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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nedarim 4

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.



(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov establishes 'bal Te'acher' with regard to Nezirus by someone who undertook to become a Nazir whilst standing in a graveyard. 'bal Te'acher' then applies - the moment he fails to leave the graveyard, purify himself and accept his Nezirus from afresh.

(b) This answer goes well with the opinion of Resh Lakish, but not with that of Rebbi Yochanan - in whose opinion Nezirus accepted in a graveyard is immediately effective (and he will receive Malkos should he eat grapes or drink wine there).

(c) According to Mar bar Rav Ashi, even Resh Lakish concedes that the Nezirus begins immediately - only according to him, the Nazir does not receive Malkos for contravening his Nezirus, whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, he does.

(a) We nevertheless establish Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's answer - because although the Nezirus is effective immediately, he transgresses 'bal Te'acher' for failing to take the necessary steps to bring into effect Nezirus of Taharah.

(b) Rav Ashi extrapolates from Rav Acha bar Ya'akov - that a Nazir who deliberately rendered himself Tamei - transgresses 'bal Te'acher'.

(c) He will now receive three sets of Malkos - because of "Lo Yitama", because of "ve'Al Kol Nafshos Meis Lo Yavo" and because of 'bal Te'acher'.

(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika establishes 'bal Te'acher' with regard to the Mitzvah of Tiglachas (shaving, which the Nazir had to do after he had brought all his Korbanos) - even according to the Rabbanan, who permit him to drink wine immediately after bringing his Korbanos.

(b) Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Mari establishes the 'bal Te'acher' of Nezirus - with regard to the Korbanos of a Nazir, in which case, he will only transgress after three Regalim.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Darosh Yidreshenu" - that Chata'os and Ashamos are subject to the laws of 'bal Te'achar'.

(d) We nevertheless need "Nazir Lahazir" to include the Chatas of Nazir in 'bal Te'acher' - because Nazir has a Chidush which might render it different than other areas of Halachah.

(a) The Chidush of Nazir cannot be that ...
1. ... a Chatas Nazir cannot be donated (only a Nazir can actually bring it) - because neither can a Chatas Cheilev, (only someone who actually sinned can bring it).
2. ... someone who undertakes Nezirus only as far as eating grapes is concerned becomes a Nazir in all regards (besides the fact that this is not a unanimous opinion [Rebbi Shimon in fact, argues]) - because that is a Chidush le'Chumra, so why should it prevent us from learning a Chumra from it.
(b) The (lenient) Chidush that causes the Chatas of Nazir to require its own D'rashah for 'bal Te'acher' is - that although a Nazir has to bring three Korbanos, he is allowed to shave off his hair already after only one of them.



(a) Alternatively, we reinstate the initial answer that one cannot volunteer a Chatas Nazir (and that is why we would not have known the Din of 'bal Te'acher from a regular Chatas). True, one cannot donate a Chatas Cheilev either. A Chatas Cheilev however - comes to atone, whereas a Chatas Nazir does not.

(b) This goes even with Elazar ha'Kapar, in whose opinion a Nazir has sinned too (by abstaining from those things that the Torah permits) - because that is not the real reason that he brings his Korban. Even according to him, that is only a D'rush. Officially, the Korban does not come as a Kaparah.

(c) We can in fact - learn 'bal Te'acher' by a Nazir from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Chatas Cheilev and Shelamim. Only we prefer to learn it from a Pasuk, because a Mah ha'Tzad is easy to break (with any form of Kashya).

(a) So we try to learn it from a Chatas Yoledes, which is not brought as a Kaparah, yet it is subject to 'bal Te'acher'. This will go even like Rebbi Shimon, in whose opinion a Yoledes brings a Chatas because she sinned, by swearing that she would have no more children - because that is not the real reason that she brings the Chatas (proof of this lies in the fact that she is obligated to bring the Chatas, even if no such oath ever passed her lips).

(b) A Chatas Yoledes, which is subject to 'bal Te'acher' even though it can also not be donated - is different again inasmuch as it permits the Yoledes to eat Kodshim.

(c) Her Chatas is different than that of a Nazir - inasmuch as eating Kodshim is a Mitzvah, whereas drinking wine is not.

(a) The Tana also learned from the Hekesh (between Nezirus and Neder) that a father can annul his daughter's Nedarim and a husband, his wife's. The Torah did not rely on a 'Mah Matzinu' alone - because that we could break by pointing out that a Neder is different because there is no time-limit (which is perhaps why the Torah adds a La'av of 'bal Te'acher', whereas Nezirus normally lasts only thirty days.

(b) We did not ask this Kashya above, with regard to learning Yados from the Hekesh - because there, since it involves a regular La'av, we require the Hekesh for Malkos (which, due to the principle 'Ein Onshim min ha'Din' one would not receive from a 'Mah Matzinu').

