(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 6

NEDARIM 6 (Tamuz 22) - dedicated by Zvi and Tamara Sand of Har Nof, Yerushalayim, for the Yahrzeit of Tamara's father, Shlomo Zevulun ben Yakov Tzvi Ben-David.



(a) To conform with Abaye, who learns Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Havyan Yadayim', we initially explain that the Beraisa 'Harei Zeh Alai, Asur Mipnei she'Hu Yad le'Korban' adds the word 'Alai', because, without it, it would imply Hefker or Tzedakah. We reject this answer from the Lashon of the Beraisa itself - because in that case, why did the Tana conclude 'Mipnei she'Hu Yad le'Korban', implying that it is a Yad Mochi'ach when he says 'Alai', and a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, when he does not.

(b) According to Abaye, the Tana adds 'Alai', so that only the Noder should be Asur; had he said 'Harei Hu', then both the Noder and whoever is standing there will be forbidden as if the animal was Hekdesh (see Tosfos).

(c) The reason for this stringency is - the principle 'Safek Nedarim Lehachmir'.

(a) The distinction that the Tana of the Beraisa makes between 'Harei Zu Chatas, Harei Zu Asham' and 'Harei Zu Chatasi, Harei Zu Ashami', assuming that the Noder is Chayav a Chatas or an Asham - is that the former is not valid (because it is not clear whether he means it to cover the sin that he already performed, or whether he is now donating a Chatas or Asham Nedavah - in which case, it is a Yad she'Eino Mochiach); whereas the latter Neder is valid, because it is a Yad Mochi'ach.

(b) If he is not Chayav a Chatas or an Asham - then the Neder is not valid either way.

(c) Abaye establishes the Beraisa, which invalidates the Neder because he did not say 'Chatasi' or 'Ashami', despite the fact that he is Chayav a Korban (because 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim') - according to Rebbi Yehudah, whom we already know, holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

(d) Although Abaye did indeed learn on the previous Amud that Rebbi Yehudah's Din is confined to Get - this Beraisa caused him to change his mind.

3) Although Abaye changed his mind - there is no indication that Rava changed his mind too. Rava learns, like he learned earlier, that even the Rabbanan will agree with Rebbi Yehudah that, in areas other than that Get, 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.




(a) Rav Papa's She'eilah whether there is a Yad by Kidushin or not - pertains even to a Yad Mochi'ach.

(b) Kidushin might be different than Nedarim in this regard - because the latter have a stringency, inasmuch as they take effect with words alone. Consequently, we cannot learn Kidushin from them via a 'Mah Matzinu', seeing as it also require an act, and is therefore more lenient.

(c) The case cannot be when a man gives two P'rutos to one of two women and says to her 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li ... ve'At Nami' - because then it is obvious that he has appointed her a Sh'liach on behalf of her friend (and, as we will learn in Kidushin, a woman can become a Sh'li'ach on behalf of her friend under such circumstances).

(d) The case is therefore - when a man gives two P'rutos to one of two women and says to her 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li ... ve'At' (without adding the word 'Nami').

5) Rav Papa asks whether Yad le'Kidushin, despite the fact that regarding Gitin, everyone agrees that Yesh Yad le'Get (which is clear from the Sugya above 5b. where the Tana'im and Amora'im argue about Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, buts seem to agree by a Yad Mochi'ach) - because the case of Yad by Kidushin speaks when no act took place (regarding the second woman, whose Kidushin we are querying), whereas in the case of Get, the husband did give his wife the Get (though this is rather strange, seeing as the Chumra of Nedarim over Kidushin is that there is no act, as we explained above, and here we are using the fact that there is no act as a Kula).


(a) If, in the previous case, the man said 've'At' - it does not really imply 've'At Chaza'i' (and you are also in the running to become my wife), because unlike Nedarim, Kidushin does not require Hafla'ah (only that it should be certain that he wants to betroth her - which it is, making it a case of 'Yad Mochi'ach').

(b) If the man gave a Perutah to each woman, and then, after saying to the first one 'Harei At ... ', he said to the second woman, 've'At' - it would not even if considered a Yad at all, but direct Kidushin.

(c) When Rav Papa asks Abaye how Shmuel can appear to say there 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Havyan Yadayim', but not how he can permit Yadayim by Kidushin in the first place - he is simply querying the opinion of Shmuel, whom we know holds 'Yesh Yad le'Kidushin', though this does necessarily reflect his own opinion in the matter.

(a) Rav Papa asks Abaye whether there is a Yad by Pei'ah. We might hold 'Yad le'Pei'ah', even if we hold 'Ein Yad le'Kidushin' - because whereas there is nothing connecting Kidushin to Nedarim (other than a 'Mah Matzinu'), we have a Hekesh connecting Pei'ah to Nedarim (as we shall soon see).

(b) The case of Yad le'Pei'ah is - if the owner declares one row Pei'ah, and then adds 've'ha'Dein' (and this one), but not 'Nami'.

(c) If the first row did not contain a Shiur Pei'ah - it would be obvious that he meant to declare both rows Pei'ah, because 've'ha'Dein' would then simply be the completion of his statement (and would have nothing to do with Yad).

(d) We extrapolate from the She'eilah - that it is possible to declare one's entire field Pei'ah (even after one has given the necessary Shiur, one is permitted to give more). We learn this from the Pasuk "Pe'as Sadcha" (when the Torah could have written "Pei'ah she'be'Sadcha").

(a) The source of our She'eilah lies in the Pasuk "Ki Darosh Yidreshenu *me'Imach*" - from which we learn that Pei'ah is included in 'bal Te'acher'.

(b) The She'eilah is - whether the Hekesh extends to other areas of Halachah besides 'bal'Te'acher' or not. 'Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah' may well not apply here - because Pei'ah is not written explicitly, but is derived from a D'rashah.

Next daf


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