ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 36
NEDARIM 36 - dedicated anonymously in honor of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, and in
honor of those who study the Dafyomi around the world.
(a) On the assumption that the Chatas and the Asham mentioned by the Tana
refer *all* sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to
prove from the Beraisa 'Im Hayah Cohen, Yizrok Alav Dam Chataso ve'Dam
Ashamo' - that the Cohanim must be the Torah's Sheluchim, because, if they
were Yisrael's Sheluchim, how could the Madir then sprinkle the blood of the
Mudar's Chatas or Asham on the Mizbei'ach, thereby effecting his Kaparah on
(b) He does not bring the same proof from our Mishnah, which also permits
the Madir to bring the Chata'os and Ashamos of the Mudar, should he be a
Cohen - because there, seeing as the Tana first mentions Kinei *Zavin
ve'Zavos* and Kinei *Yoldos*, it is obvious that Chata'os and Ashamos which
follow probably refer to those of a *Metzora* (who completes the group of
(c) We reject the proof from the Beraisa - by establishing it too, by the
Chata'os and Ashamos of a Metzora.
(a) The Tana in a Mishnah in Menachos states 'ha'Cohanim she'Piglu
be'Mikdash Mezidin, Chayavin', from which we infer 'Ha be'Shogeg, Peturin',
to which the Beraisa adds Ela she'Pigulan Pigul. Now if the Cohanim were
Yisrael's Sheluchim, why could the owner of the Korban not present the
argument 'li'Tekuni Shadarticha ve'Lo la'Avasasi' ('I sent you for my
advantage, not for my disadvantage!'), thereby negating the Shelichus.
(b) We make no attempt to bring the same proof from the Reisha - because
(even assuming that a Cohen normally acts as the Yisrael's Sheli'ach), once
the Kohen is Mefagel the Korban on purpose, he is acting on his own behalf,
and not in the capacity of a Sheli'ach. On the other hand, despite the fact
that though a person is not empowered to render another's article forbidden
with *words*, he does have the power to do so with an *action* (and the
Torah considers Pigul to be an action).
(c) We reject the proof by quoting the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Yechashev Lo" -
which teaches us that a Korban becomes Pasul through Pigul under any
(a) Earlier, Rebbi Yochanan proved that a Mechusar Kipurim does not require
Da'as, from the fact that a father is obligated to bring the Korbanos of his
son who is a Zav. We then try to prove from Rebbi Yehudah, who obligates a
man to bring a Chatas Cheilev (a regular Chatas) on behalf of his wife who
is a Shotah - that, by the same token, one ought to able to bring a Chatas
on someone's behalf, even without his knowledge. But this clashes with Rebbi
Elazar, who ruled that if someone brought a Chatas Cheilev on behalf of his
friend without his express consent, his friend has not fulfilled his
(b) The problem that we have with Rebbi Yehudah, if he is really referring
to the Chatas Cheilev that one brings on behalf of one's wife, assuming she
ate (Cheilev ... ) whilst she was ...
1. ... a Shotah is - that there, *she* has no obligation to bring the Chatas
in the first place (seeing as a Shotah is Patur from all the Mitzvos).
(c) So we establish Rebbi Yehudah (not by the Chatas Cheilev of one's wife),
but by the Chatas that he brings after she has given birth, for which there
is a special Pasuk (as we learned earlier).
2. ... a Pikachas, and then became a Shotah is - that Rebbi Yirmiyah quoting
... Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us that if someone eats Cheilev,
designates a Chatas and becomes a Shoteh, his Korban is Pasul because it has
(d) The basis of the Machlokes whether we learn a Gadol from a Katan or a
Pikei'ach from a Shotah or not - is whether we hold of the principle 'Danin
Efshar mi'she'I Efshar' ('it is possible to learn a case where there is an
alternative [to bring the Korban oneself] from a case where there is not')
(a) A father may include his young children in his Korban Pesach.
(b) The reason that, according to those who do learn Gadol from Katan
(Efshar mi'she'I Efshar'), Rebbi Elazar nevertheless rules that if one
Shechted the Pesach on behalf of one's friend without his express knowledge,
his friend will not have fulfilled his obligation is - because a father
includes his son in the Korban Pesach, not because he is obligated, but
because he is part of his family ('Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa').
(c) Even if 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa', a child, who has not been
designated, is nevertheless permitted to eat from the Korban Pesach -
because the requirement to be designated is confined to those who are
eligible to be designated (but not to children, who are not).
(a) The Mishnah in Pesachim states that if a father announces that he is
about to Shecht the Pesach on behalf of whichever of his sons arrives in
Yerushalayim first - the son who arrives first in Yerushalayim earns the
right to participate in the Korban Pesach both for himself and for his
(b) We prove from there that 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa' - because if
it were, how could he possibly earn the right for his siblings to
participate, after the Pesach has already been Shechted (seeing as the
designation must take place before the Shechitah)?
