'loshim Yom' - because, bearing in
mind that one area of Nedarim comprises Nidrei Hekdesh, which cannot be
confined to any time period (since how can Hekdesh just disappear), we would
rather learn Nidrei Isur from Nidrei Hekdesh (le'Chumra) that from Nezirus
(a) In describing Yados, the Tana of our Mishnah writes 'Mudrani Mimcha,
Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha, she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach,
Asur'. When Shmuel says 'be'Chulan, ad she'Yomar she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani
To'em Lach' - he means to say that these are not two additional cases of
Yad, but must be added to 'Mudrani Mimcha, Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani
Mimcha' ('Mudrani Mimcha she'Ani Ochel Lach' or 'Mudrani Mimcha she'Ani
To'em Lach' ... ).
(b) We currently think that if one were to say 'Mudrani Mimcha' or
'Mufreshani Mimcha' or 'Meruchkani Mimcha' on its own - the Neder would not
be effective (because it would be a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach [a Yad which is
(c) The problem with the Beraisa 'Mudar Ani Mimcha, Mufreshani Mimcha,
Meruchkani Mimcha, Harei Zeh Asur; she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach,
Harei Zeh Asur' lies in the fact that the Tana repeats 'Harei Zeh Asur' by
each group (which it does not do in our Mishnah), suggesting that they are
*two* cases and not one (as Shmuel contends).
(d) We initially resolve the Kashya - by explaining the Tana as if he had
said in the middle 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, be'Omer she'Ani Ochel Lach,
she'Ani To'em Lach' (though this does not really explain 'Harei Zeh Asur' in
the Seifa - which we will ask shortly).
(a) We explain the second Beraisa, which inverts the order 'she'Ani Ochel
Lach she'Ani To'em Lach, Harei Zeh Asur; Mudrani Mimcha Mufreshani Mimcha,
Meruchkani Mimcha Harei Zeh Asur' - as if the Tana had said in the middle
'u'K'var Amar Mudrani ... '.
(b) Besides the fact that both Beraisos are teaching us the same thing, the
problem with this explanation is - why does the Tana need to add 'Harei Zeh
Asur' in the Seifa, as we pointed out earlier.
(c) Were it not for Shmuel - we would explain that each statement is a
separate Neder on its own, and the Tana in the second Beraisa adds the cases
of 'Mudrani, Mufreshani and Meruchkani', to preclude from learning the first
Beraisa all as one case (like Shmuel contended).
(a) So we conclude that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina -
who, we initially contend, says that if someone declares 'Mufreshani
Heimech' (or one of the other two Leshonos), it is a Yad le'Neder (even
without 'she'Ochel Lach' ... , because 'Mudrani Mimcha' implies 'Mudar Ani
u'Nechasai Mimcha u'mi'Nechasecha'.
(b) Shmuel now explains the Beraisos like we explained them earlier not
according to him: that the first Beraisa mentions each of the five cases
independently, and the second Beraisa inverts the order, so that we should
not make the mistake of explaining the two groups as one (like Shmuel did
(c) What makes Shmuel establish our Mishnah as one case (and not
individually like the Beraisa) - is the fact that, unlike the Tana of the
Beraisa, the Tana mentions Asur only once, suggesting that 'Mudrani Mimcha',
'Mufreshani Mimcha' and 'Meruchkani Mimcha' on the one hand, and 'she'Ani
Ochel Lach' and 'she'Ani To'em Lach' on the other, both have the same Din.
This is in fact not true, because whereas in the second group, the Neder
works only one way (the one who expressed the Neder is forbidden from his
friend, but not vice-versa), in the first group it works both ways (both are
forbidden to benefit from each other - explaining by the way, why the Tana
of the Beraisa divides them into two groups). That is why our Mishnah states
only one case, adding 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' ... , in which case the Neder
works only one way.
(a) We asked on Shmuel, thinking that the Tana of our Mishnah separated
'Mudrani Mimcha' and 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' into two Nedarim. The problem with
the suggestion that 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' should be a Yad le'Neder is - that
'mi'Mah Nafshach', if he said 'Konem', it will be a Neder and not a Yad;
whereas, if he did not say 'Konem', how do we know that he is making a
*Neder* at all? Maybe he means to obligate himself to eat by his friend
(which is a *Shevu'ah*)?
(b) We establish the case when he did not, in fact, mention 'Konem'. We know
that he meant to forbid his friend's food on himself, and not to obligate
himself to eat from the other person - because he used the word '*she'Ani*
Ochel Lach', which implies an Isur Cheftza (as it implies that any food that
he will eat will be retroactively forbidden).
(c) That is all well and good if the wording in our Mishnah is 'she'Ani
Ochel Lach'. But if the correct wording is 'she'Eini Ochel Lach', we have a
problem - inasmuch as 'she'Eini' does not imply an Isur Cheftza at all (so
back comes the question - How do we know that he is not, in fact, making a
(d) We conclude that, according to this text, he did in fact, mention
'Konem' in his wording, making it a Neder (and not a Shevu'ah). Only
because he made an Isur Gavra and not an Isur , it turns the Neder into a
Yad le'Neder, as we cited from the Ramban on 2b. (question 8a.).