(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 9



(a) When the Tana writes 'ke'Nidrei Resha'im Nadar be'Nazir, u've'Korban u'vi'Shevu'ah' - he is still referring to Yados.

(b) The case of ...

1. ... 'be'Nazir' - is when he said 'ke'Nidrei Resha'im Hareini' just when a Nazir was passing in front of him.
2. ... 'be'Korban' - is when he said 'ke'Nidrei Resha'im Alai', and there was a live animal standing in front of him.
3. ... 'bi'Shevu'ah' - is when he said 'ke'Nidrei Resha'im Heimenu she'Lo Ochal', and there was a loaf of bread lying in front of him.
(c) His Neder is valid if he says 'ke'Nidrei Resha'im' but not if he says 'ke'Nidrei Kesheirim' (despite the fact that all the other conditions mentioned above are met) - because it is the way of Resha'im to make Nedarim, but not of Kesheirim (Tzadikim).

(d) Should he say ...

1. ... 'ke'Nidvas Resha'im ... ' - his Neder is not valid (because it is not the way of Resha'im to donate a Nedavah).
2. ... 'ke'Nidvas Kesheirim ... ' - it is, because Tzadikim do donate Nedavos.
3. ... 'ke'Nidvas Kesheirim' (with regard to a Shevu'ah - 'Heimenu she'Lo Ochal'), despite the fact that it is commendable to make a Shevu'ah if it is to encourage oneself to perform a Mitzvah - because that refers to reinforcing an existing obligation, but not to creating a new one.
(a) The difference between Neder and Nedavah with regard to ...
1. ... bringing a Korban is - that the former is when the Noder says 'Harei Alai' (obligating himself to bring a Korban at all costs), whereas by the latter, he says 'Harei Zu', designating the animal in question, but nothing further.
2. ... adopting Nezirus - is that 'Neder' means not with a perfect heart, whereas Nedavah means with a perfect heart (without reservation). The connection between the two expressions is that - in both cases, Nedavah is more acceptable than Neder.
(b) Had the Noder just said ...
1. ... 'ke'Nidrei Resha'im' (without adding 'Hareini, 'Alai' or 'Heimenu') - we might have thought that he was declaring that he would not make a Neder like the Resha'im.
2. ... 'ke'Nidrei Resha'im Hareini', and a Nazir had not passed in front of him at that moment - we might have thought that he meant to say 'Hereini be'Ta'anis'.
(c) The Ran comments on his Rebbes, who require the full Lashon, despite the fact that a Nazir was passing in front of the Noder, on the grounds that 'Hareini' alone is not as strong a Lashon as 'Ehei', which is effective on its own - that this is simply not correct; because 'Hareini' is just as strong a Lashon as 'Ehei'.

(d) The reason that the Tana require 'ke'Nidrei Resha'im Hareini, Alai or Heimenu' - is because of the Seifa, to teach us that even this Lashon is ineffective if he said 'ke'Nidrei Kesheirim'.

(a) We ask how we know that 'Heimenu bi'Shevu'ah' does not mean that he undertakes to eat the loaf, rather than not to eat it. The problem with this is - that it would then be a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, which, according to Shmuel, is not considered a Yad.

(b) Rava resolves the problem - by establishing the case when he actually added 'she'Lo Ochal'.

(c) The Tana's Chidush will then be that this is considered a Shevu'ah, even though he did not mention the word 'Shevu'ah'.

(a) Explaining the Pesukim in Koheles "es Asher Tidor Shaleim"; "Tov Asher Lo Sidor, mi'she'Tidor ve'Lo Teshalem", Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa that it is better not to make a Neder than to make one and fulfill it - because, as the Pasuk concludes "mi'she'Tidor ve'Lo Teshalem" (which is the reason for avoiding making Nedarim at all, even if one intends to fulfill them).

(b) What leads us to contend that Rebbi Meir does not differentiate between a Neder and a Nedavah - is the fact that the Pasuk (and subsequently the Beraisa) does not go on to say that donating a Nedavah is best of all).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah inverts the order of priorities. According to him - "es Asher Tidor Shaleim" is better than "Tov Asher Lo Sidor" (which is only better than "mi'she'Tidor ve'Lo Teshalem").

