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 48
5) A VOW OF CHEREM
(a) Matters of the returning exiles - such as the Temple
mount, the courtyards, and wells in the middle of the
6) WAYS OF EVADING A VOW
(b) Matters of the city - such as the street, the bathhouse,
shul, the ark, and Sifrei Torah;
(c) And one who writes that his share in these things should
belong to the Nasi (the leader);
1. R. Yehudah says, this is the same as giving his
share to a commoner;
(d) Chachamim say, either way, an acquisition is needed; the
Nasi was only mentioned because it was common to give
one's share to the Nasi.
2. The only difference is, when one writes his share to
the Nasi, there is no need for him to do an act of
acquisition; if he writes to a commoner, an
acquisition is needed.
(e) R. Yehudah says, inhabitants of Galil do not need to give
their shares (to permit people that vowed not to
benefit), for their ancestors already gave their shares
(to the Nasi).
(f) (Gemara) Question: Why is one forbidden when someone
writes that his share in these things should belong to
(g) Correction (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah means, the solution
for people that vowed from each other is to write their
shares to the Nasi.
(h) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah) Inhabitants of Galil do not need
to give their shares, for their ancestors already gave
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Inhabitants of Galil were
quarrelsome, and often vowed not to benefit from
each other; therefore, their ancestors already gave
their shares tot he Nasi.
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven vowed not to get benefit from Shimon,
and Reuven has nothing to eat. Shimon may give a gift to
Levi, and Reuven is permitted to have it.
1. There was a case in Beis Choron: Reuven vowed that
his father may not benefit from him. Reuven was
marrying off his son; he told a friend Levi, 'I give
you the courtyard and the banquet, only in order
that my father can eat with us.'
(b) (Gemara) Question: The case brought contradicts the law
2. Levi: If they are mine, I hereby declare them
3. Reuven: I did not give them to you to make them
4. Levi: You gave them to me, so you and your father
could eat together, and I should bear the sin!
5. Chachamim: Any gift that the recipient cannot make
Hekdesh is not a gift.
(c) Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated; it should say: If it
later becomes evident that the gift was insincere, it is
1. Such a case occurred in Beis Choron.
(d) Version #1 (Rava): This only applies when he said 'I only
give them to you in order that father should come';
1. But if he said 'I give them to you in order that
father should come' - he means, if you want (and
this is permitted).
(e) Version #2 (Rava): Do not think that this only applies
when he said 'I only give them to you in order that
father should come'; but if he said 'I give them to you
in order that father should come', this is permitted;
1. Rather, even in the latter case, it is forbidden.
(f) Question: Why?
(g) Answer: The banquet proves what his intention is.
7) ACQUISITION FOR THE FUTURE
(a) Shimon's son used to steal flax; Shimon prohibited his
property on his son.
1. Friends: What if your son will have a son that is a
(b) Question: Does this work?
2. Shimon: My son should acquire the property on
condition to give it to his son if his son will be a
(c) Answer #1 (Chachamim of Pumbedisa): No - a person cannot
acquire on condition to give to someone else.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): It works - in Chalipin
(acquisition made through giving a garment) one takes the
garment only in order to give something else!
(e) Objection #1 (Rav Ashi): Maybe in Chalipin, the one who
takes the garment can keep it (and Rav Nachman has no
(f) Objection #2 (Rav Ashi): Also - in Chalipin, one takes
the garment in order to give now to someone else;
1. In the above case, Shimon's son only acquires when
his son will be a Chacham - by then the garment
(used to make him acquire the property) has already
(g) Question (Rava against Rav Nachman): The case of the gift
of Beis Choron was an acquisition on condition to give to
someone else, and it did not work!
(h) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): There, the banquet proves that
the gift was insincere.
(i) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): That Mishnah is as R. Eliezer,
who forbids even Vitur (small benefits) by one that vowed
not to benefit.
(j) (Mishnah - Chachamim): Any gift that the recipient cannot
make Hekdesh is not a gift.
(k) Question: What case is included by the word 'Any'?
1. Suggestion: It includes this case, that the
acquisition is invalid!
(l) Answer: No, it includes the other language, as in Version
#2 of Rava (even if he said 'I give them to you in order
that father should come', this is forbidden).