ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 82
NEDARIM 82 (Yom Kipur 5761) - Anonymously dedicated by an ardent supporter
who wants to have the Zechus of spreading Torah throughout the world.
(a) Rav Huna learns from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah says ' ...
Harei Zeh Yafer', after having already said earlier 'Rebbi Yossi Omer, Ein
Eilu Nidrei Inuy Nefesh' - that Rebbi Yossi is the author of all the
Mishnahs from now until the end of the Perek.
(b) Shmuel quoting Levi says that ...
1. ... all Nedarim except for Hana'asi al P'loni' - can be annulled by the
(c) Shmu'el is referring to - Nedarim that constitute Inuy Nefesh.
2. ... 'Hana'as P'loni Alai' - can be annulled by him, too.
(a) Our Mishnah states 'Konem Peiros Medinah Zu Alai, Yavi Lah mi'Medinah
Acheres' (implying that she is not permitted to eat the fruit of that
Medinah [even by means of Hafarah], in which case, he would certainly should
not be able to annul the Neder in the case of 'Hana'as P'loni Alai'). To
resolve the Kashya on Shmuel, Rav Yosef initially establishes the Mishnah -
when she said 'Peiros Medinah Zu Alai Im Tevi'em Atah', leaving an opening
for the fruit to be brought by someone else.
(b) The Mishnah does not say that someone else should bring fruit from
another country, rather than that her husband should bring her fruit from
that one - because if there was not a way for her husband to bring her
fruit, he would be allowed to annul her Neder. This is evident from the
Reisha, which permits him to annul 'Konem Peiros P'loni Alai', even though
it too, must speak when she said 'Tevi'em Atah, leaving the possibility for
others to bring her fruit, and yet the Tana says there 'Yafer'.
(c) The problem from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Peiros Chenvani Zeh Alai, Ein
Yachol Lehafer' is - from the final statement 'Lo Haysah Parnasaso Ela
Mimenu, Harei Zeh Yafer', which must also speak when she said 'she'Tavi
Atah'. Seeing as it is possible to benefit from the fruit should someone
else bring it, and in addition, for her husband to bring her other fruit, on
what grounds would he then be permitted to annul the Neder?
(a) Having retracted from the suggestion that our Mishnah speaks when she
said 'she'Tavi Atah' (and speaks even when she brings the fruit herself)
Shmuel accounts for the Reisha 'Peiros Chenvani Zeh Alai, Ein Yachol
Lehafer' - by citing Rav Huna, who establishes all the remaining Mishnah's
in the Perek like Rebbi Yossi, who holds that this is not considered Inuy
Nefesh (though the husband can annul it because of Beino le'Veinah), whereas
*he* holds like the Rabbanan, who say that it is Inuy Nefesh.
Some commentaries explain that when Shmuel rules 'Hana'as P'loni Alai', he
is speaking about Beino le'Veinah like Rebbi Yossi (in which case the
Halachah will be like Rebbi Yossi). We refute this explanation however - on
the grounds that unless Shmuel holds like the Rabbanan, it would have been
superfluous to add 'Masnisin Rebbi Yossi Hi, de'Amar Rav Huna, Kulei Pirkin
Rebbi Yossi Hi'. All we need to know is that Shmuel permits the husband to
annul the Nedarim because of Beino le'Veinah, whereas the Mishnah is
speaking about Inuy Nefesh (This explanation appears to override the answer
(b) We need to cite Rav Huna here, despite the fact that the Tana himself
quotes the case in Rebbi Yossi's name - in anticipation of a Kashya from the
following Mishnah 'Konem she'Ani Neheneh la'B'ri'os, Eino Yachol Lehafer'
(see answer to 4.).
(c) In order to answer Shmuel, it is necessary to add that although the
husband cannot annul the Neder because of Inuy Nefesh, he can annul it
because of Beino le'Veinah - because whenever the Rabbanan consider a case
Inuy Nefesh, Rebbi Yossi concedes that it is at least Beino le'Veinah. If it
is not Beino le'Veinah according to Rebbi Yossi, then it will not be Inuy
Nefesh according to the Rabbanan.
(d) We prove from Shmuel, who rules like the Rabbanan, that the Halachah is
like the Rabbanan, and not like Rebbi Yossi, even though the author of all
the Mishnah's in the Perek from now on is Rebbi Yossi. They are not
considered S'tam Mishnahs - because they are all based on 'Divrei Rebbi
Yossi' in our Mishnah, which, as we explained earlier, is superfluous.
Consequently, it is as if was mentioned specifically by each Mishnah.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that if a woman declares a Neder on two
loaves, one, a loaf of white bread (which causes her Inuy), the other, one
of black bread (which does not), her husband can even annul the Neder on the
black loaf - because the Torah writes "Iyshah Yeferenu", which refers to
Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and from which we will later learn that the husband is
obligated to annul the entire Neder, and not just half. According to Shmuel,
our case is considered one Neder, and if the husband was not able to annul
the second half, he would not be able to annul the first half either.
(b) If he were to annul only the half of the Neder pertaining to the white
loaf, according to Shmuel - the Neder would not be annulled at all.
(c) Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that he cannot annul the Neder on the
(d) He disagrees with Shmuel on the grounds that the Neder on the black loaf
is not subject to Hafarah, and is therefore considered like a separate
Neder. The D'rashah from "Iyshah Yeferenu", he maintains, is confined to the
parts of a Neder that the husband is able to annul, but not those that he is
(a) According to others, Rav Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan in the form of a
She'eilah what the Din would be in the case of the two loaves - to which he
gave the identical reply as his ruling in the first Lashon.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan speaks even when the husband or the father annulled the
loaf of black-bread specifically.
(c) Despite Shmuel's interpretation of "Iyshah Yeferenu", the Mishnah rules
'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim, Yafer Chelko ... ' - because that D'rashah is
confined to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and does not pertain to Nedarim shel Beino
(d) The logic behind the distinction between Nidrei Inuy Nefesh and Nedarim
she'Beino le'Veinah is - that the Torah's permission for a husband to annul
the former stems from his wife's sensitiveness, and permitting him to annul
only half her Neder will make her even more irritable; whereas the latter
stems from *his* sensitiveness, and if he wishes to annul half her Neder,
there is no reason why he should not do so.