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah - the Pasuk is indeed coming to preclude from the contention that it is perhaps better to make a Neder (in good faith) even if one inadvertently breaks it (because at least then, one will receive reward for the good intentions that accompanied the Neder), than not to make a Neder at all (for which there is no reward - 'Nothing ventured, nothing gained').

(a) The above Beraisa, which does not differentiate between Neder and Nedavah (since on the one hand, Rebbi Meir seems to discredit Nedavah no less than Neder; whereas on the other, Rebbi Yehudah seems to praise someone who makes a Neder as much as someone who donates a Nedavah) presents us with a problem vis-a-vis our Mishnah, which clearly differentiates between the two.

(b) We establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir - and still reconcile it with the Beraisa by establishing the Beraisa by Neder exclusively (seeing as the Pasuk itself does not discuss Nedavah).

(c) We reconcile this with the Seifa of our Mishnah 'ke'Nidvosam *Nadar* be'Nazir' - be amending the wording to 'ke'Nidvosam *Nadav* be'Nazir'.

(d) This would appear difficult even if we had not established our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, and some Rishonim therefore explain that we could indeed have asked this Kashya anyway. Alternatively, we could have answered the Kashya (had we not established Rebbi Meir as the author of our Mishnah) - by explaining our Mishnah to mean that the Nedarim of Kesheirim are acceptable to Hashem like Nedavos (though it would not then be clear how [seeing as this contention does not distinguish between Nedarim and Nedavos] we will explain the Mishnah's previous statement 'ke'Nidrei Kesheirim, Lo Amar K'lum').




(a) One was less likely to sin when bringing a Nedavah than when bringing a Neder if one did like Hillel ha'Zakein - who used to bring his animal up to the entrance of the Azarah before declaring it a Nedavah.

(b) If not for Hillel, there would be no difference between them, despite the fact that a Nedavah carries with it less responsibility - because it is very easy to forget to bring a Nedavah to the Beis-ha'Mikdash until three Regalim have passed.

(c) We will now explain 'ke'Nidvas Kesheirim' in our Mishnah in a case - when the Noder made his declaration with regard to an animal that was standing in the Azarah.

(a) We already learned above that Nedavah di'Nezirus refers to those who accept Nezirus with a full heart, such as the Beraisa of Shimon ha'Tzadik - who was extremely impressed with the man from the south when he explained to him that he undertook to become a Nazir, after he saw his reflection in a well and thought to himself how handsome he was. In that case, he decided, he had to shave off all his hair to combat the Yeitzer ha'Ra of pride.

(b) The Korban that Shimon ha'Tzadik ate on that unique occasion - was the Korban Asham of a Nazir who became Tamei.

(c) He quoted the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yafli ... Lehazir la'Hashem" - because he was convinced that that Nazir had truly undertaken his Nezirus for the sake of Hashem, and not for any ulterior motive.

(d) The reason that Shimon ha'Tzadik desisted from eating the Korban Asham of other Nezirim who became Tamei was - because seeing as he they were probably full of remorse for having accepted their Nezirus, the Korban Asham that they brought was 'Chulin la'Azarah'.

(a) Shimon ha'Tzadik restricted his stringency to an Asham Nazir, and not to other Ashamos, which were also brought because the owner had sinned - because it was only by a Nazir whose Nezirus stretched for a long period of time, that he was afraid of the Nazir being sorry for having become a Nazir.

(b) Nor was he afraid to eat from the Korban of a Nazir who had completed his term of Nezirus be'Taharah - because he had accepted his Nezirus with careful deliberation, and it was only a Nazir who became Tamei, and who was forced to prolong his Nezirus over and above what he had originally accepted, that he suspected of remorse for having accepted the Nezirus in the first place.

(c) In the above episode, the Korban of a Nazir who became Tamei was not really Chulin ba'Azarah - because, as long as his Nezirus was not nullified by Beis-Din, it remains intact and his Korbanos are not Chulin.

(d) Nevertheless, Shimon ha'Tzadik declined to eat it - because, since the Nazir had the intention of negating his Korban, it was no longer fully acceptable (in the world of Machshavah, his Korban was blemished).

Next daf


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