(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 5

NEDARIM 2,3,4,5 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in honor of Rav Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.


QUESTION: Shmuel teaches that if a person attempts to make a Neder by declaring simply, "Mudrani Mimcha," the declaration is considered "Yadayim she'Einam Mochichos," and thus the person is not prohibited from benefiting from his friend. This is because Shmuel and others rule that "Yadayim she'Einam Mochichos" are *not* considered Yadayim.

The RAN explains that according to Shmuel, when a person declares, "Mudrani Mimcha" alone it has no effect whatsoever. However, the Ran cites another opinion that rules that even according to Shmuel, a person who says "Mudrani Mimcha" *does* become prohibited to speak with the other person, but he is not prohibited from receiving benefit from him. This seems to be the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Nedarim 1:23).

According to this second opinion, how can the statement of "Mudrani Mimcha" prohibit the person from talking to his friend, if "Yadayim she'Einam Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim?" Since the intention of his words is not clear, he should not be Asur at all!


(a) The RAMBAM apparently holds that "Mudrani Mimcha" is a Yad *Mochi'ach* for a prohibiting Dibur (speaking with the other person). When a person wants to make himself Asur to speak to someone else, he uses the phrase, "Mudrani Mimcha." The Gemara calls it a "Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach" only with regard to the Isur of Hana'ah. (If a person says "Mudrani Mimcha *she'Ani Ochel Lecha," though, it is clear that he is prohibiting himself only from eating the food of the other person, and not from speaking with him.)

According to the Rambam, what does the opinion that holds that "Yadayim she'Einam Mochichos" *are* considered Yadayim hold in such a case? That opinion must agree that he is Asur to speak with the other person, since it is a Yad Mochi'ach for the Isur of Dibur. But that opinion must also hold that there is an Isur of Hana'ah (benefiting) as well, since it is a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach for such an Isur. How can one phrase imply two completely different concepts, an Isur Dibur and an Isur Hana'ah, and be a Yad for both of them? Besides, since the phrase "Mudrani Mimcha" implies an Isur of Dibur much more strongly than it implies an Isur of Hana'ah, why should there be an Isur Hana'ah altogether? (ROSH)

The Rambam might have learned that according to the opinion that holds "Yadayim she'Einam Mochichos" *are* Yadayim, "Mudrani Mimcha" is a Yad for Isur Hana'ah only if the person who made the Neder clarifies afterwards that he indeed meant to create an Isur Hana'ah. If not, it only creates an Isur of Dibur. (M. Kornfeld)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,