ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 15
NEDARIM 14 & 15 - The Sichel family of Baltimore Maryland has dedicated two
Dafim, in prayer for a Refu'ah Shelemah for Mrs. Sichel, Miriam bas Shprintza
-- may she have a speedy and full recovery.
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah writes 'Konem she'Ani Yashein ... ', he
cannot be speaking literally, because sleep is abstract. Neither can he be
referring to someone who said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah' for an indefinite
period, because of Rebbi Yochanan - who said that someone who makes a
Shevu'ah not to sleep for three days, receives Malkos for making a Shevu'as
Shav and is permitted to sleep immediately.
(b) Nor can the Tana be speaking ...
1. ... when the Noder said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah le'Machar im Ishan
ha'Yom' - because we have already permitted such a person to sleep on the
day of the condition, seeing as a person would not contravene his principle
(c) The Tana must therefore be referring to a case - where the Noder said
'Konem Eini be'Sheinah ha'Yom Im Ishan le'Machar' and he slept on the first
day (otherwise how would he contravene 'Bal Yacheil' by sleeping on the
second day), a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who forbids sleeping on the first day.
2. ... when he said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah ha'Yom' - because that would be
(d) We answer this Kashya on Rav Yehudah - by establishing the Mishnah when
the Noder slept on the first day (not Lechatchilah, but) Bedieved.
(a) 'Harei Zeh be'Bal Yacheil', according to ...
We have a precedent for 'Bal Yacheil' mi'de'Rabbanan - in the case of
'Devarim ha'Mutarim, va'Acheirim Nahagu Bahem Isur' (which is Asur because
of a Neder, which Chazal forbade), and about which the Tana concludes
'she'Ne'emar "Lo Yacheil Devaro" (see also Tosfos DH 'va'Acheirim')?
1. ... the conclusion - means that one should take great care not to sleep
on the first day (like Rav Yehudah), because if he does, he is prone to
contravene 'Bal Yacheil' when he sleeps on the second.
(b) Even bearing in mind the latter explanation, when we asked above 'Why
the Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah
le'Machar im Ishan ha'Yom', we could not have answered by explaining 'Harei
Zeh be'Bal Yacheil' in the same way - because there would be no point in
telling us the Heter of eating on the first day (the day of the T'nai),
which is obvious, before having told us that it is forbidden to do so when
the first day is the day of the principle ha'Neder (which is not so
2. ... the Kashya, when we thought that he is allowed to sleep on the first
day - that he is permitted to enter into the Safek of 'Bal Yacheil' (like
Rav Nachman), because we are not afraid that he will contravene his Neder.
(c) Ravina interprets 'she'Ani Yashein' literally. According to him - 'Bal
Yacheil' of our Mishnah means mi'de'Rabbanan, since the Chachamim decreed
that a Neder on something that is abstract should be valid.
(d) And this explains the Tana's use of the term 'Harei Zeh be'Lo Yacheil
Devaro' - which implies that it is not really Asur, but only a Rabbinical
branch of 'Bal Yacheil'. Had the Isur been d'Oraysa, the Tana would have
said 'Asur', like he does regarding the equivalent case in Shevu'os.
(a) The Mishnah in ha'Noder min ha'Yerek states 'she'At Nehenis Li ad
ha'Pesach im Teilchi le'Veis Avich ad ha'Chag, Halchah Lifnei ha'Pesach
Asurah be'Hana'aso ad ha'Pesach' - from which we can infer 'Lo Halchah,
Muteres' (that she is permitted to benefit from her husband, even though she
might still contravene the condition after Pesach), a Kashya on Rav Yehudah
Amar Rav, who forbids it.
(b) Rebbi Aba answers by explaining the Mishnah like this - 'Halchah Lifnei
ha'Pesach, Asurah (ve'Lokah)', Ha Lo Halchah, Asurah be'Alma (ve'Einah
(c) According to the Rambam, it is the husband who receives Malkos should he
contravene the Neder by giving his wife Hana'ah - because "Lo Yacheil
Devaro" implies that the La'av lies with the person who declared the Neder,
rather than with the person who contravened its contents.
(d) Those who disagree with the Rambam say - that to the contrary, it is the
person who contravenes the contents of the Neder who receives Malkos (and
"Lo Yacheil Devaro" means that one should not contravene the wording of the
Neder), and not the person who declared the Neder.
(a) When the Tana of the Mishnah continues 'Achar ha'Pesach, Harei Zeh
be'Bal Yacheil Devaro' - he means that if she did benefit from her husband
before Pesach, then, should she go to her father's house after Pesach, she
will contravene the La'av of ' Bal Yacheil Devaro'.
(b) This does not prove that one is permitted to break the Neder before the
condition (like Rav Nachman) - because the Tana speaks when she benefited
Bedi'eved (and not Lechatchilah, like we thought).
(c) The Chidush of the Mishnah is then - that she should take care not to
benefit from her husband before Pesach, in case she contravenes the Neder by
going to her father's house after Pesach (like Rav Yehudah).
(a) The Mishnah in ha'Noder min ha'Yerek then discusses a case of 'she'At
Nehenis Li ad ha'Chag im Teilchi le'Veis Avich ad ha'Pesach', forbidding her
to derive any benefit from her husband after Pesach if she went to her
father's house before Pesach. The Tana concludes 'u'Muteres Leilech Achar
ha'Pesach'. We might otherwise have thought - that this would be forbidden,
to remind her that she went before Pesach, and that she is therefore
forbidden to derive any benefit from her husband.
(b) We infer from the Tana - that had she *not* gone before Pesach, she
would have been permitted to benefit from him (even before Pesach), despite
the fact that she might still go before Pesach, a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who
(c) Rava reconciles Rav Yehudah with the Mishnah - by explaining the
inference (in the same way as Rebbi Aba did on the previous Amud) 'Halchah,
Asurah ve'Lokah; Lo Halchah, Asurah be'Alma.
