REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 83
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa states that if a woman who has undertaken to be a
Nazir, drinks wine or renders herself Tamei for a dead person, she receives
Will she receive Malkos if her husband annulled her Neder, and she
subsequently 'transgressed' without being aware that he had done so?
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan (who, we just saw, holds 'Meifer
le'Mis'anah, ve'Ein Meifer le'she'Ein Mis'anah'), what Chidush ought the
Tana to have added in the Beraisa?
(c) Rav Yosef answers 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in'.
What does he mean?
(d) On what grounds does Abaye object to Rav Yosef's answer? What should Rav
Yosef rather have said?
(a) So how does Abaye amend Rav Yosef's answer?
(b) What are the ramifications of 'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in'?
(a) Which category of Nazir brings a Chatas ha'Of?
(b) 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah be'Nazir, ve'Hifrishah Behemtah ve'Achar-Kach Hafer
Lah Ba'alah ... '.
Which Korban is the Tana referring to?
(c) Which of the two bird-offerings of a Tamei Nazir does he obligate her to
bring, and from which does he exempt her?
(d) Why does the Tana find it necessary to mention that she already
designated her Asham?
(a) Why does the previous Beraisa pose a Kashya on Abaye?
(b) What is Abaye's retort to this Kashya?
(c) So how does Abaye resolve the problem? Why does she bring specifically
Chatas ha'Of, even though she is Patur from the other Korbanos?
(a) In a similar Beraisa to the previous one, the Tana issues the same
Answers to questions
Assuming that Tum'ah is not considered Inuy Nefesh, what do we now
ask on Rebbi Yochanan ('Meifer le'Mis'anah ... ')?
(b) How do we in fact explain the Beraisa, based on a statement by Rebbi
(c) What does Rebbi Meir learn from the Pasuk in Koheles "ve'ha'Chai Yiten
(d) We might not answer here like Rav Yosef answered above ('Ein Nezirus
la'Chatza'in') because we want to point out there is Tza'ar by Tum'as Meis.
What other reason might there be for not doing so?
(a) Our Mishnah states 'Konem she'Eini Neheneh li'Beri'os, Eino Yachol
Lehafer'. The Tana (Rebbi Yossi) goes on to permit the woman who declared
the Neder to benefit from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah.
Why is that?
(b) Assuming that 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos mi'Leket, Shikchah u'Pei'ah' is an
additional concession, what do we infer from the Reisha, from the fact that
her husband cannot annul the Neder?
(a) What leads us to believe that the Seifa of our Mishnah is an additional
concession, and not the main reason for the husband's prohibition to annul
her Neder? What should the Tana otherwise have said?
(b) On what other grounds do we initially reject the suggestion that a
husband is included in 'people', and that he cannot annul her Neder on the
sole basis of her option to eat from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah?
(c) From the Seifa, which permits her to eat from Leket, Shikchah and
Pei'ah, we infer exactly the opposite (that her husband is included in
How can we infer from the Seifa that she cannot benefit from
(a) To reconcile the Reisha and the Seifa, Ula explains that a husband is
not included in 'people'.
How then does he explain the Seifa? On what
grounds will she be able to eat Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah?
(b) According to Rava, a husband is included in 'people'.
How does he
interpret the corollary between the Reisha and the Seifa?
(c) How do we reconcile Rava with the case in the previous Mishnah: 'Peiros
Chenvani she'Ein Parnasaso Ela Mimenu', where the Tana permits her husband
to annul the Neder? Why do we not forbid him to do so on the grounds that
she is able to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah, like we do here?
(a) Rav Nachman learns like Ula with regard to the She'eilah whether a
husband is included in 'people'.
How does he explain the Seifa, which
ascribes the reason why, to her option to eat from Leket, Shikchah and
(b) What would be the Din according to him, if her husband would be included
in 'people', bearing in mind that she would be able to collect Leket,
Shikchah and Pei'ah.
(c) What is the Chidush in the Seifa? Why do we need to come on to the
concession to eat Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah?
(a) Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Yerushalmi in a case of
'Nadar mi'Yordei ha'Yam ve'Na'aseh mi'Yoshvei Yabashah'. According to Rebbi
Akiva, a sailor at the time of the Neder, who left the navy is included in
Why is that?
(b) What will the Din be according to him, in the reverse case, when someone
joined the navy after the Neder was declared?
(c) Why will we have a problem if, as we just explained, the husband becomes
part of 'the people' after he has divorced her?
(d) We might try and resolve this problem by establishing our Mishnah like
What does Rebbi Yishmael hold?
(a) We refute this suggestion however, on the basis of a Mishnah later
'Amrah Hareini Nezirah le'Achar Sheloshim Yom, Af-al-Pi she'Nis'es be'Toch
Sheloshim Yom, Ein Yachol Lehafer'.
According to the way we just explained our Gemara, how might we explain the
Ramban, who cites the Yerushalmi, in spite of the fact that the Bavli
Who must be the author of that
Mishnah (and consequently of our Mishnah too)?
(b) So what have we now proved from Rav Nachman, who interprets our Mishnah
'Nisgarshah, Yecholah Lehanos' (because she is forbidden to benefit from her
husband since he became part of the 'people' whom she forbade)?
(c) Consequently, we cannot rely on the Yerushalmi in this matter.
then the Halachah concerning someone who was not included in the Neder
initially and became included only later, or vice-versa?
(d) How can Rebbi Akiva hold of two seemingly contradictory opinions? How
can he burn his candle at both ends, so to speak?
Answers to questions