ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chagigah 10
CHAGIGAH 9 & 10 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah
in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) 'Heter Nedarim Porchin be'Avir, ve'Ein Lahem al Mah she'Yismochu' -
means that although there is a slight hint in the Torah for the releasing of
vows, there is nothing tangible to rely on. Consequently, the source lies
purely in the oral teachings.
(b) The Tana describes ...
1. ... Hilchos Shabbos, Chagigos and Me'ilos - as being like mountains that
hang on a hair, because each one of them has only a slight reference in the
written Torah, but many Halachos.
(c) The Tana'im find four sources for Heter Nedarim.
2. ... Dinin, Avodos, Taharos, Tum'os and Arayos - as being broadly hinted
at in the Torah.
1. Rebbi Eliezer learns it from the two times that the Torah writes "Ki
Yafli" (once in Bechukosai, with regard to Erchin, and once in Naso, with
regard to a Nazir) - one of them expressing the Neder, the other, his
remorse and reasons for wanting it released.
2. Rebbi Yehoshua learns it from "Asher Nishba'ti be'Api Im Yevo'un el
Menuchasi" (Tehilim) - implying that Hashem swore forbidding Yisrael entry
into Eretz Yisrael, but that, seeing as the oath was made in anger, when the
anger abated the oath could be lifted.
3. Rebbi Yitzchak learns it from "Kol Nediv Libo" (va'Yakheil) - suggesting
that the Neder remains valid only as long as person who declared it remains
willing to do so, but that, should he change his mind, it can be released.
4. Rebbi Chananyah, Rebbi Yehoshua's nephew learns it from "Nishba'ti
va'Akayeimah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha"- that the oath that one made is
sacrosanct only as long as one is willing to uphold it ... .
(a) Rava refutes each of the above proofs, but accepts that of Rav Yehudah
Amar Shmuel, who infers from the Pasuk "Lo Yacheil Devaro" - that *he* (the
person who made the Neder) may not profane his vow, but that others may
nullify it on his behalf.
(b) Rava refutes the proof of ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer - from Rebbi Yehudah Amar Rebbi Tarfon, who Darshens
from "Ki Yafli" by Nazir - that Nezirus must be clearly expressed, and that
if it is left in doubt (e.g. if one man declared that if the man who was
currently walking past *was* a Nazir, he would also become a Nazir, and his
friend said that he would become a Nazir if he was *not*, then neither of
them becomes a Nazir - like Rebbi Yehudah Amar Rebbi Tarfon).
(c) The fact that Shmuel's statement, out of all the statements of the
Tana'im, is the only one that is foolproof - conforms with the folk-saying
'One sharp pepper is better than a basket-full of gourds'.
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua. *He* interprets "Asher Nishba'ti be'Api" to mean
that - since Hashem had sworn in His anger, He will under no circumstances
rescind the oath.
3. ... Rebbi Yitzchak, by explaining "Kol Nediv Libo" - that a Neder (of
Kodshim) does not need to expressed (whereas other Nedarim do, as Shmuel has
taught - see Tosfos DH 'la'Afukei').
4. ... Rebbi Chananyah Rebbi Yehoshua's nephew, from Rav Gidal Amar Rav, who
learns from "Nishba'ti va'Akayeimah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha" - that it
is a Mitzvah to swear to fulfill a Mitzvah.
(a) To answer the Kashya that 'Shabbos *is* clearly specified in the Torah,
so how can the Mishnah say 'Mikra Mu'at'?, we quote Rebbi Aba - who says
that someone who digs a pit for the earth (but does not need the pit) is
Patur on Shabbos (and that is the aspect of Shabbos to which the Tana is
(b) This answer seems to follow the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who holds
'Melachah she'Einah Tz'richah le'Gufa, Patur'. Rebbi Yehudah (who holds
'Chayav') nevertheless concedes that one is Patur - because if the hole is
not needed, he is anyway Patur because of Mekalkel (spoiling something,
which is destructive, and not constructive, which it needs to be before one
is generally Chayav on Shabbos).
(c) 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' suggests that Rebbi Aba's case is
hinted in the Torah. It is indeed hinted under the name of 'Meleches
Machsheves' - concerning the Mishkan, from which we learn Shabbos (also with
regard to the thirty-nine Melachos) by virtue of their juxtaposion in
(a) Chagigah too, appears to be specifically written in Parshas Emor
"ve'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Hashem" - though this Pasuk could also be an
invitation to celebrate Yom-Tov by eating and drinking.
(b) We try to prove that Chag means Chagigah from the Pasuk in Sh'mos
"ve'Yachogu Li ba'Midbar ... va'Yomer Moshe, Gam Ata Titein be'Yadeinu
Zevachim ve'Olos" - because of "Zevachim", which normally means Shelamim.
(c) We reject ...
1. ... that proof - on the grounds that "Zevachim" might also refer to
Chulin animals that are Shechted (because the verb 'li'Z'bo'ach means to
2. ... another proof from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi
ad Boker" - because "Chagi" may well refer to the celebrations and not to
the Chagigah, and Cheilev, to the fat of other Korbanos (such as Nedarim and
Nedavos) that one brought on Yom-Tov.