(a) When someone says 'Kikar Zu Alai ha'Yom, Im Eilech le'Makom P'loni
le'Machar', the Tana of a Beraisa rules 'Achal, Harei Zeh be'Lo Yeilech'.
There is no Kashya from this Tana (who seems to permit eating the loaf on
the first day) on Rav Yehudah, who forbids it - because that is why he said
'Achal', and not 'Ochel'.
(b) We were led to believe that he was permitted to eat the loaf
Lechatchilah - by the fact that the Tana, listing all the cases which are
subject to 'Bal Yeilech' or 'Bal Yacheil', seems to have omitted *this* one?
(c) We have now dispensed with the Kashya - by pointing out that, even
though the Tana did not teach us this Isur explicitly, he specifically used
the word 'Achal', to teach us, by implication, that here too, there is an
(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa states '*Halach*, Harei Zeh be'Bal Yacheil
Devaro' - inferring 'Halach' ve'Lo Mehalech, insinuating that he must have
eaten the loaf on the first day, posing a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who forbids
(b) We answer that although the Tana could have written 'Mehalech', he
preferred to write 'Halach', to balance with the Reisha where the Tana had
no choice but to write 'Achal' (as we explained earlier).
(c) In fact, it would have been possible for the Tana to have written
'Mehalech', even with reference to 'Achal', in the Reisha. In that case - we
would have established the Reisha, which places the Isur of Bal Yeilech on
the Noder if he were to go, when he remembered that the Isur of going was
dependent on his eating the loaf, and he nevertheless went; and the Seifa,
which permits him to go, when he forgot, making him a Shogeg, in which case
Bal Yacheil does hot apply, because one only contravenes a Neder or a
Shevu'ah when one is aware that he doing so.
(d) The Tana nevertheless prefers not to write 'Mehalech' - because our
Sugya is not concerned with that particular area of Neder.
(a) Based on the Pasuk "She'eirah, K'susah ve'Onasah Lo Yigra", the problem
with our Mishnah, which validates the Neder of a man who says to his wife
'Konem she'Ani Mashamshech' is - how can the Tana validate such a Neder,
seeing as he is Meshubad to her.
(b) Rava says - that Konamos have Kedushas ha'Guf, and therefore override
someone else's Shibud.
(c) There is nevertheless a problem with our Mishnah. We cannot say there
too, that the Konem removes the woman's Shibud - because just as we know
that the Chachamim reinforced the Shibud of the husband, so too, did they
reinforce that of the wife (protecting it against Konamos).
(d) Our answer to the Kashya is based on Rav Kahana - who makes a
distinction between a woman who says to her husband 'Tashmishi Alecha',
which she has no right to do, and one who says 'Hana'as Tashmishcha Alai' -
which forbids him to her, and we do not feed a person something that is
forbidden to him. Similarly here, when the husband said 'Hana'as Tashmishech
Alai', she becomes forbidden to him, and his Neder is valid (even though it
would not be if he were to say 'Tashmishi Alayich').
(a) What makes 'Konem she'Ani Mashamshech' a Neder mi'de'Rabbanan is - the
fact that it is on something abstract (and a Neder d'Oraysa can only take
effect on a tangible object).
(b) The Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder said 'Konem Gufech Alai
mi'Tashmish' (which would make it a Neder d'Oraysa) - because it must be
similar to the other cases in the Mishnah ('she'Ani Yashein', 'she'Ani
Medaber' ... ), which Ravina established earlier as being Nedarim
(c) It is possible for a Neder de'Rabbanan to negate the Chiyuv Onah which
is d'Oraysa - because the Neder is valid automatically, and once it is, we
apply the principle which empowers the Chachamim to override Torah
institutions in a negative way.
(d) The Neder is effective anyway, in spite of the principle 'Mitzvos La'av
Lehanos Nitnu' (the objective of Mitzvos is not the physical benefit that
one derives) - which only applies to the pleasure that one derives from the
actual Mitzvah, but not to any physical pleasure that accompanies the
Mitzvah (such as Bi'ah in this case, or Toveling in cold water on a hot
day), which is incidental to the Mitzvah, and which is not covered by the
(a) What ...
The Tana of the Mishnah does not consider 'Lo Korban, Lo Ochal Lach' to be a
valid Neder - because it will only be valid by inference ('Ha Korban,
she'Ochal Lach'), and as we just explained, the author of our Mishnah is
Rebbi Meir who holds 'mi'Chelal La'av *I* Ata Shomei'a Hein'.
1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Eini Yashein' ... she'Eini Medaber' ... she'Eini
Mehalech' have in common is - the fact that they are all listed in our
Mishnah as being valid Shevu'os (because a Shevu'ah is effective even on
something that is abstract).
(b) The two possible meanings of 'Korban ... Lo Ochal Lach' are - 1. 'By the
life of the Korban, I will not eat from you', which is meaningless; 2.
'Whatever I do not eat of yours will be Asur like a Korban', in which case,
he has only forbidden what he will not eat, but not what he will.
2. ... 'Korban ... Lo Ochal Lach' ... she'Ochal Lach'; 'Hei Korban,
she'Ochal Lach'; 'la'Korban, Lo Ochal Lach' have in common is - the fact
that they are all listed in our Mishnah as being Nedarim that are invalid,
as we shall now see.
(c) 'Hei Korban', meaning 'By the life of the Korban' is not a valid Neder
either - because it too, has no meaning.
(d) Nor can the correct text be 'ha'Korban Ochal Lach' - because we will
shortly establish this Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, and we already learned in
the first Perek that, according to Rebbi Meir 'ha'Korban Ochal Lach' is a