ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 23
NEDARIM 23 (10 Av) - dedicated by Mrs. G. Turkel (Rabbi
Kornfeld's grandmother) to the memory of her husband, Reb
Yisrael Shimon (Isi) ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel. Reb Yisrael
Turkel loved Torah and supported it with his last breath. He
passed away on 10 Av, 5780.
1. Aba Shaul ben Botnis annulled Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi's Neder - by getting
him to admit that he would not have declared it had he known that he would
cause the Rabbanan (who were trying) to annul it such pain by their having
to go backwards and forwards from the sun to the shade and from the shade to
the sun trying (unsuccessfully) to find him a Pesach (see Agados Maharsha).
(b) Rav Acha mi'Difti queried this ruling, on the basis of the Mishnah in
Rebbi Eliezer, where the Tana invalidates any Pesach which is 'Nolad' (which
only occurred after the Neder was made, and which could have been
2. They annulled Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi's Neder - when that
laundry-man, angry at seeing the Rabbanan who were frustrated at not being
able to find a Pesach for his Neder, struck him with a laundry-tub. He
(Rebbi Yishmael) would certainly not have declared the Neder he explained,
had he known that he would be struck with a laundry-tub.
(c) Ravina replied - that this was not Nolad, since there were many
Apikorsim (like that laudry-man) who annoyed the Rabbanan (so it was to be
expected that such an incident would occur).
(a) Abaye and his wife's dispute concerned - whether her daughter should
marry his relation or hers.
(b) Abaye then forbade Hana'ah on his wife should she contravene his
wishes - which she did by marrying off her daughter to her relative.
(c) Rav Yosef annulled Abaye's Neder - on the grounds that had Abaye known
that his wife would indeed contravene his Neder, he would not have made it.
(d) We bring a precedent from Rebbi Yossi for such a strange Pesach. Rebbi
Yossi annulled the Neder of a man who had been Madir his wife Hana'ah should
she go to Yerushalayim on Yom-Tov, and she went - on the basis of the fact
that, had her husband known that she would go, he would not have declared
the Neder in the first place. It is strange to use the contravention of the
Neder as a Pesach, when it is clear that that is precisely what the Noder
(a) In the previous case, we express surprised at Rav Yosef, because we
believe that the Neder should not even be subject to nullification, despite
the fact that in the case of Nidrei Ziruzin, the Neder does not even require
Hatarah - because there, it is obvious that both parties agree on three
Dinrim, and the Neder does not conform with their thoughts; whereas here,
Abaye certainly meant what he said.
(b) This case also differs from the following Mishnah, where Rebbi Eliezer
ben Ya'akov considers someone who declares a Neder on his friend's property
to try and induce him to eat by him, Nidrei Ziruzin, even though he really
means what he says - because there, it is obvious that the Neder is not
meant seriously, seeing as his friend's refusal to eat with him does not
warrant forbidding himself from all of his friend's property; whereas in the
case of Abaye and his wife, there is no reason to suggest that Abaye did not
mean what he said.
(c) The Gaon (whose Chumros we cited at the end of the previous Amud) - adds
all the current cases of Pesach to that list. He only permits the
nullification of Nedarim by means of a regular Pesach.
(a) We have already learned that a Yachid Mumcheh is required to annul
Nedarim, and that, where none is available, three ordinary people may do so.
This is the opinion of the Rabbanan. Rebbi Yehudah requires in addition -
that one of the three Hedyotos must be a Chacham (who is both 'Gamir' and
'Savir' - learned and who gets the point when others convey it to him) like
Rav Nachman, who did not receive Semichah.
(b) The other two - must be at least 'Savir'.
(c) The Yachid Mumcheh, according to the Ramban, must be a Samuch - because
if 'Gamir ve'Savir' was sufficient, then why would the Chacham in the
Beis-Din of three require the other two to sit with him, seeing as he is
already a Yachid Mumcheh.
(d) Hataras Nedarim, like Kidush ha'Chodesh (Mo'adei Hashem) - requires a
Yachid Mumcheh (though by Kidush ha'Chodesh, it is all three Dayanim who
must be on that level).
(a) The above is basically the opinion of the Ramban. The Rambam defines
Yachid Mumcheh as 'Gamir ve'Savir'.
(b) The three Hedyotos need to be 'Savir' (according to the Chachamim of
Rebbi Yehudah), but not 'Gamir'.
(c) A Beis-Din of three Hedyotos should not annul Nedarim when a Yachid
Mumcheh is available - out of respect for the Yachid Mumcheh.
(d) If they did - the Neder is nevertheless annulled.
(a) According to the initial text, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov advises someone
who wants to induce his friend to eat by him with a Neder (forbidding his
food on him if he doesn't comply) - to declare the Neder that he is about to
So we amend Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov's statement by adding words and
transforming it into two statements - 1. Someone whose friend declines his
invitation to eat by him and who makes a Neder to induce him to do so, does
not require Hatarah, because it is included in Nidrei Ziruzin; 2. Someone
who wants to render void any Neder that he makes during the year should
stand on Rosh Hashanah and invalidate in advance, all Nedarim that he will
make in the course of the year.
