(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 8



(a) Rav Gidal Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk "Nishbati va'Akayeimah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha" - that one may swear to fulfill a Mitzvah (that the Neder is effective).

(b) The problem that we have with this is - the principle 'Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai Hu' (that one Shevu'ah does not take effect on another).

(c) What Rav is therefore saying is - that it is permitted, and even commendable, to make a Neder encouraging oneself to perform a Mitzvah (though this Neder is not subject to Malkos).

(d) Rav's Chidush cannot be that, whereas "Leha'ra O Leheitiv" which is written in the Parshah of Korbanos, does not apply to Mitzvos (but is confined to voluntary acts), 'bal Yacheil' does - because then, Rav should have said just that, rather than referring to the Pasuk "Nishba'ti va'Akayeimah ... ".

(a) When Rav Gidal Amar Rav says about someone who makes a Shevu'ah that he will learn a certain Perek 'Neder Gadol Nadar l'Elokei Yisrael' (even though he too, is 'Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai) - he is coming to teach us that, even though he could fulfill his basic Mitzvah of Talmud-Torah by reciting the Sh'ma each morning and evening, his Neder is fully effective (not only because of 'Ziruzi Nafshei', as in the previous case), and he will even receive Malkos for contravening it.

(b) Even though Rav uses the Lashon 'Neder Gadol Nadar ... ' - it is really a Shevu'ah, and not a Neder at all (seeing as there is no object involved here - see also Tosfos DH 'Mushba').

(c) When we say that by reading the Sh'ma morning and evening, a person fulfills his duty regarding the Mitzvah of Talmud-Torah - we are referring to the basic written obligation of Torah-study, but not to that of constantly adding to one's store of knowledge, until one is able to reply clearly to any question that one is asked. That obligation is derived from "ve'Shinantam le'Vanecha" (in the first Parshah of the Shema).

(d) What Rav means here is - that although the basic obligation is *not subject to a Shevu'ah* (since whatever is written explicitly is considered 'Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai'), the obligation that is derived from "ve'Shinantam le'Vanecha" (which is not written specifically), *is*.

(a) Rav Gidal Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk "Vayomer Eilai Kum Tzei el ha'Bik'ah ... va'Eitzei el ha'Bik'ah ve'Hinei Sham K'vod Hashem Omed" - that someone who says to his friend 'Come, Let's go and learn this Perek' (for example)! is obligated to take the initiative (whether his friend joins him or not).

(b) What obligates the instigator to take the initiative in carrying it out - is the fact that he said 'Come, Let's go ... ', which is a form of Neder.

(c) Rav is also teaching us here - that an undertaking to perform a Mitzvah has the power of a Neder, even though no Lashon of Neder was used.

(a) Rav Yosef says that someone who dreams that he has been placed in Niduy, must have it released by ten people. The reason that he needs ...
1. ... to have it released at all - is because we suspect that Hashem arranged for the Ba'al ha'Chalamos to place him in Niduy (and Hashem [Kevayachol] has the power of a Beis-Din of ten. (Refer to the first Ran on 7b.)
2. ... ten people to release it - because if Hashem did indeed arrange for the Niduy, then Hashem will have to release it, and wherever there are ten people, the Shechinah rests.
(b) The ten men must be of the caliber who teach Torah ('de'Masni Hilch'sa') and not just who learn it ('ve'Lo de'Tanu'). Alternatively, they must learn Gemara, and not just Mishnah ('de'Tani Hilch'sa, Aval Masni, Lo').

(c) If he cannot find ten men ...

1. ... who teach Torah (or who learn Gemara) - then Bedieved, it is sufficient to release the Niduy with ten men who learn Torah (or who learn Mishnah).
2. ... who (even learn) Torah - the Menudeh should stand by the crossroads and greet ten people who pass. Their return greeting will shield him from punishment until such time as he finds the required ten men to release his Neder.
(a) When Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether, if he knows who placed him in Niduy in his dream, that person is permitted to release the Menudeh's Niduy on his own - he replied that perhaps he was appointed a Sh'liach to place the Niduy, but not to release it.

(b) And when Rav Acha asked Rav Ashi whether, if in his dream, the person who declared the Niduy also releases it, the Niduy is released - he replied that just as all corn contains some straw, so too, all dreams, contain some facts that are false.

(c) It is unclear whether a Menudeh in a dream is obligated to practice all the Dinim of a Menudeh. We might make a distinction between someone who is placed in Niduy in a dream and someone who made a Neder in a dream (though the Rashba disagrees) - inasmuch as by the former, we suspect that maybe Hashem arranged for the Niduy (as we explained), which does not apply to a Neder (where the person must personally undertake the Neder, when he is in full possession of his faculties).




