ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 31
NEDARIM 31 - dedicated anonymously in honor of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, and in
honor of those who study the Dafyomi around the world.
(a) 'ha'Noder mi'Shovsei Shabbos Asur be'Yisrael ve'Asur be'Kutim'. Kutim
1. ... also be incorporated if one were to be Noder 'me'Ochlei Shum' ...
(b) The significance of 'Ochlei Shum' is - that it is a Takanas Ezra to eat
garlic on Erev Shabbos, because it increases the possibility of conceiving
for Talmidei-Chachamim, whose Onah is on Friday night.
2. ... but not if he was Noder 'me'Olei Yerushalayim'.
(c) 'Shovsei Shabbos' cannot mean ...
1. ... those who observe Shabbos - because then why does the Tana not
include even Nochrim who observe Shabbos (even though they are forbidden to
(d) So Abaye explains 'Shovsei Shabbos' to mean both that they are commanded
to observe Shabbos and that they fulfill it (including Kutim, but excluding
Nochrim); 'Ochlei Shum' too, which the Kutim used to fulfill, includes Kutim
and excludes Nochrim; whereas 'Olei Yerushalayim' excludes Kutim too (since
'Aliyas ha'Regel' is a Mitzvah which the Kutim did not fulfill).
2. ... those who are commanded to observe Shabbos - because then, why does
the Tana conclude 'ha'Noder me'Olei Yerushalayim ... u'Mutar be'Kutim',
seeing as they too, are included in the command of 'Aliyas ha'Regel' three
times annually, just like the rest of Yisrael.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states ...
1. ... 'Konem she'Eini Neheheh mi'B'nei No'ach, Mutar be'Yisrael'. A Yisrael
is not included in the term 'B'nei No'ach' (despite the fact that they are
descendants of No'ach) - because from the time that Avraham 'sanctified
himself', he and his descendants left the realm of 'B'nei No'ach'.
(b) Someone who is Noder not to receive benefit from Jews, must pay more
than the market price for whatever he purchases from them and sell to them
for less. This is only the case however, if the Noder forbids Hana'ah on
himself. Should he forbid the Mudar's property on himself or vice-versa,
then all business transactions with him will be forbidden, irrespective of
how much either of them pays.
2. ... 'Konem she'Eini Neheneh le'Zera Avraham, Asur be'Yisrael u'Mutar
be'Ovdei-Kochavim'. Despite the fact that both Yishmael and Eisav were
direct descendants of Avraham, the Tana does not distinguish between them
are other 'Ovdei-Kochavim' - because Hashem said to Avraham "Ki be'Yitzchak
Yikarei Lecha Zara" - "be'*Yitzchak*", 've'Lo be'Yishmael'; "*be*'Yitzchak",
've'Lo Kol Yitzchak'.
(c) If he declared a Neder forbidding Jews to benefit from him or
vice-versa - he must sell to them for more than the market price and pay
less for what he buys.
(d) 've'Ein Shom'in Lo' means - that nobody is obligated to sell to him (and
lose). (Some even have the text '*Im* Shom'in Lo'.)
(a) We might have thought (in the latter case) that the Neder will not
pertain to property that he purchases only after the Neder has been
declared - because it is a 'Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' (something that is not
yet in the world and on which no transaction is valid).
The Mishnah concludes with the case of someone who declares that he will
neither receive any Hana'ah from all Jews nor they from him must enact all
his business transactions with Nochrim. The Tana needs to tell us this -
because we would otherwise have thought that, like a case where someone
swears not to sleep for three days, where he receives Malkos and is
permitted to sleep immediately (because the Shevu'ah is impossible to keep),
his Neder is invalid and he is permitted to transact with Jews, because, due
to the difficulty of transacting only with Nochrim, his Neder is considered
impossible to keep.
(b) This is not the case however - because the Tana is speaking when he
forbade *himself* on the property (and not the reverse), and *he* is in the
(c) It would have been the case if he had said for example 'Konem Peiros
Dekel shel P'loni Alai' (forbidding next year's crop of dates of so-and-so
date-palm on himself) or the fruit that he is about to purchase (both of
which are considered not in the world as regards transactions), or if he had
said 'Konem Nechasai Alecha' or 'Konem Nechasecha Alai' (restricting the
Isur to property that they own now).
