(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 10



(a) Alternatively, we establish the author of our Mishnah (which differentiates between Neder and Nedavah) as Rebbi Yehudah - and we amend Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'Tov mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh, *Noder* u'Mekayem' to read 'Tov mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh, *Nodev* u'Mekayem'.

(b) Regarding Neder, Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rebbi Meir (that the best thing is not to make a Neder at all), and their Machlokes is regarding Nedavah, which Rebbi Meir forbids entirely just like Neder.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah is not afraid that the Noder might delay his Korban until after three Regalim - because he used to do what Hillel did (i.e. bring his animal to the entrance of the Azarah, before declaring it a Nedavah).

(d) When he writes 'ke'Nidvosam Nadar be'Nazir' - he means that the Kesheirim would actually declare themselves Nezirim in order to bring the Chatas (Nedavah of a) Nazir.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah just permitted a Chatas Nedavah in the form of a Chatas Nazir - which the Chasidim ha'Rishonim used to bring, because otherwise, due to the fact that Hashem protects Tzadikim from transgressing such serious sins, they would never have the opportunity of bringing a Chatas.

(b) The problem that Rebbi Shimon has with donating a Chatas via Nezirus is - that it is sinful to declare oneself a Nazir, as the Torah writes "me'Asher Chata al ha'Nefesh".

(c) Abaye points out that three Tana'im all hold on principle that a Nazir is a sinner. We have already discussed Rebbi Shimon and Shimon ha'Tzadik (who, we saw earlier, holds like this) - though the latter only considers a Nazir who became Tamei a sinner, not a Nazir who did not.

(d) The third in the group is Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapor b'Rivi - who learns like Rebbi Shimon, and who describes the Nazir's sin as being his abstention from wine, in spite of the fact that the Torah has permitted it (see Hagahos ha'Bach 2).

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, the Torah chooses to explain the Nazir's sin specifically by a Nazir Tamei - because he has now sinned twice, once by declaring himself a Nazir, and again by desecrating his Nezirus, by permitting himself to become Tamei.

(b) The first of these two sins is hinted - in the words "me'Asher Chata" and the second, in "al ha'Nefesh" (which is otherwise superfluous).

(c) Rebbi Shimon extrapolates from Nazir - that one should not forbid upon oneself that what the Torah permits, such as fasting voluntarily.

1. 'Konem, Konei'ach, Ko'nes' - are all Kinuyim of Korban.
2. 'Cherek, Cherech, Cheref' - are all Kinuyim of Cherem.
3. 'Nazik, Nazi'ach, Pazi'ach' - are all Kinuyim of Nazir.
4. 'Shevusah, Shekukah, Noder be'Mohi' - are all Kinuyim of Shevu'ah.
(b) The Kinuyim of Cherem in Galil apply even S'tam but not those in Yehudah - unless the Noder specifies 'Cherem shel Bedek ha'Bayis'.

(c) This is because otherwise - S'tam Charamim in Yehudah go to the Kohanim (but in the Galil only if he specifically states 'Cherem shel Cohanim').

(d) 'Noder be'Mohi' means - the Shevu'ah of Moshe (as the Torah writes in Sh'mos "Vayo'el Moshe". We shall see later why the Tana says 'Nadar').

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Kinuyim are expressions adopted by the Nochrim. Resh Lakish maintains that they are expressions which the Chachamim invented ('Badu mi'Libam' - like in the Pasuk in Melachim [in connection with Yerav'am ben Nevat] "ba'Chodesh Asher Bada mi'Libo").

(b) We initially suggest that Resh Lakish's reason is because the Chachamim wanted to avoid people using Hashem's Name unnecessarily, and the word 'Korban' would encourage them to say 'Korban la'Hashem'. This suggestion cannot be correct however - since there is nothing wrong with such a declaration.

(c) So we suggest that maybe they will say 'la'Hashem Korban' - which again, is not in itself incorrect. We are however, afraid that if one does so, he might die after saying la'Hashem', before he has a chance to complete the sentence (see also Tosfos DH 'Hachi Garsinan').

(d) Rebbi Shimon extrapolates from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Korban la'Hashem" - that, when consecrating an animal as a Korban, one should say 'Olah la'Hashem' or 'Minchah la'Hashem', and not vice-versa (in case he dies after stating 'la'Hashem', before he has had a chance to complete his sentence). And if this is the case when he is consecrating a Korban, how much more careful must one be in one's mundane speech, to avoid mentioning Hashem's Name unnecessarily.




(a) Beis Shamai in a Beraisa forbids even 'Kinuyei Kinuyin'. Beis Hillel declare them invalid.

(b) 'Kinuyei Kinuyin' are expressions that are similar to the official Kinuyim.

(c) We try to connect the Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel with that of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - by establishing Beis Shamai like Rebbi Yochanan (that they are expressions used by the Nochrim), in which case, any Neder that they concoct is also considered a Kinuy; whereas Beis Hillel hold like Resh Lakish (that they are expressions invented by the Chachamim), and only those Leshonos which Chazal instituted are valid, but no others.

(d) We conclude that even Beis Hillel hold like Rebbi Yochanan (that they are expressions used by Nochrim), and they simply argue over whether the Nochrim also use these expressions or not. Alternatively - everyone agrees that the Nochrim do not use these expressions, only Beis Shamai decree 'Kinuyei Kinuyin' on account of Kinuyim, whereas Beis Hillel do not.