(b) (According to the text in our Mishnah) however, the T'nai will only take
effect - if he remembers when declaring the Neder, that he made it.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov's advice as it stands is impractical - because
since the Nadur knows about the T'nai, how can the Noder expect him to take
the Neder seriously?
(d) We cannot simply answer that the Noder made the declaration silently -
because a. the word *'Af* ha'Rotzeh ... ' suggests that this is an extension
of Nidrei Ziruzin (which does not require Hatarah at all), and b. because
unless we amend the statement, the words 'on condition that he remembers the
T'nai at the time of the Neder' with which the Tana concludes are
meaningless (seeing as he declares the Neder immediately after the T'nai.
(a) The wording in our Mishnah 'u'Vilvad she'Yehei Zachur be'Sha'as ha'Neder
makes no sense - because if the Noder remembers the T'nai at the time of the
Neder, then, by declaring the Neder, he automatically overrides the T'nai.
(b) When we learned at the end of the previous Amud, that a T'nai that
precedes a Neder overrides the Neder (and not the reverse) - that is when
the Neder is declared immediately after the T'nai, where the Noder is in
effect saying, that the Neder is to take effect with the T'nai in mind;
whereas we are currently speaking when the Noder declared the Neder long
after the T'nai (in which case, it is the Neder that overrides the T'nai).
And besides, here we are speaking about a personal Neder, which he obviously
intends to take effect, whereas above we were speaking about a Neder
concerning his friend, where the Sevara of Nidrei Ziruzin allows us to say
that he wants the T'nai and not the Neder.
(c) The Rashba resolves the discrepancy - by establishing our Sugya by an Am
ha'Aretz, who may have negated his T'nai when declaring the Neder, though
strictly speaking, one intends the T'nai to stand (which is certainly the
case by a Talmid-Chacham), explaining the Kashya at the foot of the
(a) So Abaye amends it to read - 'u'Vilvad she*'Lo* Yehei Zachur be'Sha'as
ha'Neder', in which case the T'nai overrides the Neder.
(b) Rava leaves the original text intact. According to him, Rebbi Eliezer
ben Ya'akov speaks when the Noder made a T'nai at the beginning of the year
(as we learned earlier), only he forgot what the T'nai was. Should he remain
silent (even if he remembers the T'nai whilst declaring the Neder, he
obviously intends his Neder to override the T'nai. But in the event that he
mentions the T'nai ('she'Yehei Zachur' - verbally), then his T'nai overrides
(c) If he forgot the T'nai when declaring the Neder (Abaye's case) - Rava
concedes to Abaye that the T'nai overrides the Neder. The reason that he
prefers to leave the original text intact is not because he disagrees with
Abaye's explanation, but because he does not want to alter the text so
dramatically (from 'Zachur' to 'Eino Zachur').
(a) 'Kol Nidrei' that we say on Yom Kipur night appears to be based on this
Sugya. The problem with the text 'mi'Yom ha'Kipurim she'Avar ad Yom
ha'Kipurim ha'Ba ... ' (see Tosfos DH 'Rava') - is that it refers to Nedarim
that one made during the past year, whereas our Sugya refers to Nedarim that
one will declare in the forthcoming year.
(b) Rabeinu Ya'akov (better known as Rabeinu Tam) amended the text of 'Kol
Nidrei' to the future tense.
(c) It may not be such a good idea however, to follow his text - since this
creates an attitude of lightheadedness regarding Nedarim, which the Tana of
our Mishnah is clearly trying to avoid (by presenting this Heter in an
indirect and cryptic manner).
(a) We have just learned that a T'nai that precedes a Neder can override it
when it is declared. Whether or not, such a T'nai can also override a
Shevu'ah - is a Machlokes Rishonim.
(b) A T'nai preceding a Neder or a Shevu'ah that one declares forbidding
someone else to derive benefit from oneself, will not override the
subsequent Neder or Shevu'ah - because the Noder declares such a Neder not
on his own mind, but on the Nadur's, in which case, he intends it to
override his own T'nai completely.
(a) We ask two She'eilos. One of them: whether the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi
Eliezer ben Ya'akov or not - the other, whether, assuming that they do, the
Halachah is like him or not.
(b) This does not mean that the Rabbanan might also argue with the concept
of Nidrei Ziruzin altogether - only in this case, where it may well be that
the Noder really wants the Neder to be effective, but not in the initial
case of the minimum Sela fixed by the seller and the maximum Shekel fixed by
the buyer, where it is logical to say that both parties really agree on
three Dinrim, and their Neder is only to induce the other party to agree
with their initial terms.