ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 78
(a) 'Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Chacham sha'Amar be'Lashon Ba'al ... Lo Amar
K'lum'. The Lashon of ...
1. ... a Chacham is - 'Mutar Lach'.
(b) The Lashon of Hafarah is written specifically in the Torah. We learn the
Lashon of Hatarah by a Chacham from the Pasuk "Lo Yachel Devaro" - by
extrapolating 'Aval Acheirim Mochlin Lo' (meaning that others may render his
Neder Chulin). 'Mutar Lach' simply means that that what was previously
'holy' is now profane.
2. ... a husband is 'Mufar Lach'.
(c) The Yerushalmi incorporates 'Ein Ka'an Neder' and 'Ein Ka'an Shevu'ah'
in the Lashon of the Chacham - from which we can extrapolate that he uproots
the Neder retroactively, from its inception, as opposed to Hafaras Nedarim,
where the husband or the father only remove it from that time on.
(d) We learn from the Pasuk "Zeh ha'Davar" - that if a Chacham used a Lashon
of Hafarah or a husband or father, a Lashon of Hatarah, their annulment
would be invalid.
(a) With regard to Hataras Nedarim, we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Zeh ha'Davar", "Zeh ha'Davar" from Shechutei Chutz (where the Torah writes
"Aharon u'Vanav *ve'Chol Yisrael*") - that three Hedyotos can anul a Neder.
(b) Rav Chisda (or Rebbi Yochanan) reconciles this D'rashah with the Pasuk,
which requires "Roshei ha'Matos" - by confining that Pasuk to a Yachid
Mumcheh (where one expert annuls Nedarim on his own).
(c) This does not mean that any three people can annul Nedarim (like ve'Chol
Yisrael' mentioned in the Parshah of Shechutei Chutz)
- only people who at least understand a Halachah when it is explained to
them (as the Yerushalmi explains).
(d) This is the case, in spite of the fact that Shechutei Chutz is speaking
about any three people. The reason for this is a matter of logic - because
otherwise, they would not know what they were doing, and it would be obvious
that their annulment was worthless.
(a) We know that three Hedyotos are required for Hataras Nedarim, and not
two - because we give this a Din of Beis-Din, which (because of the
principle 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul, Mosifin Aleihen Od Echad'), always requires
an odd number.
(b) 'Shechutei Chutz' is - the prohibition of Shechting Korbanos outside the
Courtyard of the Beis-Hamikdash.
(c) The ramifications of the D'rashah 'u'Mah Ka'an Roshei ha'Matos, Af
Lehalan Roshei ha'Matos' are - that it is possible to have one's Hekdesh
revoked by a Beis-Din ('Yesh She'eilah be'Hekdesh' - in which case one will
be spared from having contravened the Isur of Shechutei Chutz).
(a) We conclude that Beis Shamai do not hold of the previous
'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because we know that he holds 'Ein She'eilah
be'Hekdesh'(in contravention to what we just learned from it).
(b) Beis Shamai learn from "Zeh ha'Davar" by ...
1. ... Shechutei Chutz - to preclude Melikah (of a bird of Hekdesh) from the
La'av of Shechutei Chutz.
(c) Despite the fact that Beis Hillel agree with this latter D'rashah, they
are able to use the same words for a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because "Zeh
ha'Davar" by *Shechutei Chutz* is superfluous, and a 'G'zeirah-Shavah' that
is 'Mufneh mi'Tzad Echad' (superfluous on one side) is a legitimate
2. ... Hataras Nedarim - that a Chacham must be *Matir* a Neder, and a
husband must be *Meifer* it (as we learned earlier).
(d) Beis Hillel learn from "Asher Yishchat" written by Shechutei Chutz - to
preclude Melikah from the La'av of Shechutei Chutz.
(a) The problem that Rav Asi bar Nasan had with the Beraisa, which,
discussing the Pasuk "Vayedaber Moshe es Mo'adei Hashem El B'nei Yisrael"
states 'Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili Omer, Mo'adei Ne'emrah, ve'Lo Ne'emrah Shabbos
Bereishis Imahen; ben Azai Omer, Mo'adei Ne'emrah ve'Lo Ne'emrah Parshas
Nedarim Imahen' - was that both statements appear to be incorrect, seeing as
a. Shabbos is inserted in the Parshah of Mo'ados, and b. the Parshah of
Mo'ados is followed immediately by that of Nedarim.
(b) When Rav Asi bar Nasan failed to find Rav Sheishes in Neherda'a - he
went to see him in Mechuza.