(a) The common denominator between ...
1. ... Mekanmana, Makanchana, Mekansana is - that they all Kinuyei Kinuyin of Nedarim.
2. ... Tachrakim, Charakim, Charafim is - that they are all Kinuyei Kinuyin of Cherem.
3. ... Mechazkana, Menazchana, Mefichana - is - that they are all Kinuyei Kinuyin of Nezirus.
4. ... Shevuva'el, Shevusi'el, Shekuka'el is - that they are all Kinuyei Kinuyin of Shevu'ah.
(b) We reject the original contention that Shevu'el is the first of the Kinu'yei Kinuyin of Shevu'ah - on the grounds that this is the name of the son of Gershom, Moshe's son (who is not a Davar ha'Nadur).

(c) The She'eilah regarding whether 'Mifchazna', 'Mischazna' and 'Mis'azna' are Kinuyei Kinuyim remains unanswered, and so does that of 'Kinma' which Ravina asked Rav Ashi, and 'Kinah which Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Chiya asked Rav Ashi. What prompted ...

1. ... Ravina to ask about 'Kinma' - was the fact that it might also mean the spice known as Kinmon Bosem.
2. ... Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Chiya to ask about 'Kinah' - was the fact that it might also refer to a chicken-coop.
(d) Shmuel rules - that 'Ashivsa', 'Ashkika' 'Karinsha' are not Kinuyei Kinuyin of Shevu'ah, and do not therefore constitute a Shevu'ah.
(a) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, if someone says 'be'Mohi' alone, his Neder is not valid - unless he says 'be'Mumsa de'Amar Mohi'.

(b) Even though 'Mumsa' means a Shevu'ah, the Tana of our Mishnah says '*Nadar* be'Mohi', and not just 'Shevu'ah, Shekukah be'Mohi' - because we might then have thought that 'be'Mohi', like 'Shevu'ah and Shekukah', is eligible on its own. So the Tana adds 'Nadar be'Mohi', to teach us that he must mention the *Neder* of Moshe (which was a Shevu'ah).

(c) According to others, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is differentiating between 'be'Mumi' (which is the equivalent of 'be'Mohi') or 'be'Mumsa', and 'Mumi' or 'Mumsa'. The difference between them is - 'be'Mumi' or 'be'Mumsa' is not a Kinuy li'Shevu'ah, whereas 'Mumi' or 'Mumsa' is.

(d) The Tana of our Mishnah adds the word '*Nadar* be'Mohi' - because we would otherwise have thought that one is obligated to say 'Shevusah u'Shekukah Mohi'. 'Nadar' indicates that he only needs to mention one of the Leshonos, and not both.

(a) 'la'Chulin she'Ochal Lach' - implies 'What I will eat of your's is not Chulin, but Hekdesh'. Consequently, it is forbidden.

(b) 'Dachi' means 'Tahor'.

(c) If he says ...

1. ... 'Lo Dachi (Kikar Zeh)' or 'Lo Tahor' - his Neder is valid.
2. ... 'Tamei', 'Nosar', Pigul', or 'Asur' - his Neder is valid.
(d) The Lashon 'Asur' is valid, despite the fact that it incorporates things which are automatically Asur (Davar ha'Asur) on which one cannot be Matfis - because 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir'.
(a) According to some texts, the Tana writes 'Tahor' without a 'Lamed'. The problem with that is - that if the Tana wrote 'la'Dachi' (which means 'Lo Tahor'), then how can he continue with 'Tahor', which has the exact opposite meaning?

(b) The Tana did that - because, having written 'la'Dachi', he took for granted that we would understand that the 'la' extended to Tahor, too.

(c) What 'Tamei', 'Nosar', Pigul', and 'Asur' all have in common is - the fact that each word expresses the Isur, rendering the 'Kaf' of comparison unnecessary.

(d) We reconcile this with the Mishnah later 'ha'Omer Korban Olah, Minchah ... Rebbi Yehudah Matir' (because he did not say 'ke'Olah, ke'Minchah', even though 'Olah' and 'Minchah' too, denote Isur - because they only express the Isur by inference. Their inherent meaning denotes the obligation to bring them in the prescribed manner, explaining why the 'Kaf' of comparison is necessary.

(a) 'Tamei' might pertain to Terumah. Nevertheless, seeing as it can also pertain to Kodshim - we apply the principle 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir.

(b) In the third group listed in our Mishnah, the Tana includes 'ke'Imra', 'ke'Dirim', 'ke'Eitzim', 'ke'Ishim', 'ke'Mizbei'ach', 'ke'Heichal', 'ki'Yerushalayim', which all require the 'Kaf' of comparison - because there is nothing in each of the words that denotes Isur.

(c) The meaning of 'ke'Imra' - is 'like the lamb of a Korban'.

(d) The Neder 'ke'Imra' might be valid because even though, this could pertain to a lamb of Chulin, we again apply the principle 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir'. Alternatively, the Neder is valid - because 'ke'Imra' implies like the well-known lamb (i.e. that of the Korban).

(a) The significance of ...
1. ... 'ke'Dirim' is - that one is declaring something forbidden like the Korbanos that were in the specially-designated rooms (the Lishkos ha'Korbanos).
2. ... 'ke'Eitzim' is - ... like the two blocks of wood that were placed on the Mizbei'ach.
3. ... 'ke'Ishim' - ... like the flames of fire on the Mizbei'ach.
(b) 'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, ha'Omer Yerushalayim, Lo Amar K'lum' -because this implies that he is declaring something to be *like Yerushalayim*; whereas when he says 'ki'Yerushalayim', he is declaring it forbidden *like the Korbanos of Yerushalayim*.
Next daf


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