POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi N. Slifkin
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nedarim 13
1) SUBJECTS FOR HATFASAH (Cont.)
(a) Refutation: It is referring to a Bechor before Zerikah. R.
Yehudah permits it because the Hatfasah must be from something
that is forbidden due to a vow (Davar Ha-Nadur), not something
that is innately prohibited (Davar Ha-Assur).
2) THE TOSEFTA OF IMRA
1. R. Yaakov prohibits it because he holds that the Passuk of
"LaHashem" includes Davar Ha-Assur.
2. R. Yehudah uses that Passuk to include Chatas and Asham as
subjects for Hatfasah.
3. Question: Why include Chatas and Asham, but exclude Bechor?
4. Answer: Chatas and Asham became prohibited by way of Neder,
but Bechor is sanctified from the womb.
5. R. Yaakov holds that Bechor is also prohibited by way of
i. (Rebbi) It is a Mitzvah to consecrate a Bechor.
6. R. Yehudah holds that since it would anyway be sanctified,
it is excluded.
(a) (Tosefta) If one prohibits something with the words Imra
(sacrificial lamb), corral, wood, fire-offering, Mizbeyach,
Heichal, Yerushalayim, or prefixed with "like" or "to," it is
prohibited if he said "that which I eat of yours" but not if he
said "that which I do not eat of yours."
3) MISHNAH: KORBAN OLAH
(b) It is R. Meir who holds that it doesn't matter if he prefixed it
with "like" or "to" or with nothing.
(c) Question: Yet it then says that it is permitted if he said "that
which I do not eat of yours," but R. Meir says otherwise:
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir) If he says "LeKorban, I am not eating of
yours," it is binding.
(d) Answer: We can interpret it thus when he said "La"; but in the
Beraisa he said "Le-", which means "This is not as a sacrificial
sheep - that which I am not eating." (It is therefore permitted
because R. Meir does not deduce the positive corollary.)
2. (R. Aba) This is because he means, "You are as a Korban, and
therefore I am not eating of yours."
(a) If someone says "Korban Olah," or Minchah, Chatas, or Shelamim,
"that I eat of yours," it is binding.
4) DOES THE MISHNAH FOLLOW R. MEIR
(b) (R. Yehudah) It is permitted.
(c) If someone says "The Korban," "As a Korban," or "Korban that I
eat of yours" it is binding.
(d) (R. Meir) If he says "LeKorban, I will not eat of yours" it is
(a) The first, unnamed, part of the Mishnah follows R. Meir, who does
not distinguish between "Imra" and "Le'Imra."
(b) Question: If so, how can it says that if he says "The Korban" it
is binding, a Beraisa says otherwise:
1. The Chachamim agree that if he said "Hoh (this) Korban that
I eat of yours" that it is permitted, as he only meant to
swear by the Korban.
(c) Answer: In the Mishnah, he said "The Korban" whereas in the
Beraisa he said "This Korban" which means to swear by it.
5) MISHNAH: MOUTH, HANDS AND FEET
(d) Question: R. Meir said that if he says "LeKorban, I will not eat
of yours" it is binding; but surely he does not hold that we can
deduce the positive corollary from the negative statement?
(e) Answer: It is as though he said, "This is a Korban, therefore I
will not eat of yours."
(a) If someone makes a Konam on his mouth from talking with someone,
his hands from working with him, or his feet from walking with
him, it is binding.
6) TANGIBLE SUBJECTS FOR OATHS
(a) Question: The Nedarim of the Mishnah should not work as talking,
working, and walking are intangible:
***** HADRAN ALACH KOL KINUYEY *****
1. Nedarim are more stringent than Shevuos in that they can
take effect on something that is a Mitzvah.
(b) Answer: It means that the subject of his prohibition was his
mouth, his hands, etc.
2. Shevuos are more stringent than Nedarim in that they can
take effect on something that is intangible.
1. This can also be seen in the Mishnah, which spoke of him
prohibiting his mouth rather than his talking.
***** PEREK VE'AILU MUTARIN *****
7) MISHNAH: PERMITTED NEDARIM
(a) Permitted (non-binding) Nedarim include saying: "Chullin that I
will eat of yours," as pork, as idols, as hearts for idolatry, as
dead animals, as killed animals, as vermin, as insects, as the
Challos of Aharon and his Terumos.
8) EXPLAINING THE MISHNAH
(b) If someone prohibits his wife "as my mother," we permit it via
some means other than his mother's honor, so that he does not
take the matter lightly.
(a) His Neder is permitted because he said "Chullin that I will eat
of yours," which implies that if he said "LeChullin" it would
mean that it is not Chullin but rather Korban (and would be
(b) Question: The Mishnah cannot be following R. Meir, as he does not
hold that we can deduce the positive corollary; but if it is
following R. Yehudah, that is the same as the earlier Mishnah (on
(c) Answer: This case was repeated to go along with the case of pork