(d) Whether if a person forbids his property on others, and then exchanges
some of it for other property - the new property is considered like fruit
that grows on a forbidden tree (and is forbidden like the tree itself) or
not, will be discussed later in Perek ha'Shutfin.
(a) Shmuel says that someone who takes an object from the manufacturer to
inspect before purchasing it in order to examine it, and breaks it, is
obligated to pay - because the one who gains from the purchase is the
purchaser. Consequently, when he takes the object to inspect it he resembles
a borrower (who has all the benefits), and a borrower is Chayav for Onsin.
(b) Shmuel must be speaking specifically in a case when the price of the
object is fixed, as we established in Bava Basra - because that is when the
purchaser is confident that he will buy it, failing which one could hardly
ascribe all the benefits to him.
(c) The problem that we have with Shmuel from our Mishnah 'she'Eini Neheneh
mi'Yisrael, Mocher be'Pachos' according to Shmuel is - that, according to
him, the Tana ought to have said 'Mocher Shaveh be'Shaveh' (i.e. for the
market value, seeing as it is the purchaser alone who benefits).
(a) What makes ...
1. ... 'a bad sale' (where the object that is being sold is of inferior
quality) solely the benefit of the seller (if he sells it at market price)
is - the fact that the purchaser can easily find its equivalent, whereas the
seller will have difficulty in selling it).
(b) We reject the suggestion that the Tana is referring specifically to 'a
bad sale', on the grounds that the Tana, in the same breath, said 'Lokei'ach
be'Yoser', and if the object is inferior, why should he not be permitted to
pay the market price for it. The other objection is - from the Seifa
'she'Yisrael Nehenin Li ... u'Mocher be'Yoser'. Now if we are speaking of an
inferior object, why should he not be permitted to sell it at market price
(which is more than its real value)?
2. ... 'a good sale' (where the object is of superior quality) solely the
benefit of the purchaser (if he buys it at market price) is - the fact that
the seller can easily sell it, whereas the purchaser will have difficulty in
finding its equivalent.
(c) We reject the suggestion that in the Seifa, the Tana is referring
specifically to 'a good sale' on the same grounds. So, to reconcile Shmuel
with our Mishnah, we establish the Mishnah by a regular article (where both
the seller and the purchaser benefit) and Shmuel when it is 'a good sale'
(where it is the purchaser alone who benefits, as we explained earlier).
(d) We did not for one moment, believe that it was possible to establish our
Mishnah by a 'bad sale' or 'a good sale' - only we cited all the
possibilities in order to establish the table of Halachos.
(a) The Beraisa refers to the case of someone who purchases objects from a
store to take to his in-laws - stipulating with the store-keeper that he
will pay the full value of the articles should they accept them, but only
'Tovas Hana'ah' (for the benefit that he receives from the transaction)
should they not.
(b) The Tovas Hana'ah in this case - is what it is worth to him to
demonstrate to his in-laws how much he cares for them.
(c) Should an O'nes occur on his outward journey - he is obligated to pay in
full, because, since he has all the benefit, he has the Din of a borrower,
supporting Shmuel's theory (that someone who receives an object from the
store-keeper for inspection is Chayav Onsin like a borrower).
(d) On the return journey, however, where he no longer derives any benefit
from the article - he no longer has the Din of a borrower, and is therefore
Patur from Onsin. He is however, obligated to pay for theft or loss (like a
borrower after his allotted time has expired, when he adopts the Din of a
Shomer Sachar), due to the principle 'Ho'il ve'Neheneh, Mehaneh' (Someone
who receives benefit, repays benefit).
(a) If someone forbids Hana'ah on himself from 'Arleilim' (or forbids them
to have Hana'ah from him) - he includes all Jews, even if they are
uncircumcised, and excludes all Nochrim, even if they have been circumcised.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Chol ha'Goyim Areilim, ve'Chol Beis Yisrael
Arlei Lev" - that even a circumcised Nochri is called an 'Arel'.
(c) We nevertheless need to quote the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Hayah ha'P'lishti ha'Arel ha'Zeh" to teach us this - because
otherwise, we might have thought that Nochrim are called 'Arlei Lev' (of
impure hearts - to conform with the continuation of the Pasuk), but not
'Areilim' S'tam (uncircumcised).