(c) Despite the fact that 'S'tam Nezirus Sh'loshim Yom', we cannot learn from the Hekesh that 'S'tam Nedarim Sh'loshim Yom' - because, bearing in mind that one area of Nedarim comprises Nidrei Hekdesh, which cannot be confined to any time period (since how can Hekdesh just disappear), we would rather learn Nidrei Isur from Nidrei Hekdesh (le'Chumra) that from Nezirus (le'Kula).

(a) In describing Yados, the Tana of our Mishnah writes 'Mudrani Mimcha, Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha, she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach, Asur'. When Shmuel says 'be'Chulan, ad she'Yomar she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach' - he means to say that these are not two additional cases of Yad, but must be added to 'Mudrani Mimcha, Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha' ('Mudrani Mimcha she'Ani Ochel Lach' or 'Mudrani Mimcha she'Ani To'em Lach' ... ).

(b) We currently think that if one were to say 'Mudrani Mimcha' or 'Mufreshani Mimcha' or 'Meruchkani Mimcha' on its own - the Neder would not be effective (because it would be a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach [a Yad which is vague]).

(c) The problem with the Beraisa 'Mudar Ani Mimcha, Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha, Harei Zeh Asur; she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach, Harei Zeh Asur' lies in the fact that the Tana repeats 'Harei Zeh Asur' by each group (which it does not do in our Mishnah), suggesting that they are *two* cases and not one (as Shmuel contends).

(d) We initially resolve the Kashya - by explaining the Tana as if he had said in the middle 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, be'Omer she'Ani Ochel Lach, she'Ani To'em Lach' (though this does not really explain 'Harei Zeh Asur' in the Seifa - which we will ask shortly).

(a) We explain the second Beraisa, which inverts the order 'she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach, Harei Zeh Asur; Mudrani Mimcha Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha Harei Zeh Asur' - as if the Tana had said in the middle 'u'K'var Amar Mudrani ... '.

(b) Besides the fact that both Beraisos are teaching us the same thing, the problem with this explanation is - why does the Tana need to add 'Harei Zeh Asur' in the Seifa, as we pointed out earlier.

(c) Were it not for Shmuel - we would explain that each statement is a separate Neder on its own, and the Tana in the second Beraisa adds the cases of 'Mudrani, Mufreshani and Meruchkani', to preclude from learning the first Beraisa all as one case (like Shmuel contended).

(a) So we conclude that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - who, we initially contend, says that if someone declares 'Mufreshani Heimech' (or one of the other two Leshonos), it is a Yad le'Neder (even without 'she'Ochel Lach' ... , because 'Mudrani Mimcha' implies 'Mudar Ani u'Nechasai Mimcha u'mi'Nechasecha'.

(b) Shmuel now explains the Beraisos like we explained them earlier not according to him: that the first Beraisa mentions each of the five cases independently, and the second Beraisa inverts the order, so that we should not make the mistake of explaining the two groups as one (like Shmuel did earlier).

(c) What makes Shmuel establish our Mishnah as one case (and not individually like the Beraisa) - is the fact that, unlike the Tana of the Beraisa, the Tana mentions Asur only once, suggesting that 'Mudrani Mimcha', 'Mufreshani Mimcha' and 'Meruchkani Mimcha' on the one hand, and 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' and 'she'Ani To'em Lach' on the other, both have the same Din. This is in fact not true, because whereas in the second group, the Neder works only one way (the one who expressed the Neder is forbidden from his friend, but not vice-versa), in the first group it works both ways (both are forbidden to benefit from each other - explaining by the way, why the Tana of the Beraisa divides them into two groups). That is why our Mishnah states only one case, adding 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' ... , in which case the Neder works only one way.

(a) We asked on Shmuel, thinking that the Tana of our Mishnah separated 'Mudrani Mimcha' and 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' into two Nedarim. The problem with the suggestion that 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' should be a Yad le'Neder is - that 'mi'Mah Nafshach', if he said 'Konem', it will be a Neder and not a Yad; whereas, if he did not say 'Konem', how do we know that he is making a *Neder* at all? Maybe he means to obligate himself to eat by his friend (which is a *Shevu'ah*)?

(b) We establish the case when he did not, in fact, mention 'Konem'. We know that he meant to forbid his friend's food on himself, and not to obligate himself to eat from the other person - because he used the word '*she'Ani* Ochel Lach', which implies an Isur Cheftza (as it implies that any food that he will eat will be retroactively forbidden).

(c) That is all well and good if the wording in our Mishnah is 'she'Ani Ochel Lach'. But if the correct wording is 'she'Eini Ochel Lach', we have a problem - inasmuch as 'she'Eini' does not imply an Isur Cheftza at all (so back comes the question - How do we know that he is not, in fact, making a Shevu'ah?).

(d) We conclude that, according to this text, he did in fact, mention 'Konem' in his wording, making it a Neder (and not a Shevu'ah). Only because he made an Isur Gavra and not an Isur , it turns the Neder into a Yad le'Neder, as we cited from the Ramban on 2b. (question 8a.).

Next daf


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