(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 22

NEDARIM 22 - this Daf has been dedicated by Rabbi Eli Turkel of Ra'anana, Israel, to the memory of his father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel (Yarhzeit: 10 Av).



(a) Rebbi Aba learns from the Pasuk in Mishlei "ve'Acharei Nedarim Levaker" - that when someone declares a Neder, intimating that he is so pious that he will not stumble over it, they open his book of deeds, to examine him and ascertain that he is really as worthy as he makes himself out to be.

(b) Based on this D'rashah, Rebbi Yanai the Elder annulled the Neder of his granddaughter - by asking her whether, had she known that to be the case, she would still have made the Neder?

(c) In similar fashion, Raban Gamliel annulled the Neder of an old man, based on the Pasuk there "Yesh Boteh ke'Madkeiros Cherev". He learned from ...

1. ... this Pasuk - that someone who declares a Neder deserves to be pierced with a sword.
2. ... its continuation "ve'Lashon Chachamim Marpei" - that the best antidote is to have it annulled by the Chachamim.
(d) We do not follow in the footsteps of Rebbi Yanai the Elder and Raban Gamliel, and use the above as Pesachim (to induce Charatah) to annul Nedarim - because we are afraid that he will declare himself sorry for having made the Neder purely out of embarrassment (see Rosh DH 've'Lo Paschinan'), without really meaning it.
(a) Rebbi Nasan compares someone who ...
1. ... declares a Neder to someone who builds a Bamah - because someone who builds a Bamah, thinks he is performing a Mitzvah, whereas, in fact, the Torah restricted Korbanos to the boundaries of the Beis-Hamikdash, turning his Mitzvah into an Aveirah. In the same way someone who declares a Neder, thinks that he is performing a Mitzvah, by adding to the Torah's prohibitions, when the Torah forbids it, and he is in fact, performing an Aveirah.
2. ... fulfills it to one who sacrificed on it - because just like sacrificing on the Bamah that he built is an additional sin, so too, is fulfilling the Neder that he made, when he should have annulled it.
(b) According to Rav Kahana's version, everyone agrees that one can use the first half of Rebbi Nasan's statement ('One who builds a Bamah ... ') as a Pesach. Abaye permits even the use of the second half ('One who sacrifices on it ... ') - Rava forbids it.

(c) According to Rav Tivyumi, they both agree that one cannot use the second half of Rebbi Nasan's statement as a Pesach. The Halachah is - that one may use neither, (like Rava) because he will be too embarrassed to admit that he insists on retaining the Neder in spite of it all (as we just explained).

(a) For similar reasons, one cannot use as a Pesach to annul Nedarim, the D'rashah of Shmuel, who learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "ve'Chi *Sechdal* Lindor, Lo Yihyeh B'cha Chet" (Ki-Seitzei) "Shem Resha'im *Chidlu* Rogez" (Iyov) - that someone who declares a Neder is called a Rasha (even if he subsequently fulfills it).

(b) The Mishnah in the first Perek which lends support to this D'rashah is - 'ke'Nidrei Kesheirim, Lo Amar K'lum; ke'Nidrei Resha'im, Nadar be'Nazir ... '.

(a) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan (or Yochanan) learns from the Pasuk "ve'Haser *Ka'as* mi'Libcha, ve'Ha'aver *Ra'ah* mi'Besarcha" - that anger leads a person to Gehinom.

(b) Anger merits such a severe punishment - because it causes a person to deny Hashem (as Chazal say in Shabbos - because someone who is gripped by anger loses total control of himself).

(c) A person who is constantly angry can also expect - abdominal problems.

(d) We learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Nasan Lecha Sham Lev Ragaz, ve'Chilyon Einayim ve'Da'avon Nefesh" - because it is abdominal problems that leads to "Chilyon Einayim" (deterioration of one's eye-sight) and "Da'avon Nefesh" (hopelessness).

(a) When one of the two B'nei Chuza'a accompanying him to Eretz Yisrael, asked him whether he had done well in slaughtering his friend - he replied in the affirmative, and then advised him to cut open the throat to ensure his quick death.

(b) Upon his arrival in Eretz Yisrael, Rebbi Yochanan reassured Ula that he had done the right thing in saving his own life. What had bothered him about his own reply to the man from Chuza'a was - maybe he had been guilty of encouraging a sinner to continue sinning.

(c) Ula in turn, reassured Rebbi Yochanan, who quoting the Pasuk "ve'Nasan Hashem Lecha *Sham* Lev Ragaz" (implying that such tempers were confined to Bavel, and did not extend to Eretz Yisrael), expressed surprise that the man from Chuza'a had displayed such a temper in Eretz Yisrael - by pointing out that the incident took place before they had crossed the River Yarden, so that they had not yet entered Eretz Yisrael proper (because Eiver ha'Yarden was not sanctified with regard to bringing the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and other matters. See Gilyon ha'Shas.