(c) The son who arrived first would have earned *his* part in the Korban
Pesach even if Seh le'Veis Avos would have been d'Oraysa - due to the
principle of 'Yesh B'reirah' (retroactive acquisition) which is held by some
(d) We support this proof (for 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa') with the
Beraisa, which relates the story of a father who issued such a challenge to
his sons and daughters, and, when the man's daughters came in before his
sons, he comments that the daughters were keen, and the sons, slow. Since he
says nothing about the daughter acquiring a portion and not the sons - it is
clear that all the children actually received one, a clear proof that 'Seh
le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa', as we just explained.
(a) Despite the fact that one person may act in favor of his friend even
without his consent ('Zachin le'Adam she'Lo Befanav') - Reuven might
nevertheless not be permitted to separate Terumah from his own crops on
behalf of Shimon without his knowledge, due to the fact that Shimon may well
wish to perform the Mitzvah himself.
(b) This She'eilah would not even come into question regarding Reuven taking
Terumah from *Shimon's* crops without his knowledge - since that is
something that he can only do this with Shimon's consent ('Mah Atem
le'Da'atchem, Af Sheluchachem le'Da'atchem').
(c) We try to resolve this She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Torem es Terumaso'.
We have just explained why the Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder took
Terumah from the Mudar's crops *without* his knowledge. Nor can he be
speaking when he took from the Mudar's crops *with* his knowledge - because
then he would be fulfilling his Shelichus, which is considered Hana'ah.
(d) We attempt to resolve our She'eilah from there - since, having
eliminated all other possibilities, the Mishnah must now speak when the
Madir separates Terumah from his own produce *without the Mudar's knowledge*
(and when the Tana says 'le'Da'ato', he means with the Madir's knowledge,
though it is unclear why he needs to insert this word).
(a) According to the Rashba, the Mishnah will hold like Chanan, who also
permits the Madir to pay the Mudar's debt, but not according to the
Rabbanan, who forbid that. We nevertheless establish our Mishnah even
according to the Rabbanan - on the grounds that the Madir wants specifically
to take the Terumah from his own crops, in order to gain the Tovas Hana'ah
from it (as we shall see later in the Sugya). Consequently, any benefit that
the Mudar subsequently receives is only G'rama, which is permitted.
(b) We refute this proof however, by reinstating our Mishnah when the Madir
separates the Terumah from the *Mudar's* crops. And we dispense with the
Kashya that he is then his Sheli'ach (and is therefore giving him Hana'ah by
carrying out his Shelichus), by quoting Rava - who establishes our Mishnah
when the Mudar announces 'Kol ha'Rotzeh li'Terom, Yovo ve'Yitrom', in which
case, the Madir does not really become the Mudar's Sheli'ach.
(c) If he were to announce ...
1. ... 'Kol ha'Shomei'a Koli, Yitrom' - the Mudar would become his
full-fledged Sheli'ach, forbidding him to separate Terumah on his behalf.
2. ... 'Kol ha'Torem, Eino Mafsid' - he would not be his Sheli'ach at all,
in which case, his Terumah would not be valid (see also Rashi).
(a) Presuming that Reuven may separate Terumah from his crops on behalf of
Shimon, Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira who will receive the Tovas Hana'ah.
1. ... two sides of the She'eilah are - whether it is Reuven who has the
Tovas Hana'ah, because it his Terumah, or Shimon, because they are his
(b) Rebbi Zeira replied with the Pasuk "es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa ve'Nasata" -
which seems to be speaking to the owner of the field, from which we can
learn that it is the owner of the crops who receives the Tovas Hana'ah).
2. ... ramifications of this She'eilah - are 1. who will receive any money
that a relative of a Kohen might offer for his relation to receive the
Terumah (the Kohen himself, is in any event forbidden to do anything at all,
to prevail upon the Yisrael to give him his Terumos), and 2. to whose choice
of Cohen is the Terumah given.
(c) To avoid having to disprove Rebbi Zeira from there - Rava establishes
our Mishnah when the Madir announced ''Kol ha'Rotzeh li'Terom, Yavo
ve'Yitrom' (making him only a partial Sheli'ach - see also Rashi DH
(a) We nevertheless prove Rebbi Zeira wrong from a statement by Rebbi Avahu
Amar Rebbi Yochanan. According to Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan ...
1. ... should Reuven declare his animal Hekdesh on behalf of Shimon, and
the animal develops a wound - the one who adds the extra fifth is Reuven.
(b) He also says that it is the one who *separates* the Terumah who has the
Tovas Hana'ah, and not the owner of the crops (like Rebbi Zeira ruled).
According to him - "es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa, ve'Nasata" refers to the
beginning of the Pasuk "Aser Te'aser" (which, in turn, refers to the owner).
2. ... the one who has the right to declare a Temurah - is Shimon.