ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 42
NEDARIM 42 (29 Av) - "Mechabdo b'Chayav, Mechabdo b'Moso" (Kidushin 31b).
This Daf has been dedicated by Yair Trebitsch l'Iluy Nishmas his father,
Eliezer Shmuel Binyomin ben Mayer Trebitsch, in honor of his Yahrzeit.
(a) Someone who is Mudar Hana'ah before the Sh'mitah, may neither enter the
field of the Madir, nor may he eat from the fruit that overhangs the street.
If the Madir declared the Neder in the Sh'mitah -year - he remains forbidden
to enter the field, but is permitted to eat the overhanging fruit.
(b) Should the Madir restrict the Neder to food ...
1. ... before the Sh'mitah - he may enter the field, but not eat the
2. ... during the Sh'mitah - both become permitted.
(a) Rav and Shmuel both maintain that the Reisha of our Mishnah (which
forbids both entering the Madir's field and benefiting from the fruit that
overhangs the street - when the Madir declared the Neder before the
Sh'mitah) continues to apply even when the Sh'mitah year arrives. According
to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - the prohibition regarding the fruit
falls away the moment Sh'mitah arrives.
It make no difference, according to our current understanding of Rebbi
Yochanan and Resh Lakish, whether the Madir declared the Neder S'tam or
whether he specifically stated that he wishes it to remain in effect after
it has left his domain - either way, the Neder falls away as soon as the
property leaves the Noder's domain (because it is not due to the *Lashon*
that the Neder does not extend beyond his jurisdiction, but because he *lack
power* to make it do so).
(b) Rav and Shmuel will explain ...
1. ... the prohibition (forbidding the overhanging fruit) in the Reisha of
our Mishnah - to extend to after the Sh'mitah arrives.
(c) According to the suggestion that the basis of their Machlokes is whether
the prohibition that a person makes on his property extends even to when the
property is no longer in his domain - Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue
with Rav and Shmuel inasmuch as according to them, the Reisha and the Seifa
are one case: 'u'vi'Shevi'is' in the Seifa is not a new case (as Rav and
Shmuel explain), but refers to the Reisha, where he declared the Neder
before the Shevi'is. When the Shevi'is arrives, the Seifa is saying, the
Neder falls away automatically.
2. ... the Seifa - specifically to when the Madir declared the Neder in the
Sh'mitah-year (as we explained in the Mishnah).
(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish who learn that the Reisha
and the Seifa are speaking in one and the same case - there is no Chidush
in the Reisha; the Tana learns the Reisha because of the Seifa.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish speak specifically when the Madir said
'Nechasai'. What makes us think that they refer even to a case of 'Nechasim
Eilu' - is that otherwise, the Seifa would be superfluous. It is obvious
that if he said 'Nechasai', the Neder will fall away as soon as the property
is no longer his.
(b) Neither can the Chidush of the Mishnah be to teach us that the Mudar is
forbidden to enter the Madir's land (to preclude the suggestion that the
land too, leaves the owner's domain in the Sh'mitah) - because then it does
not belong *here*, but with Dinei Mamonos or in Shevi'is depending on the
explanation as to why he is forbidden to enter the property (later in the
(c) The difference between when someone says ' ... le'Bayis Zeh she'Ani
Nichnas', where the Noder is forbidden to benefit from the house even after
the owner dies or sells it, and our case, where, when the Madir forbids his
field with the Lashon 'Nechasim Eilu', where the Neder becomes annulled the
moment Sh'mitah arrives, taking the fruit out of his domain is - that in the
former case, where it is *the Mudar* who declares the Neder, the Neder
remains in effect, because he is empowered to forbid someone's property on
himself forever, even after it leaves the original owner's domain; whereas
in our case, where it is *the Madir* who is forbidding his own property on
the Mudar, his Neder is limited to as long as the property remains in his
(d) We refute this interpretation of their Machlokes - because then, Rebbi
Yochanan and Resh Lakish should have said 'Nechasim Eilu' (and not
(a) We now think that they argue - in a case of 'Nechasai', where,
according to Rav and Shmuel, the Neder continues to be effective even when
the property is no longer in the Neder's domain, and according to Rebbi
Yochanan and Resh Lakish, it does not.
