ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 13
(a) We establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Ya'akov and Rebbi Yossi when
the Noder said 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor Lifnei Zerikas Damim' (but in the case
of 'Zeh ka'Zeh', both will agree that we go after the current time, when it
is Mutar). Rebbi Yossi learns that it is Mutar from the Pasuk "Ish ki Yidor
Neder ... " - implying 'be'Davar ha'Nadur, ve'Lo be'Davar ha'Mutar'.
(b) Rebbi Ya'akov learns from the continuation of the Pasuk " ...
la'Hashem" - to include even something which is a Davar ha'Asur (i.e. a
Bechor, as will soon be explained).
(c) Rebbi Yossi learns from "la'Hashem" - that whatever is for Hashem is
included in Hatfasah, even a Chatas and an Asham.
(d) Rebbi Yossi prefers to include a Chatas ve'Asham from "la'Hashem" rather
than a Bechor - because, even though both are basically obligatory, the
right to pick whichever animal one wishes, renders a Chatas ve'Asham more a
Davar ha'Nadur that Bechor, where he is obligated to declare that particular
(a) Although Rebbi Ya'akov concedes to the D'rashah "Ish ki Yidor Neder ...
" (which precludes a Davar ha'Asur from Hatfasah), he nevertheless goes on
to include a Bechor from "la'Hashem" (in spite of the apparent
contradiction), because he holds like Rebbi - who learns from the Pasuk
"ha'Zachar Takdish" - that it is a Mitzvah to declare a Bechor Kadosh
(making it a Davar ha'Nadur).
Our Sugya does not conclude whether a person is Matfis 'be'Ikro' or
'be'Heteira'. The Ramban however, based on a Sugya in Nazir - rules that
'be'Heteira ka'Matfis, in which case the Neder is not valid.
(b) Rebbi Yossi counters - that that is only a Mitzvah, but, seeing that the
animal will be Kadosh even if the owner fails to do so, it remains a Davar
ha'Asur, and not a Davar ha'Nadur.
(a) We establish the Beraisa which validates 'Imra, le'Imra and ke'Imra'
(and the same with the other cases in our Mishnah, 'Dirim Eitzim, Ishim ...
') like Rebbi Meir - on the basis that Rebbi Meir is the one who does not
require the 'Kaf' of comparison in these cases.
(b) The problem we then have with the Seifa, which concludes 've'Chulan, Lo
Ochal Lach, Mutar' is - that it clashes with the following Mishnah
'le'Korban Lo Ochal Lach, Rebbi Meir Oser', which Rebbi Aba interprets to
mean 'Na'aseh ke'Omer le'Korban Yehei, Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach'.
(c) We already solved this problem above on 11b. - where we differentiated
between 'Lo Chulin (Imra, in our case) and la'Chulin' (see answer to
question 7a. there).
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah validates 'Korban, Olah, Minchah ...
she'Ani Ochal Lach'. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because the Noder did not add
the 'Kaf' of comparison.
(b) The Chidush is - that we would otherwise have thought that a 'Kaf' is
not necessary here, since all of these already express the Isur and should
not therefore require it any more than Pigul and Nosar (as we explained
(c) 'ha'Korban, ke'Korban, Korban she'Ochal Lach, Asur' - because it implies
that whatever he eats will be Asur like a Korban.
(d) If he were to conclude ' ... Ochal Lach' - his Neder would not be valid,
because he is simply swearing by the life of the Korban.
(a) If he says 'le'Korban, Lo Ochal Lach', or 'le'Korban, she'Ochal Lach' -
his Neder will be valid, because what he is saying is 'le'Korban Yehei,
Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach' or 'le'Korban Yehei Mah she'Ochal Lach',
(b) The Beraisa states 'Modim Chachamim (i.e. Rebbi Meir) le'Rebbi Yehudah
be'Omer Hei Korban ... she'Ochal Lach, she'Mutar' - she'Lo Nadar Ela
(c) We reconcile this with our Mishnah 'ha'Korban she'Ochal Lach Asur'
(which we established like Rebbi Meir) - by differentiating between 'Hei
Korban' (implying 'by the life of the Korban') and 'ha'Korban' (implying
that it should be a Korban).