(c) Rav Sheishes eventually interpreted ...
1. ... 'Mo'adei Ne'emrah, ve'Lo Ne'emrah Shabbos Bereishis Imahen' to mean -
that Mo'adei Hashem require Kidush Beis-Din to fix, whereas Shabbos
(Bereishis) does not
(d) Rav Chisda (or Rebbi Yochanan) reconcile this latter D'rashah with the
Pasuk "Roshei ha'Matos" - by restricting this Pasuk to a Yachid Mumcheh (as
we explained earlier according to Beis Hillel's D'rashah).
2. ... Mo'adei Ne'emrah ve'Lo Ne'emrah Parshas Nedarim Imahen' - that
Mo'adei Hashem require Mumchin, but not Nedarim.
(a) We learn that the fixing of the Mo'ados requires Mumchin - because the
Torah writes in Bo (in that regard) "Vayedaber Hashem el Moshe ve'El Aharon
... ", and Moshe and Aharon were certainly Mumchin.
(b) Based on this D'rashah - the sort of Yachid Mumcheh that ought to be
required by Hataras Nedarim is - a Samuch.
(c) The Rambam however - requires only one who is Gamir ve'Savir (an expert
in matters of Halachah), but who does not necessarily have Semichah.
(d) According to ...
1. ... the initial interpretation of a Yachid Mumcheh - the Kashya 've'Ha
Roshei ha'Matos K'siv' queries the fact that Hataras Nedarim does not
require Mumchin (like by Kidush Mo'ados).
2. ... the Rambam's interpretation - the Kashya is why Hedyotos should be
(a) According to the Rambam, had the Torah been referring to Semuchin - it
would have written "Elohim".
(b) We now know from "Roshei ha'Matos" that Hataras Nedarim requires experts
(though not necessarily Semuchin). If the word "Eileh" (written by Kidush
Mo'ados) came to preclude Shabbos from Kidush Beis-Din (and not pertain to
Hataras Nedarim) - we would have the problem why we should not learn from
"Roshei ha'Matos" that although we do not need three Semuchin, we should at
least require three experts (when in fact, the Halachah requires only
(c) We know that the Torah writes "Eileh" to preclude Nedarim from the Din
of Mumchin - because of the juxtaposition of Nedarim to the Parshah of
(d) We now learn from the combination of the two D'rashos ("Roshei ha'Matos"
and "Eileh") - that on the one hand, Hataras Nedarim requires experts, but
on the other, we preclude Hataras Nedarim from the Din of Semuchin (meaning
from the Din of experts, seeing as we already know the preclusion from
Semuchin from "Roshei ha'Matos). Consequently, we require only one Mumcheh,
whilst the other two can be Hedyotos.
(a) Although Mumcheh means an expert who is not a Samuch, Rebbi Zeira (in
the Yerushalmi) nevertheless maintained that Rav Huna was not eligible to
annul Nedarim on his own - because, in his opinion, not all experts are
eligible to annul Nedarim on their own, only the greatest in their
generation (as is implied by "Roshei ha'Matos"), and Rav Huna, according to
him, did not belong in that category.
(b) We can extrapolate from that Yerushalmi that any Rav who is outstanding
in his generation is permitted to annul Nedarim on his own.
(c) Others extrapolate from there - that even if Semuchin is not required,
there is nevertheless nobody who even falls under the category of Mumcheh
(a) Rebbi Chanina says - that if a husband hears his wife declare a Neder,
and remains silent, but 'Lemeikat' (in order to tease her, and not because
he intends to uphold the Neder) - he remains permitted to annul the Neder,
even in ten days time.
(b) We ask on Rebbi Chanina from the Beraisa that we learned above ' ...
Aval Shama ... ve'Shasak, u'Meis be'Yom shel Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer' -
on the grounds that the Tana states 'Shama ve'Shasak' S'tam, suggesting that
he is covering all cases of Shesikah (even Shesikah al-Menas Lemeikat).
(a) We answer 'Lo, be'Shosek al-Menas Lekayem' - meaning that he was silent
with the specific intention of upholding the Neder (and not in order to
(b) We reject this answer however - on the grounds that in that case, there
will be no difference between the two cases mentioned in the Beraisa: 'Shama
ve'Shasak' and 'Shama ve'Kiyem'.
(c) So what Shama ve'Shasak finally means - is Shasak S'tam, because he was
yet undecided whether to annul the Neder or to uphold it.