ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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.
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'.
(b) If he is not Chayav a Chatas or an Asham - then the Neder is not valid
(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
(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
(a) Rav Papa's She'eilah whether there is a Yad by Kidushin or not -
pertains even to a Yad Mochi'ach.
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).
(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
(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
(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