(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 16

NEDARIM 16 - dedicated anonymously in honor of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, and in honor of those who study the Dafyomi around the world.



(a) The author of our Mishnah, who differentiates between 'Korban Lo Ochal Lach' and 'Korban Ochal Lach' - must be Rebbi Meir (who validates 'Korban Ochal Lach, because he does not require the 'Kaf' of comparison).

(b) Had Rebbi Yehudah been the author of the Mishnah - he would have added 'Korban Ochal Lach' to the list of cases in the Mishnah that are not valid (because he does require the 'Kaf').

(c) Our Mishnah also rules 'Lo Korban Lo Ochal Lach, Mutar'. By 'la'Korban Lo Ochal Lach' - the Neder will be valid, because we interpret it to mean 'la'Lorban Yehei, Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach' like Rebbi Aba explained).

(a) 'Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach'; 'Hei Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach'; 'Lo Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach' - have in common that the Shevu'ah is valid.

(b) 'Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach' is valid because it implies that he is forbidding the Mudar's food on himself with a Shevu'ah. We do not explain 'Hei Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach' to mean 'by the life of the Shevu'ah' (which is meaningless), like we explain 'Hei Korban' - because people do not tend say that (whereas 'Hei Korban' they do).

(c) Lo Shevu'ah (or la'Shevu'ah, according to the Ran) Lo Ochal Lach' is a valid Shevu'ah, despite the fact that Rebbi Meir, the author of our Mishnah, holds 'mi'Chelal La'av *I* Ata Shomei'a Hein' - because, as the Gemara explains in Shevu'os, he only says that with regard to money-matters (incorporating Nedarim, which are confined to tangible objects), but as far as pure Isurim is concerned, he concedes that 'mi'Chelal La'av Ata Shomei'a Hein'. And Shevu'os is included in Isurim.

(a) In the Mishnah in Shevu'os 'Shevu'os Sh'tayim she'Hein Arba, she'Ochal ve'she'Lo Ochal ... ' - '(Shevu'ah) she'Ochal' can only mean 'I swear that I *will* eat, because of the contrasting case, '(Shevu'ah) she'Lo Ochal'.

(b) To reconcile this with our Mishnah, where 'Hei Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach' means 'that I will not eat', Abaye explains 'she'Ochal Sh'tei Leshonos Mashma ... ', meaning that it depends on what was said before: If, following attempts to make a person eat, he says 'Achilna Achilna, ve'Od Shevu'ah she'Ochal', then it obviously means that he will eat; whereas if he says 'Lo Achilna Lo Achilna, ve'Od Shevu'ah she'Ochal', then we interpret 'she'Ochal' to mean that he will not eat.

(c) The problem regarding 'Achilna Achilna, ve'Su Shevu'ah she'Ochal' is from Abaye's own words in Shevu'os - where he says that 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal' S'tam means 'I will eat', and it therefore needs no indication to that effect.

(d) We reconcile this - by making it a Machlokes ha'Sugyos.

(a) Rav Ashi disagrees. According to him, 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal' means exactly what it says, irrespective of the circumstances under which it was said. 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal' of our Mishnah, he says - must mean when he actually says 'Shevu'ah she'I Ochal''.

(b) It is not so obvious that 'Shevu'ah she'I Ochal' implies an oath that he will not eat; perhaps he was really saying 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal', but stammered over the 'Alef' of 'Ochal', and it sounded like 'I Ochal'. The Chidush is - that we do not say so, even if he claims that to have been the case.

(c) The basis of this strange contention is - the fact that people do not normally say 'she'I Ochal', but she'Lo Ochal'.

(a) Abaye does not like Rav Ashi's explanation, because the Tana said 'she'Ochal', not 'she'I Ochal'. Rav Ashi, on the other hand, declines to learn like Abaye - because, he maintains, just as 'she'Ochal' has two meanings, depending on the circumstances, so too does 'she'I (or 'she'Lo) Ochal'.

(b) According to this latter explanation - the implication of 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal' after he said 'Achilna Achilna' (according to the text of the Ran) is in rhetoric form: 'Did I swear that I will not eat? Did I not tell you that I will'?

(a) We learned in the previous Mishnah that, unlike Nedarim, Shevu'os take effect even on abstract things. The stringency which the current Mishnah ascribes to Nedarim over Shevu'os is - that they take effect even over a Mitzvah, whereas Shevu'os do not.