(a) Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether a husband can be a Sh'liach to nullify his wife's Nedarim. The Rambam follows the opinion of the Yerushalmi, that this She'eilah is confined to a husband, but as far as anyone else is concerned, it is obvious that he cannot - because the Noder must be in the presence of Beis-Din whilst his Neder is being nullified.

(b) A husband might be different - because of the principle 'Ishto ke'Gufo'.

(c) Rav Ashi replied - that a husband can be a Sheli'ach for his wife, provided he finds the three Dayanim already gathered, but Chazal did not want to go as far as to permit it even in a case where he has to go and look for them (because, ideally speaking, the Noder should personally be in Beis-Din).

(a) According to Tosfos, it is obvious that anyone can be a Sheli'ach to nullify someone else's Nedarim, and a husband might be worse - because we are afraid that (precisely on account of 'Ishto ke'Gufo') he might present Beis-Din with an exaggerated version of his wife's Charatah.

(b) And this will also explain Rav Ashi's answer. We are only afraid that he might exaggerate, after he has gone through the trouble of looking for a Beis-Din, but not if he finds the Dayanim without difficulty.

(c) Rabeinu Shimshon permits writing down the details of one's remorse and sending it to Beis-Din for them to nullify one's vow - despite the fact that he is not present or aware at the time when his Neder is being annulled (this appears to follow the ruling of the Tosfos that we just quoted in a.).

(d) His source - is the Hafaras Nedarim that a husband makes for his wife, which does not need the wife's knowledge. The sole difference between the Hataras Nedarim of Beis-Din and the Hafaras Nedarim of the husband, he maintains, lies in the Lashon, but not in their practical Halachos.

(a) We learn three things from Rav Ashi's reply. We learn that a husband can be a Sheli'ach to nullify his wife's Nedarim in Beis-Din, that he can only do so if he finds the three Dayanim already gathered - and that one is not permitted to nullify vows in the vicinity of one's Rebbe.

(b) Despite the fact that the Yerushalmi rules like Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion a husband is not permitted to nullify those Nedarim of his wife that do not affect him intimately - the third Chidush is significant inasmuch as Ravina could have sat on a Beis-Din with two other Dayanim (which, some maintain, the Yerushalmi concedes).

(c) Even assuming that, due to the principle 'Ishto ke'Gufo', the Yerushalmi forbids even that - Ravina might have asked his disciples to nullify his wife's Neder (if not for K'vod Rabo).

(a) Shamta is more lenient than Neder - in the third of the above Dinim, inasmuch as one is permitted to release a Shamta even in the vicinity of one's Rebbe (see Rosh).

(b) A Yachid Mumcheh may release a Shamta (or a Neder for that matter). We learn this from the Pasuk "Roshei ha'Matos" (written in connection with Nedarim) - which implies Halachic experts, as opposed to "Elohim", which implies Dayanim with Semichah.

(c) From the fact that Rav Huna annulled Nedarim on his own (Yerushalmi), and that Rav Nachman is named as someone who was eligible to permit Shechting a Bechor on his own (Bechoros) - that a Yachid Mumcheh in this regard needs to be a Halachic expert, but not necessarily a Samuch (since neither of them had Semichah).

(d) The Rambam rules - that three ordinary people may release a Niduy if there is no Chacham available (in the same way as they may annul Nedarim).

(a) When Mal'achi writes "ve'Zarchah Lachem Yir'ei Sh'mi" - he is referring to people whose Yir'as Hashem causes them to utter Hashem's Name only when it is necessary.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i learns from the continuation of the Pasuk "Shemesh Tzedakah u'Marpei bi'Chenafehah" - that the particles of dust that are visible in the sun's rays have healing powers.

(c) Resh Lakish explains that the Pasuk in Malachi refers to Olam ha'Ba.

1. "Shemesh Tzedakah u'Marpei bi'Chenafehah" - means that, in Olam ha'Ba, the sun will shine and that the Tzadikim will be healed by it from all their ailments. In any event, he disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah - inasmuch as the Pasuk refers, in his opinion, to Olam ha'Ba, whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah it pertains to Olam ha'Zeh
2. "vi'Yetzasem u'Fishtem (you will enjoy yourselves) ke'Eglei Marbeik" - that they will also derive much pleasure from it. ?
3. "Hinei Yom Ba Bo'er ka'Tanur ... " - means that the boiling sun will burn the Resha'im, dispensing with the need for Gehinom.
(d) Resh Lakish - is referring to the era after Techi'as ha'Meisim, not to the Olam ha'Ba after death, where Gehinom operates in full force.
Next daf


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