(d) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah extrapolates the Torah's disgust of the Orlah -
from the Pasuk "Ki Kol ha'Goyim Areilim".
2. ... "Pen Tismachnah B'nos ha'Pelishtim, Pen Ta'aloznah B'nos ha'Areilim,
to teach us the same thing again - because the previous Pasuk might refer
exclusively to Golyas (whom David presumed was not born Mahul - like the
majority of people), whereas this Pasuk refers to all of the P'lishtim, some
of whom must have been born circumcised, yet David calls them all 'Areilim'.
(a) The Mishnah continues to list the various praises and advantages of
B'ris Milah. According to Rebbi Yishmael - it is praiseworthy due to the
thirteen covenants (corresponding to the numerical value of "Hashem *Echad*
and of "Ahavah") that the Torah mentions on account of it in Parshas Lech
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "u'va'*Yom* ha'Shemini Yimol B'sar Orlaso" (from
which Rebbi Yossi extrapolates the praise of Milah) - that one must perform
the Mitzvah even on Shabbos (despite the fact that Shabbos is a La'av which
carries with it Kareis, and which an ordinary Asei cannot override).
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah cites the fact that Moshe almost lost his
life the moment he delayed circumcising his son ...
1. ... Rebbi Nechemyah - from the Pasuk "u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol *B'sar*
Orlaso" - which teaches us that Milah overrides the La'av of removing
Tzara'as from one's flesh.
2. ... Rebbi (or Rebbi Meir) - from the Pasuk "His'halech Lefanai ve'Heyei
Samim" - which teaches us that, in spite of Avraham's many Mitzvos, he was
not termed 'complete' until he performed the B'ris Milah.
(a) The final praise listed in our Mishnah ('Davar Acher') cites the Pasuk
"Koh Amar Hashem, Im Lo B'risi, Yomam va'Laylah Chukos Shamayim va'Aretz Lo
Samti" - from which we learn that the entire world was only created on the
merit of the B'ris Milah.
(b) Some add an additional source "Hinei Dam ha'B'ris" (mentioned at Matan
Torah), from which we learn 'Gedolah Milah she'Hi Shekulah Keneged Kol
(c) Even though this Pasuk refers to the blood of the Korban that they
sacrificed at Har Sinai, and not about the B'ris Milah at all -
nevertheless, since the whole Torah is referred to as 'B'ris' and the Milah
too, is called 'B'ris', it places B'ris Milah on a par with all the Mitzvos
(see also Tosfos DH 'Hinei').
(a) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah in our Mishnah.
According to him, Moshe was not lax regarding the Milah at all. In fact, his
delay in delaying the Milah was perfectly justifiable - because on the one
hand, he learned from the men of Sh'chem (by whom the Torah writes "Vayehi
ba'Yom ha'Shelishi, bi'Heyosam Ko'avim") that after an operation of this
nature, one is in deep pain on the third day) and therefore vulnerable;
whereas on the other, he could hardly perform the Milah, wait three days and
then go to Egypt, seeing as Hashem had instructed him to go now.
(b) We cannot infer from the men of Sh'chem that the pain on the third day
is more intense than on the other two days - only that two days of continued
pain sap one's strength, and that one is weakest on the third day (so that
the pain then renders one more vulnerable, as we explained).
(c) Moshe was not lax in delaying the B'ris per se - but for settling into
the hotel before performing the Mitzvah of Milah (and that was why the
angel nearly killed him).
(d) He would have had no problem with completing his journey to Egypt as
Hashem had commanded him, in spite of his newly-circumcised baby - because
he was close to the borders of Egypt, and such a short journey would not
have posed a threat to the baby's life.
(a) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, it was not Moshe whom the angel
threatened - but the baby whose Milah was due.
(b) He proves this from Tziporah's statement "Ki Chasan Damim Atah Li" -
because there was no reason to refer to Moshe as 'Chasan', whereas her son
(whom some say was their first son Gershom, and others say Eliezer, their
youngest son), was entering into his first Mitzvah (see Rosh) and it was
appropriate to refer to him by this title.