(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 12



(a) Rava resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah (when a person says 'Zeh ka'Zeh' referring to a piece of Sh'lamim after the Z'rikah) from Nosar (and Pigul) in our Mishnah - which is considered a Davar ha'Nadur, in spite of the fact that it comprises the same two categories as B'sar Sh'lamim after the Z'rikah. So we see, that we go after the Ikar, not after the current Heter.

(b) We erase the Kashya from Pigul - on the grounds that Pigul negates the validity of the Korban in spite of the Z'rikas Damim, in which case, it has no Heter, and there is no Tzad in Rami bar Chama's She'eilah to declare the Neder invalid.

(a) Rav Huna bar Nasan answers that our Mishnah is referring to Nosar of an *Olah* (which does not become permitted after the Shechitah). Rava queries this answer however - on the grounds that, if that is so, the Tana should simply have said 'ki'B'sar Olah'. Why did he need to mention 'Nosar'?

(b) Rav Huna bar Nasan replied that the Tana mentions Nosar of Olah, and not just ki'B'sar Olah - because the flesh of the Olah is obviously a Davar ha'Nadur and is less of a Chidush; with regard to Nosar however, which is basically a Davar he'Asur, and not a Davar ha'Nadur, the Tana needs to inform us that it is nevertheless subject to Hatfasah.

(c) We might also have explained that the Tana mentions Nosar of Olah - to teach us that Nosar (and Pigul) do not require the 'Kaf' of comparison, whereas had he said 'Harei Zeh Olah' the object would not be Asur unless he said 'ke'Olah' (as we explained in the Mishnah).

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa gives four examples of the Isar that the Torah forbids. Three of them when the Noder says 'Hareini she'Lo Ochal Basar ... ke'Yom she'Meis Bo Aviv, ke'Yom she'Meis Bo Rabo, ke'Yom she'Neherag Bo Gedalyah ben Achikam' - and 'ke'Yom she'Ra'isi Yerushalayim be'Churbanah'.

(b) When Shmuel said 've'Hu she'Nadur be'Oso ha'Yom' - he meant that on the day in question, he undertook not to eat meat or drink wine.

(c) The Tana is teaching us is - that if he then undertook not to eat meat or drink wine on the same date that he undertook not to eat meat or drink wine that first time (without actually mentioning that occasion), that his Neder is valid, even though on the same date on subsequent years, he did eat meat and drink wine.

(d) We attempt to resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from Shmuel's explanation - since there, we go after the Ikar, which was Asur, and not after now, which is permitted.

(a) To repudiate this proof - we re-word Shmuel's statement to read 'that he undertook not to eat meat or drink wine from that day and onwards (each year)'.

(b) If that is so, the first three cases are obvious. The fourth case (of Gedalyah ben Achikam) however, is not, because there is already an Isur de'Rabbanan to eat on that day. What the Tana is teaching us is - that the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah' only applies to an Isur d'Oraysa (Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai), but not to a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan.

(c) Alternatively, we would not have known that Hatfasah applies to any of the cases- inasmuch as all them are individual Isurim, (and we would have thought that Hatfasah only applies to something that one forbade on everyone, like a Korban).




(a) We have already referred to the Mishnah in the second Perek 'ke'Chalas Aharon u'chi'Terumaso, Mutar'. We initially infer from the term 'T'rumas *Aharon*' - that 'ki'Terumas Lachmei Todah (which will be discussed shortly), Asur'.

(b) We could then resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from there - because, assuming that T'rumas Lachmei Todah speaks *after* the Zerikas Damim of the Todah (due to the fact that that is when the loaves were normally given to the Cohen), we see that we go after the initial Isur, and not after the current Heter.

(a) We reject that inference in favor of 'Eima ki'Terumas ha'Lishkah Asur' - 'T'rumas ha'Lishkah' is the three boxes-full of money that the Cohanim would scoop from the large collecting box in the Azarah, with which to purchase the public Korbanos etc.

(b) This explanation presumes that if someone is Matfis 'ki'Terumas Lachmei Todah', his Neder is not valid (because we go after the current Heter). We ask why the Tana then says 've'chi'Terumaso' and not 'ki'Terumas Lachmei Todah' - which is a bigger Chidush because it is a Davar ha'Nadur, unlike Terumah Gedolah which is a Davar ha'Asur?

(c) We initially answer - that 'ki'Terumaso' incorporates the Lachmei Todah, because they too, are forbidden to Zarim.

(d) Alternatively, the Tana deliberately omits Lachmei Todah from the Mishnah, because it is possible to give it to the Kohen before they have even been baked, which is before the Zerikas Damim (in which case they would obviously be subject to Hatfasah, and there would be no Chidush).

(a) 'de'Afreshinhu be'Lishaihu' means - that he separated the four 'loaves' whilst they were still dough (before they had been baked).

(b) We could also have answered that it speaks when he gave the four loaves *after* they were baked (but still before the Zerikas Damim of the Korban). The reason that we preferred this version, is because it is closer to the case of Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel, on which our current explanation is based (and which we will discuss shortly).

(c) They normally baked - forty Lachmei Todah.

(d) Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel says - that if the Lachmei Todah that were baked as four Chalos (corresponding to the four kinds of loaves), one has fulfilled the Mitzvah.

(a) The problem with taking the Terumah in the form of ...
1. ... one of the four loaves is - that the Torah writes "Echad mi'Kol Korban", obligating the Kohanim to take one from each of the four kinds.
2. ... a piece of each of the four loaves is - that we learn from "Echad" that they must take an entire loaf, and not a piece of one.
(b) They separated the Terumah from the four loaves - whilst they were still dough. What they would do is to knead ten doughs from each of the four kinds, take one from each for the Terumah, and then re-knead the nine loaves (of each kind) into one dough before baking it.

(c) The Chalos Todah comprised one kind of Chametz-loaf and three, of Matzah - the three kinds of Matzah-loaves consisted of regular bread, wafers (like our Matzos) and bread that was 'cooked' in boiling water.

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor, Rebbi Ya'akov Oser, ve'Rebbi Yossi Matir'.
The Noder must be a Cohen, because a Yisrael has no rights over it at all, and is forbidden to eat it at any time.

(b) According to our initial contention, if someone said 'Harei Zeh ki'Bechor ...

1. ... Lifnei Zerikas Damim' - the Neder would certainly be valid.
2. ... Le'achar Zerikas Damim' - it would certainly not be valid.
(c) Had he said (even after the Zerikas Damim) 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor' (S'tam) - the Neder would also have been valid according to all opinions - because whenever he mentions the name of the Korban S'tam everyone agrees that he is Matfis on the main Isur, and not on the currrent Heter (as we will learn in the folllowing Mishnah 'Chatas, Todah, Sh'lamim, Asur').

(d) We nevertheless prefer to ask 'I Lifnei Zerikas Damim, Mai Ta'ama de'Ma'an de'Shari', rather than to ask the same Kashya from 'I de'Amar 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor' (S'tam) - because it balances with 'I le'Achar Zerikas Damim, Mai Ta'ama de'Ma'an de'Asar'?

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov and Rebbi Yossi are arguing - when he had a piece of B'chor after the Zerikas Damim in front of him as well a piece of Chulin meat, and he declared 'Zeh ka'Zeh' (exactly like the case of Rami bar Chama).

(b) We will then have proved that Rami bar Chami's She'eilah is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im.

Next daf


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