(b) The reason for this is (interestingly enough, based on their leniency in the previous Mishnah) - because by a Neder, it is the object of the Mitzvah becomes forbidden, and, as we learned earlier, one does not feed a person something that is forbidden to him.




(a) The problem with our Mishnah 'Zeh Chomer bi'Shevu'os mi'bi'Nedarim', should it refer to the previous Mishnah ''Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach ... Asur' (as it appears to do) is - that the Lashon suggests that both the Shevu'ah and the Neder are valid, only the Shevu'ah is more stringent, when in fact, we have already learned 'Korban Lo Ochal Lach, *Mutar*', indicating that the Neder is not valid at all.

(b) This problem is solved however, when we answer that it refers to the earlier Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Eini Yashein ... Asur' - because 'Konem she'Eini Yashein' is not valid mi'd'Oraysa (explaining why Shevu'ah, which is, more stringent), but it is valid mi'de'Rabbanan, as Ravina taught us earlier.

(c) We cannot ask the same Kashya on the continuation of our Mishnah, 've'Chomer Nedarim mi'bi'Shevu'os ... ', implying that, although a Shevu'ah is less stringent than a Neder with regard to negating a Mitzvah, it is nevertheless valid - because this is indeed the case; the Shevu'ah is not effective as far as negating the Mitzvah is concerned, but it is effective inasmuch as it is a Shevu'as Shav, for which one will even receive Malkos.

(a) Rav Gidal Amar Rav (or Amar Shmuel) learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yacheil *Devaro*" - that it is only a Shevu'ah concerning personal matters that may not be desecrated, but not one that concerns Mitzvos.

(b) We learn from "la'Hashem" - that Nedarim take effect even with regard to Mitzvos.

(c) We confine this latter D'rashah to Nedarim - on the basis of logic; because, seeing as Nedarim take effect on a tangible object, the Torah does not wish to feed the Noder something that is forbidden to him. Shevu'os, on the other hand, forbid the person to benefit from the object, and it is logical to say that the Shevu'ah is not valid, seeing as the person is already obligated to perform the Mitzvah.

(a) The problem that Rava has with Abaye's Lashon 'Ha de'Amar Hana'as Sukah Alai' is - that such a Neder would not be effective, due to the principle 'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu'. Note: that we are not referring to sitting in a cool Sukah on a hot day, in which case the principle would not apply, as we explained on the previous Daf.

(b) So Rava explains that, to forbid sitting in a Sukah with a Lashon of Neder, one would have to say 'Konem Yeshivas Sukah Alai'. However, it is possible that even this Lashon is incomplete - because sitting in a Sukah is abstract, and a Neder requires a tangible object, as we have already learned. So we will have to amend it to 'Konem Sukah li'Yeshivasah'.

(c) Tosfos however, accepts the Lashon as it stands - because the Noder mentioned the object when he said 'Yeshivas *Sukah*'.

(d) According to Tosfos explanation, we will explain the Sugya in K'suvos and later in this Masechta, requiring a person who wishes to forbid the work of his wife's hands on himself, to say 'Yikadshu Yadayim le'Oseihen' to mean - that if someone said 'Konem Ma'asei Yedei Ishti' it is as if he had said 'Yikadshu Yadayim le'Oseihen'.

10) The difference between someone who says 'Konem Yeshivas Sukah Alai' or 'Konem Zerikas Tz'ror la'Yam' on the one hand, and 'Konem Sukah Alai' or 'Konem Tz'ror Zeh Alai' on the other, is - that in the former case, his Neder is valid (even though he derives no benefit from sitting in the Sukah or in throwing the stone into the sea - because that is what he undertook to do); whereas in the latter case, we assume that what he undertook, was not to derive benefit, and sitting in a Sukah or throwing a stone into the sea, do not constitute benefit.

11) We just learned that a Shevu'ah to nullify a Mitzvah is invalid from the Pasuk "Lo Yacheil Devaro". The Beraisa, which learns it from the Pasuk "Lehara O Leheitiv" - is referring to the obligation of bringing a Korban (in which connection that Pasuk is speaking), whereas "Lo Yacheil" refers to the La'av, which does not take effect at all.

Next daf


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