ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 26
NEDARIM 26 - dedicated anonymously in honor of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, and in
honor of those who study the Dafyomi around the world.
(a) We just learned that, according to Rabah, when the Noder says 'Had I
known that my father was among them, I would have said 'Kulchem Asurim Chutz
me'Aba'! even Beis Hillel concede that 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Lo Hutar
Kulo', and that they argue with Beis Shamai when he said 'P'loni u'P'loni
Asurin ve'Aba Mutar'. In Rava's opinion - Beis Shamai agrees with Beis
Hillel that 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar Kulo', and they argue with them
in a case of 'Kulchem Asurim Chutz me'Aba'.
(b) Despite the fact that they also hold 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso Hutar
Kulo', they argue - because they follow the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who holds
'Tafus Lashon Rishon' (when two Leshonos clash - such as 'Harei Zu Temuras
Olah, Harei Zu Temuras Shelamim', we adopt the first Lashon). Here too,
seeing as he retains the original Lashon of 'Kulchem' (which *includes* his
father and his brother), we ignore his second Lashon of 'Chutz me'Avi ... ',
which *precludes* them.
(c) Although Beis Shamai follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir, the cases are
not exactly similar (and it may well even be that Rebbi Meir disagrees with
Beis Shamai, as we shall see later). The basic difference between the two
cases is - that whereas Rebbi Meir speaks in a case when the second
statement clashes with the first, as we explained, Beis Shamai is speaking
when the second statement renders the first one to have been an error.
(d) Beis Hillel holds like Rebbi Yossi - who maintains that one takes into
account his final statement, not what he said first ('bi'Gamar Devarav Adam
(a) The Tana in the Mishnah in 'Rebbi Eliezer', defining the 'Neder
she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar Kulo' of Rebbi Akiva, differentiates between
'she'Eini Neheneh le'Kulchem' ('Hutar ha'Rishon, Hutru Kulam') and 'she'Eini
Neheneh la'Zeh ve'la'Zeh' ('Hutar ha'Rishon, Hutru Kulam'). In the latter
case - he says 'Hutar ha'Acharon, ha'Acharon Mutar ve'Chulan Asurin'.
(b) Assuming that we temporarily ignore the final case (of 'Hutar
ha'Acharon' - see Rosh, whose explanation we are adopting in this section),
when Rav Papa says there is no problem with the Mishnah - he means that both
speak when the Noder changed the contents as well as the Lashon: in the
Reisha, he originally said 'la'Zeh ve'la'Zeh', and later claimed that he
would have said 'Kulchem, whereas in the Seifa, he speaks in the reverse (or
(c) The problem that Rav Papa has with the Seifa of the Mishnah is - that,
according to Rava, seeing as the Noder changed to 'la'Zeh ve'la'Zeh', why is
this cited in the name of Rebbi Akiva, implying that the Rabbanan disagree,
when Rava just explained that, in such a case, they agree with him?
(d) We cannot answer that 'la'Zeh ve'la'Zeh' of the Seifa refers to the
original Neder, but when he retracted he said 'Kulchem' (in which case the
Tana will be teaching us that irrespective of what he first said, Rebbi
Akiva holds that even if he concludes with 'Kulchem', the Neder is void) -
because, since according to Rava, everything hinges around what he said when
he retracted, why would the Tana speak about what he said originally (as he
does according to Rabah)?
(a) Rava retorts that, even according to Rabah, the Seifa de'Seifa requires
interpretation - because if, as it appears from the way we just interpreted
it, the Tana is speaking in a case of 'Kulchem', then who is 'Rishon' and
who is 'Acharon' referring to?
Rava's explanation dispenses with Rav Papa's Kashya - because it now
transpires that each Neder is an independent one (in which case, the terms
'Miktzaso' and 'Kulo' would be inappropriate).
(b) Rava therefore learns the entire Seifa differently to accommodate both
the Reisha de'Seifa and the Seifa de'Seifa - by establishing it when he
connected each of those partaking of his figs, by saying 'P'loni is like
P'loni and P'loni like P'loni, until each person is connected to the person
before him. That is why the Tana 'Hutar ha'Rishon Hutru Kulam' (meaning that
if the first person that he mentioned turned out to be his father, then they
are all permitted); 'Hutar Acharon, ha'Acharon Mutar ve'Chulam Asurim'.
(c) The Mishnah in 'Rebbi Eliezer' concludes that should the man in the
middle turn out to be his father - then those before his father remain
forbidden, whereas those after him are permitted.
(d) This goes to prove - that the Tana is indeed speaking when the Noder
connected each of those partaking with the one before him.
(a) In the same Mishnah in 'Rebbi Eliezer', Rebbi Meir says - that someone
who declares a Konem on onions because they are bad for the heart, and they
tell him that Kofri onions are good for the heart, is permitted to eat all
onions (because of 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso ... ').
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah interprets Rebbi Meir's statement, to ask a Kashya
against Rava - when the Noder changed to 'Kol ha'Betzalim Asurim, ve'Kofri
Mutar' (which in the opinion of Rava, is the equivalent case to that of
'Kulchem', where Beis Shamai follow the opinion of Rebbi Meir).
(c) He asks on Rava because it is Rava who brought Rebbi Meir into the
picture (by establishing Beis Shamai like him). He could have asked an even
stronger Kashya on Rabah - in whose opinion even Beis Hillel agree that in
the case of 'Kulchem', we do not apply 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar
(d) Rava replies that Rebbi Meir is speaking when the Noder said 'Ilu Hayisi
Yodei'a ... Hayisi Omer, Batzeil P'loni u'P'loni Asurin, ve'Kofri Mutar'. We
could also have answered that, although Beis Shamai holds like Rebbi Meir,
Rebbi Meir does not hold like Beis Shamai - because, as we explained above,
Rebbi Meir may well go after a person's opening statement, only when it
clashes with his second one (but not necessarily when the second statement
renders the first one an error, like it does in our case).