(a) What ...
1. ... Rabah bar Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "Rasha ke'Govah Apo, bal Yidrosh Ein Elokim Kol Mezimosav" is - that in the eyes of someone who constantly gets angry, nobody is important, not even the Shechinah.
2. ... Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti learns from the Pasuk "ki Ka'as be'Cheik Kesilim Yanu'ach" and "u'Chesil Yifros Iveles" - that someone who constantly gets angry, both forgets his learning and becomes stupid.
3. ... Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk "u'Ba'al Cheimah Rav Pesha" - that someone who constantly gets angry eventually lands up with more Aveiros than Mitzvos.
(b) Rav Nachman b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk "Ki be'Rov Chochmah Rov Ka'as" - that it was as a result of all Yisrael's sins that Hashem needed to give them the rest of T'nach (with the exception of the Chumash and Yehoshua), since it comprises mainly rebukes that resulted from their sins. Note: See Maharitz Chiyus. It is also difficult to understand why we would not have received Sefer Tehilim and most of Kesuvim, which do not all contain words of rebuke.

(c) What makes ... 1. ... the other Sefarim of T'nach different than the Chumash in this regard? 2. ... Sefer Yehoshua different than the other Sefarim of T'nach?

(a) On what grounds did Rav Asi forbid the annulment of a Shevu'ah, if the Mashbi'a used the expression 'b'Elokei Yisrael'?

(b) What is the exception to this rule?

(c) What is the difference between Hashem's Name and 'be'Mohi' in this regard?

(a) What problem will we have if 'b'Elokei Yisrael' is merely an example of a Shevu'ah, and Rav Asi is merely coming to forbid Lechatchilah the nullification of Shevu'os (over which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel will argue later)?

(b) We could answer that Rav Asi rejects *that* interpretation of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel (whether 'Yesh She'eilah bi'Shevu'os' or not). We can however, reconcile Rav Asi with that explanation in a way that he will still learn our Sugya like Beis Hillel - by establishing the Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding Bedieved. Beis Shamai say 'Ein She'eilah' even Bedieved (mi'de'Rabbanan), and Beis Hillel say 'Yesh She'eilah' Bedieved (but not Lechatchilah).

(c) It is preferable to erase the words from Rav Asi's statement 'Chutz mi'Konem Ishti ... *ve'Noda she'Lo Ganvah ... *' - because, if it later transpired that she did not steal the purse, then no Hatarah would be necessary.

(d) The Rashba however, retains that text, either because Rav Asi is simply copying the Lashon of the Mishnah later (but really he is not speaking in that case) - or he speaks when the husband explains that he wanted the Neder to take effect, whether his wife was guilty of what he accused her or not (in which case the Neder is effective, as we learned earlier).

(a) When Rav Kahana arrived at Rav Yosef, and the latter invited him to eat by him - he replied 'Lo! Mari Kula Lo Ta'imna Lach'!

(b) When Rav Yosef then repeated 'Lo Mari Kulei, Lo Ta'im't Li', he was not superimposing a prohibition over and above the one that Rav Kahana had already accepted - but rather he was saying that since Rav Kahana had used the Lashon 'Mari Kula' (which is like the Name of Hashem), his Neder was not subject to nullification and the prohibition to eat from him, would remain intact.

(c) Rava Amar Rav Nachman rules ...

1. ... 'Poschin ba'Charatah'.
2. ... that a Neder or a Shevu'ah made with the Name of Hashem can be annulled.
(d) In the latter case, it makes no difference whether the Noder held an object of Mitzvah in his hand or not - since the only significance of doing so was to frighten someone swearing in Beis-Din against swearing falsely. The Gaon however, is of the opinion that any Shevu'ah that one makes whilst holding a Sefer-Torah or the Aseres ha'Dibros, cannot be annulled.
(a) According to Rav Hai Gaon - one may not annul ...
1. ... Nedarim with Charatah (only with a Pesach).
2. ... Shevu'os (only Nedarim) unless it is for a D'var Mitzvah such as making peace between a man and his wife, or for the Sh'lom Tzibur.
(b) Rav Yehuda'i Gaon is even more stringent - inasmuch as he prohibited even the nullification of Nedarim with a Pesach, unless it is for a D'var Mitzvah.

(c) These stringencies - do not extend to the Hafaras Nedarim of a husband to his wife or to a father to his daughter.

(a) Rav Nachman asked Rava to send Rav Sechorah to him when the opportunity arose - in response to Rava's praise of Rav Sechorah, whom he referred to as a great man (to put Rava's words of praise to the test).

(b) Rav Sechorah presented himself to Rav Nachman - to annul a Neder.

(c) Rav Nachman was not very impressed with him - because, every Pesach he suggested to him, he turned down (meaning that he seemed to have made the Neder with the express intention of covering all contingencies. So in anger, Rav Nachman told him to return to his hotel.

(d) Possibly, Rav Nachman did not annul Rav Sechorah's vow by means of a Pesach shel Charatah (which he himself permitted), because he saw that Rav Sechorah did not go along with that Heter. Alternatively, Rav Sechorah might have declined to annul *this Neder* through Charatah - because the Neder comprised something of a Mitzvah (such as fasting for a certain time-period, part of which he had already accomplished), and Charatah would remove the aspect of Mitzvah from the days he had already fasted and deprive him of the reward.

(a) In the end, Rav Sechorah found his own Pesach, based on a statement of Rebbi in a Mishnah in Pirkei Avos - 'Eizo Hi Derech Yesharah she'Yavor Lo ha'Adam? Kol she'Hi Tif'eres le'Osehah, ve'Tif'eres Lo min ha'Adam' (and causing Rav Nachman to become angry, violated 've'Tif'eres Lo min ha'Adam').

(b) This does not mean that Rav Sechorah annulled his own Neder - but that he found the Pesach for Rav Nachman to annull it.

(c) This was not a case of Nolad (as we shall see on the following Amud).

Next daf


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