(b) Rav and Shmuel said 'Nechasim Eilu' - because it is obvious that there
is no difference between the two Leshonos, either because even 'Nechasai'
implies forever, or because once the Neder takes effect, it cannot fall away
irrespective of what the Noder said.
(c) By 'Nechasim Eilu' - even Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish will agree that
the property remains forbidden even after it has left the Madir's domain.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish now establish the Reisha of the Mishnah -
by 'Nechasim Eilu'. What they are saying to Rav and Shmuel is that if the
Tana would be speaking in a case of 'Nechasai', then he would not have
forbidden the Mudar to enter the Madir's field and eat the fruit even after
the Sh'mitah arrived, like he does now.
(a) If a man dies after saying to his son ...
1. ... 'Konem she'Atah Neheneh Li' - his son inherits his father's property,
and is permitted to use it.
(b) There no proof from here that when the Madir forbids his own property on
the Mudar, his Neder is limited to as long as the property belongs to him -
because the Tana specifically speaks when the father said 'be'Chayav
u've'Moso', in which case, even Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish will concede
that the Neder remains in force (because, contrary to what we originally
thought, it is due to the *Lashon* that the Neder does not extend beyond his
jurisdiction, *not* because of the Noder's *lack of power* to make it do
2. ... 'Konem she'Atah Neheneh Li be'Chayai u've'Mosi' - he inherits the
property, but is forbidden to use it.
(a) The Tana of the Mishnah in 'ha'Shutfin' says that someone who says ...
Throughout the Sugya, we cited Rav and Shmuel before Rebbi Yochanan and Resh
Lakish, because we believed that the latter were coming to argue with the
former. Consequently - when in the concluding statement, we point out that,
in fact, they do not argue, we support this Chidush by citing Rebbi Yochanan
and Resh Lakish first.
1. ... 'Konem le'Toch *Beischa* she'Ani Nichnas, Sadcha she'Ani Lokei'ach;
Meis, O she'Machro le'Acher - Mutar'.
(b) This Mishnah proves - that there is a difference between 'Nechasim Eilu'
and 'Nechasai' (like we just explaind according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh
2. ... '*le'Bayis Zeh* she'Ani Nichnas, Sadeh Zu she'Ani Lokei'ach, Meis, O
she'Machro le'Acher - Asur'.
(c) So we finally reconcile Rav and Shmuel with Rebbi Yochanan and Resh
Lakish - by establishing each one exactly according to the words he used,
Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish by 'Nechasai', and Rav and Shmuel by
'Nechasim Eilu', and there is no argument.
(d) Our Mishnah now speaks specifically in a case of 'Nechasim Eilu' - even
according to Rav and Shmuel (but by 'Nechasai', the Mudar would be permitted
to enter the Madir's property and to eat the fruit with the entry of the
(a) The problem that we have with the Tana's prohibition of entering the
field in the Shmitah is - that the Torah has declared the field Hefker (for
the needs of anyone wishing to pick fruit from the trees), no less than the
fruit itself, so why should it be prohibited to enter any more than to eat
the fruit that overhangs the street.
(b) Ula answers that the Tana is speaking about trees that are situated at
the edge of the field - which can be picked from outside the borders of the
field, and there is no need (and therefore no Heter) to enter the field.
(c) Rav Shimon ben Elyakim forbids entry even to pick fruit from trees that
are in the middle of the field - because we are afraid that maybe he will
remain (standing) in the field longer than necessary.
(d) Shmuel (who holds in principle like Rav Shimon ben Elyakim), only
decreed that the Madir might remain *sitting* with the sick Mudar, not
*standing* - because there, it is normal to sit down in front of the sick
person, and the fact that he remains standing will serve as a reminder for
him to leave as soon as the Mitzvah has been performed.