(a) We cannot however, infer, that the Cheilev of other Korbanos ...
1. ... that are not brought on Yom-Tov may remain off the Mizbei'ach until
the morning - because even if the La'av currently under discussion does
*not* apply to them, there is an Asei in Tzav ("Kol ha'Laylah ad ha'Boker")
(b) In spite of the fact that even the Cheilev of other Korbanos is subject
to a La'av and an Asei, we could still interpret "ve'Lo Yalin *Cheilev*
Chagi ad Boker" with regard to other Korbanos that are brought on Yom-Tov
exclusively - to preclude other Korbanos from the *second* La'av.
2. ... is subject to an Asei, but not to a La'av - because of another La'av
in Re'ei ("ve'Lo Yalin min ha'Basar ... ad Boker") that *does*.
(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Midbar" "Midbar" ("ve'Yachogu Li
ba'Midbar" from "ha'Zevachim u'Minchah Higashtem Li ba'Midbar") - that
"Zevachim" means Shelamim and not just animals that are Shechted, proving
once and for all that "ve'Yachogu Li ba'Midbar means to bring the Chagigah,
and not just to celebrate Yom-Tov (in which case Chagigah *is* mentioned
specifically in the Torah).
(b) Despite the fact that we learn Chagigos from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (which
is considered as if it was written specifically, as is evident from the
whole Sugya), our Mishnah describes them as 'ke'Harerin ha'Teluyin
bi'Se'arah' - because the 'Gezeirah-Shavah is learned from a Pasuk in Amos,
and we cannot effectively learn Divrei Torah from Divrei Ne'vi'im.
(a) Me'ilah is listed among the things that are 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin
bi'Se'arah'. Me'ilah itself is clearly written (in Parshas Vayikra). So we
try to establish our Mishnah with the Mishnah in Me'ilah, regarding a
Sh'liach to whom someone gave Hekdesh money to buy something on his behalf.
The Ba'al ha'Bayis is Mo'el - when the Sh'li'ach carries out his Sh'lichus;
and the Sh'liach is Mo'el - when he does not.
(b) What is irregular about this Din that prompts us to describe it as
'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' - is the fact that the Shli'ach sins and
the Ba'al ha'Bayis is Chayav, contravening the accepted principle 'Ein
Sh'li'ach li'D'var Aveirah'.
(c) Rava rejects this however, on the grounds that Me'ilah is different,
because we learn it from Terumah - by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet"
"Chet"). Consequently, just as one can appoint a Sh'liach to take Terumah on
one's behalf, so too, can one appoint a Sh'li'ach to be Mo'el on one's
(a) Rava establishes our Mishnah with the Beraisa of 'Nizkar Ba'al ha'Bayis
ve'Lo Nizkar Sh'liach, Sh'liach Ma'al'. It is most strange, says Rava, that
the Sh'li'ach, who is totally innocent, should be Chayav for a deed
performed by the Ba'al ha'Bayis - and that is what warrants the description
'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'.
(b) Rav Ashi rejects Rava's answer, because it is no different than anyone
who spends Hekdesh money inadvertently, who is Mo'el even though he did not
do so deliberately.
(c) Rav Ashi tries to establish our Mishnah with the Mishnah in Me'ilah. The
Mishnah states that if someone took a stone or a beam of Hekdesh, he is
*not* Mo'el - whereas if he then gave it to a friend, he *is*.
(d) The difference is incomprehensible - seeing as in the first case too, he
took the stone out of Hekdesh's domain, so what makes him more Chayav when
he hands it to his friend? That, explains Rav Ashi, is what helps to earn
for it the description 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'.
(a) We refute this suggestion too, on the basis of Shmuel's understanding of
the Mishnah in Me'ilah - Shmuel establishes the Mishnah in a case when it
was actually the treasurer of Hekdesh who took the stone or the beam from
Hekdesh. The treasurer has charge of all Hekdesh articles, which are
therefore considered to be in his domain, until he hands them to someone
We finally revert to Rava, who established our Mishnah with the Beraisa of
'Nizkar Ba'al ha'Bayis ve'Lo Nizkar Sh'liach, Sh'liach Ma'al', dismissing
Rav Ashi's claim that it is similar to anyone who spends Hekdesh money
inadvertently. They are simply not comparable - because whereas the latter
at least knew that it was Hekdesh money (in which case, he should have been
more careful), the former was totally unaware that the money belonged to
Hekdesh and should therefore be Patur because he was an O'nes. That is why
Me'ilah earned itself the description 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'.
(b) So we try and apply 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' to the Seifa of
that Mishnah: 'Ban'ah be'Soch Beiso, Harei Zeh Lo Ma'al Ad she'Yidor
Tachteha be'Shaveh Perutah'. That too, is strange, based on the assumption
that before building the stone or the beam into his house, he must have
shaped and smoothened it first, in which case, he would have already been
Chayav Me'ilah (by acquiring it with Shinuy - by changing it) - so why
should he have to live underneath it in order to be Mo'el?
(c) We refute this proof with Rav's interpretation of the Mishnah. Rav
explains - that the Mishnah speaks when he placed the stone or the beam on
top of the skylight as it was, without shaping or smoothening it first.