(d) Rebbi Meir validates 'le'Korban Lo Ochal Lach', despite the fact that he
holds 'mi'Chelal La'av *I* Ata Shomei'a Hein' - like Rebbi Aba, who explains
that what he means to say is 'le'Korban Yehei, Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach'.
(a) 'Konem Pi Medaber Imach'; 'Yadi Osah Imach' and 'Ragli Mehaleches
Imach' - are listed in our Mishnah as being valid Nedarim.
***** HADRAN ALACH KOL KINUYEY *****
(b) The ramifications of 'Konem Pi Medaber Imach' are - that the Noder is
not permitted to speak to the Mudar, 'Yadi Osah Imach' - to do any work for
him, and 'Ragli Mehaleches Imach' - to walk with him.
(c) The Mishnah later states that Shevu'os are more stringent than
Nedarim - inasmuch as they take effect even on abstract things, whereas
Nedarim are confined to tangible objects. And the proof for this - lies in
the Tana's use of the word 'Pi', 'Yadi' and 'Ragli' in the Mishnah.
(d) We reconcile the Tana of our Mishnah, which validates a Neder
concerning speech (which is abstract) with that Tana - by establishing it
when he said 'Ye'aser Pi le'Diburi' 'Yadi le'Oseihen' and 'Ragli
le'Hiluchan' (placing the prohibition on his mouth, hand and foot, which are
***** PEREK VE'AILU MUTARIN *****
(a) The Tana in our Mishnah lists a variety of cases where the Neder is not
valid. Having mentioned ...
1. ... 'ke'Basar Chazir', he nevertheless sees fit to mention 'ka'Avodas
Kochavim' - which is also Asur be'Hana'ah (and is therefore a bigger
(b) And having mentioned 'Neveilos u'Tereifos' (which are forbidden to eat
and Tamei [presumably, the Tana mentions T'reifos, which are not Tamei,
because of Neveilos, since they often appear together]), the Tana needs to
mention 'ki'Shekatzim u'Remasim' - which are Tamei even hen they are only
the size of a lentil (and not just a k'Zayis, like Neveilos).
2. ... 'ke'Avodas Kochavim', he sees fit to mention 'ke'Oros Levuvin
(they would cut a hole through the skin of the animal whilst it was still
alive and remove its heart, to sacrifice to their gods) - because, like all
objects that were sacrificed to idolatry, it was not subject to Bitul
(making it a bigger Chidush still).
(c) What all the cases in the Mishnah have in common is - the fact that they
are all in the category of Davar ha'Asur and not Davar ha'Nadur, which
explains why the Neder is invalid.
(d) The Tana inserts 'ke'Chalas Aharon ve'chi'Terumaso' in the list -
because, the Isur comes into effect, not through his separation, but through
the Torah's Isur. This is because the produce and the dough are already
forbidden before the owner separates them, and when he does separate them,
his intention is to permit the remainder - see Meforshei ha'Mishnah).
(a) If someone says to his wife 'Harei At Alai ke'Eima, Poschin Lo Pesach
mi'Makom Acher' - because, even though his mother is a Davar ha'Asur, we are
afraid that an Am-ha'Aretz (about whom the Tana is speaking), will go on to
presume that a Neder that he is Matfis be'Davar ha'Nadur is not valid,
(b) This Halachah is not confined to 'ke'Eima', but to all cases of Davar
ha'Asur. The Tana picked a case of Isurei Hana'ah - and might well have
given any such example, such as Avodas-Kochavim, Orlah or K'lai ha'Kerem
(c) When the Tana says 'mi'Makom Acher' - he means that one cannot use Kavod
Aviv ve'Imo (i.e. when the Chacham says to the Noder 'Had you known that it
is disrespectful to use your parents in this way, would you have made the
Neder') as a means to annul the Neder. We know this already with regard to a
Neder d'Oraysa, and the Tana is teaching us here that the same applies to a
(d) This Halachah will not apply to most other Nedarim that an Am ha'Aretz
makes through a Davar ha'Asur (i.e. his Neder will not require Hatarah) -
and it is only in cases such as this one (where a man forbids his wife
through a Neder), which are common, that Chazal were stringent, and required