ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 21
(a) When the Yerushalmi says about Nidrei Ziruzin 'Aval be'Mama'amidin,
Tz'richin Heter Chacham' - it means that, if the two parties subsequently
explained that each one meant exactly what he said, and had no intention of
compromising, then their Nedarim stand.
(b) This is not obvious from the Seifa of the Mishnah 'Sh'neihen Rotzin
bi'Shelosah Dinrim' - because we might otherwise have explained it to mean
that they arrived *later* at the compromise of three Dinrim.
(c) The Yerushalmi also says that - if someone in the process of selling an
article to one of two prospective buyers, makes a Neder which he intends to
be a Neder Ziruzin regarding one of them, but literally, regarding the
other - seeing as the Neder is void of the former, it is also void as
regards the latter.
(a) In the case of our Mishnah, the seller is permitted to accept less than
three Dinrim - because, since the implication of the Neder is no more than
an inducement, the decision not to go below or above three Dinrim remains
(b) The seller - is not however, permitted to accept a Shekel or the buyer
to pay a Sela (since each one's Neder was certainly meant to counter the
other's explicit statement). There are those however, who disagree with
(c) The Tosefta states - that "Lo Yachel Devaro" does apply to the four
cases in our Mishnah, and it is forbidden to declare the Neder with the
express intention of contravening it.
(a) Rebbi Ami establishes the four Nedarim like Rebbi Yehudah Amar Rebbi
Tarfon - who holds that at the time when the Nezirus is undertaken, it must
be explicit, and not subject to doubt (as we have learned before). In Rebbi
Ami's opinion, the same applies to Nedarim, and is the source for the case
of Nidrei Ziruzin, which are made with a T'nai.
(b) Rava refutes Rebbi Ami's explanation, based on the Lashon 'Sheneihen
Rotzin' (in the present tense) - implying that the Neder is Bateil, not
because of a lack of clarity, but because both parties initially agreed on
three Shekalim. Consequently, the author of our Mishnah might well be the
Rabbanan of Rebbi Tarfon.
(c) According to Rebbi Ami, the Tana needs to add the clause that they both
agreed on the compromise of three Shekalim (despite the fact that the Neder
was unclear and should have been Bateil anyway) - to teach us that even such
a case, where there is no contradiction between the two Nedarim (unlike the
case of Nazir of Rebbi Tarfon, where both of the men cannot be Nezirim), and
in addition, it is possible for both men to reach a compromise, is included
in Rebbi Tarfon's ruling, and is Bateil.
(a) Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether it will be considered Nidrei Ziruzin even
if the seller stated a price over and above a Sela (a "sela plus a P'rutah),
and the buyer a price less than a Shekel (a Shekel minus a P'rutah). This
might not be included in Nidrei Ziruzin either because they entered into
such detail - or because the difference between them is so great (indicating
that they really mean what they say.
(b) he Tana of the Mishnah in Konem Yayin says that if someone who countered
his friend's efforts to invite him for a meal with a Neder 'Konem Beischa
she'Ani Nichnas, Tipas Tzonan she'Ani To'eim' - it is considered 'Nindrei
(c) Rav Ashi tries to resolve Ravina's She'eilah from there - either because
the Noder enters into such detail or because the vast difference between
eating a meal on the one hand, and entering his house and tasting a drop of
water on the other, yet the Tana considers it Nidrei Ziruzin.
1. We refute Rav Ashi's proof from there - on the basis of the principle
that Tzadikim say little but do a lot. Consequently, when the Noder spoke of
not even benefitting the tiniest amount from his friend, he meant it,
because he was afraid that otherwise, he may shower him with vast amounts of
food and drink, even though he only invited him to come and eat by him. In
the case in the Mishnah on the other hand, even if the seller said more than
a Sela, and the buyer less than a Shekel, perhaps both had the compromise
figure of three Dinrim in mind, in which case, it remains in the category of
2. Seeing as the She'eilah ends with 'Teiku' - we rule Lechumra (that
Ravina's case is not considered Nidrei Ziruzin, because of the principle
'S'feika d'Oraysa Le'chumra').
(a) When Rav Yehudah quoted to Shmuel, Rav Asi, who said that the four cases
of Nidrei Ziruzin all require nullification - Shmuel retorted that the
Lashon of the Tana 'Arba'ah Nedarim Hitiru Chachamim' belies this.
(b) In the second Lashon, Rav Yosef quotes Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi as
saying that a Chacham is only permitted to annul Nedarim that resemble the
four in our Mishnah - meaning that one may nullify vows by means of a
Pesach, which proves the Neder incorrect (like the four Nedarim, which are
automatically incorrect), and not by means of Charatah, which does not.
(c) When Rav Huna asked the man who came to nullify his Neder 'Libech
Alach'? - he was asking him whether his mind was lucid when he made the
Neder, or whether he still retained his original thought now as when he
declared the Neder (meaning that, until now, he wanted the Neder to be
effective, and it is only now that he changed his mind).
(d) We know that Charatah that is not retroactive is not considered
Charatah - because of the Lashon 'Poschin ba'Charatah'. Why would the
Chachamim otherwise need to ask the Noder anything? Why would the fact that
he came to have his Neder annulled not suffice?
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna disagrees with his father (and the same Machlokes
appears in a Beraisa). He annulled the Neder of a man on the basis of the
fact that, had there been ten men to appease him, he would not have made the
Neder in the fist place. It make no difference whether we conclude 'Poschin
Charatah', or 'Ein Poschin ba'Charatah' - because this case is worse than a
Pesach (seeing as now there are not ten men to annul the Neder), and it is
appropriate to deduce 'Poschin Charatah' (*this* kind of Charatah); and it
is better than ordinary Charatah, seeing as it is based on a fact, and it is
appropriate to deduce 'Ein Poschin ba'Charatah' (*ordinary* Charatah).
(b) When Rebbi Asi asked that man who came to him to annul his Neder 'Kadu
Tih'yeh', he replied 'Lo', on the basis of which he annulled it. When ...
1. ... Rebbi Asi said 'Kadu Tih'yeh' - he was asking him whether he was
remorseful retroactively of having made the Neder.
(c) We reconcile Rebbi Asi here, who holds 'Poschin ba'Charatah', with Rav
Asi earlier, who Rav Yehudah maintained, holds 'Ein Poschin ba'Charatah' -
by differentiating between Rebbi Asi (who lived in Eretz Yisrael) and Rav
Asi (who lived in Bavel).
2. ... the man replied 'Lo' - he was answering rhetorically 'Do you think
that I am not'?
(a) When Rebbi Elazar asked the man who came to have his Neder annulled
'Ba'is Nadur' - he was asking him whether he abided by his Neder until now.
(b) The man replied - that if they had not angered him in the first place,
he would not have made the Neder, upon which Rebbi Elazar nullified the
(c) Rebbi Yochanan annulled the Neder of that woman forbidding her daughter
to derive any benefit from her - by means of a Pesach that, had she known
that her neighbors would conclude that the daughter must have done something
terrible to deserve such a reaction from her mother, she would never have
made the Neder.