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 19
NEDARIM 19 & 20 (7 Av) - has been dedicated to the memory of Dr. Simcha
Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y., by his wife
and daughters. G-d fearing and knowledgeable, Simcha was well known in the
community for his Chesed and Tzedakah. He will long be remembered.
1) R. ELIEZER ON RESOLVING DOUBTS
(a) Question (Abaye): There is a difficulty with saying that the
Mishnah of doubts concerning Nezirus being resolved leniently
follows R. Eliezer:
2) NEW EXPLANATION OF OUR MISHNAH
1. The latter part of that Mishnah says that with doubts
concerning Bechoros, whether human or animal, kosher or
treife, it is up to the Kohen to prove that it is a Bechor.
(b) Answer (R. Zeira): One can't compare innate sanctity to that
which is being attempted to being imposed by man.
2. It also says that such animals are prohibited for their
fleece or for work, which shows that we are being stringent!
(c) Question: If there is a difficulty, it is this:
1. (R. Meir) Fluids of doubtful status are rated as Tamei
regarding themselves, but as Tahor regarding affecting other
2. R. Eliezer stated likewise.
3. But R. Eliezer surely cannot hold that they are rated as
Tamei regarding themselves, as he states in a Beraisa that
(Min HaTorah), they cannot become Tamei at all!
4. Proof of this is that Yosi b. Yoezer attested that the Ayil-
locust is kosher, and that fluids of the Temple
slaughterhouse are Tahor (as the Tumah is only d'Rabbanan,
which wasn't extended to this case).
5. This is not difficult according to Shmuel, who explains it
to mean that they are only Tahor regarding other things.
6. But according to Rav, who holds that they themselves are
Tahor (i.e. Tumah is a Rabbinic decree that wasn't extended
here), then since Min HaTorah fluids cannot be Tamei, why
would R. Eliezer be stringent in cases of doubt?
(a) Resolution: The Mishnah about being lenient with cases of
doubtful Nezirus follows R. Yehudah, whereas our Mishnah which is
stringent follows R. Shimon, as per a Beraisa:
1. (R. Yehudah) If someone accepts Nezirus on condition that a
pile contains 100 Kur, and it is found stolen or lost, it is
(b) Question: We see that R. Yehudah holds that a person would
include doubtful cases:
2. (R. Shimon) It is binding.
1. (Mishnah) (R. Yehudah) If he did not specify what Terumah he
meant, then it is binding in Judea, but not in the Galil, as
the people there are not familiar with Terumah of the
2. The inference is that if they were to be familiar with it,
it would be binding, even though it would still be doubtful
as to what was intended!
(c) Answer #1 (Rava): With the pile, he holds a person would not
include doubtful cases, as they are more stringent than if it was
3) THE LAST PART OF THE MISHNAH
1. This is because a doubtful Nazir can never bring a Korban
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa of the pile is R. Yehudah
citing R. Tarfon (and not his own view), as per a Beraisa:
2. Question: What if he said that he would be a lifelong Nazir?
3. Answer: It is still less stringent, as if his hair grows
heavy, he can cut it and bring three Korbanos.
4. Question: What if he said that he would be a Nazir Shimshon
(who can never cut his hair)?
5. Answer: A Nazir Shimshon was not included in this ruling.
6. Question: R. Ada bar Ahava said it was included!?
7. Answer: If so, this cannot be answered.
1. (R. Yehudah citing R. Tarfon) In a case where two people
accepted Nezirus in doubtful circumstances, neither is a
Nazir, as Nezirus must be accepted with clear certainty.
2. Question: If so, why say that the pile was destroyed or
stolen - it anyway wouldn't be binding!?
3. Answer: That was stated to show that even in such a case R.
Shimon still holds that it is binding, as a person would
include himself in doubt.
(a) In the Mishnah, R. Yehudah said that if he did not specify what
Terumah he meant, then it is binding in Judea, but not in the
Galil, as the people there are not familiar with Terumah of the
(b) The inference is that if they were familiar with it, it would be
binding; i.e. we are stringent with doubt.
(c) Question: We see the opposite from the next section:
1. The Mishnah then says that if he did not specify what Cherem
he meant, then it is permitted in Judea, but binding in the
Galil, as the people there are not familiar with Cheramim of
(d) Answer: The last part is the opinion of R. Elazar b. R. Tzadok in
2. The inference is that if they were familiar with it, it
would not be binding; i.e. we are lenient with doubt!?
1. (R. Yehudah) Unspecified Terumah is binding in Judea.
2. (R. Elazar b. R. Tzadok) Unspecified Cherem is binding in