POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nedarim 25
1) OATHS OF EXAGGERATION
(a) Answer (Rav Ashi): A person swears as we understand; we
do not call ants 'as those that left Mitzrayim'.
2) OATHS OF EXAGGERATION
(b) Question: Is it really true that a person does not swear
according to his own interpretation?
1. (Beraisa): When we make him swear, we tell him - 'We
are not making you swear on a condition in your
heart, rather, on our understanding and the
understanding of Beis Din'.
(c) Reiteration of question: A different source shows that a
person swears on his own understanding!
2. Question: What do we exclude by saying this?
3. Suggestion: That he should not use 'coins' as a
nickname for wood chips (and swear that he gave the
coins to his creditor).
i. Since we had to say that he swears on our
understanding, we see, a person normally swears
on his own understanding!
4. Rejection: No - rather, to exclude Rava's case of
i. Reuven claimed that he paid his debt to Shimon;
Rava told him to swear. Reuven concealed coins
in a reed, and was using it as a cane. Before
swearing, he asked Shimon to take the reed.
Reuven held a Sefer Torah and swore that he
ii. Upon hearing the oath, Shimon broke the reed in
anger; the coins fell out, and it was seen that
the oath was true.
1. (Beraisa): When Moshe Rabeinu made Yisrael swear at
Arvos Moav, he told them that they are not swearing
on their understanding, rather on Moshe's and
i. Suggestion: Moshe had to say this, so they
should not nickname idolatry as 'G-d' (and have
this in mind when swearing to serve G-d),
because a person swears on his own
2. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep
ii. Rejection: No, idolatry really is called 'god'
- "Against all the gods of Mitzrayim..."
3. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean (only) the
Mitzvos of appointing a king.
4. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep
all the Mitzvos?
5. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean the
Mitzvah of Tzitzis, which measures up to all the
6. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep
7. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only 1
Torah (written or oral).
8. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep
9. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only Toros
(the laws) of flour-offerings, sin-offerings and
10. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep
Toros and Mitzvos?
11. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean only Toros
of flour (and sin...) offerings, and the Mitzvos of
appointing a king.
12. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep
the entire Torah?
13. Answer: This could be interpreted to mean (observing
the prohibitions of) idolatry.
i. (Beraisa): Idolatry is severe - anyone who
denies idolatry is as one that confirms the
14. Question: Why didn't Moshe make them swear to keep
the prohibitions of idolatry and the entire Torah;
or, to keep 613 Mitzvos?
15. Answer: It was easier to make them swear on the
understanding of Moshe and Hash-m.
(a) (Mishnah): If I did not see a snake like an olive-press
(b) Question: Why can't this be true?
1. In the days of Shvor Malka, there was a snake that
ate 13 storehouses of straw!
2. Answer (Shmuel): The intention was, a snake that is
Taruf (Ran - creviced; Rosh - wide, not round) as an
3. Objection: All snakes are like this!
4. Answer: The Mishnah refers to its back, which is
5. Question: Let the Mishnah say, if I did not see a
snake whose back was Taruf!
6. Answer: In passing, the Mishnah teaches that the
back of an olive press should be Taruf.
i. This is relevant to one who sells an olive
press - its back must be Taruf.
3) MISTAKEN VOWS
(a) (Mishnah): Mistaken vows - 'If I ate or drank (I forbid
...)', and he later remembered that he had done so;
(b) 'If I will eat or drink (I forbid ...)', and he later
forgot that he said this and ate or drank;
(c) 'I forbid my wife to get benefit from me, for she stole
my wallet or hit my son', and he later learned that she
(d) He saw people eating his figs, and said 'They are
forbidden to them as a sacrifice'; he found that his
father and brothers were among the people;
1. Beis Shamai says, only his father and brothers are
permitted; Beis Hillel says, the vow is totally
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa): Just as mistaken vows are permitted,
also mistaken oaths.
1. Question: What is a case of a mistaken oath?
(f) (Mishnah): He saw people eating ...
2. Answer: As the case of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.
i. They argued over what Rav had said; each swore
that he was right.
ii. Each swore to what he truly believed.
(g) (Mishnah): We suggest to a person that he overlooked that
his vow will include Shabbos and Yom Tov.
1. At first, Chachamim said that those days are
permitted and other days are forbidden; later, R.
Akiva taught that a vow that was partially permitted
is totally permitted.
(h) (Rabah): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree, if he says,
'Had I known that father was among them, I would have
said, they are all forbidden except for father' - they
are all forbidden except for his father;
(i) They argue when he says, 'Had I known that father was
among them, I would have said, Ploni and Ploni are
forbidden, and father is permitted'.