(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 39



(a) Assuming that the visitor in our Mishnah is the Madir, and the sick person, the Mudar, the Madir will be permitted to visit the Mudar - because he is performing a Mitzvah, and the benefit that the sick person receives is only G'rama (see also the last answer on the Amud).

(b) The problem that we then have with the distinction the Tana of our Mishnah makes between standing and sitting is - why does the Tana forbid the Madir to sit?

(c) The problem that we have if it is the sick person who is the Madir, and the visitor, the Mudar is - that seeing as even entering the Madir's house is forbidden (like we learned earlier, according to Rebbi Eliezer), why does the Tana permit him even to stand?

(a) Initially, we establish the Mishnah when the visitor is the Madir and the sick person, the Mudar, and the reason that he is forbidden to sit is -because the Tana is speaking in a place where they tend to take money for sitting (which is not part of the Mitzvah). Consequently, when the Madir sits without taking money, he is benefiting the Mudar.

(b) In some places, they were stringent not to take money even for sitting (in which case sitting would be permitted, too) - to avoid making the mistake of taking money even for standing (which is forbidden).

(c) The Tana chose to teach us the Din in a place where they take money for sitting and not for standing, and not in a place where they do not take money for either - in order to stress that although it is permitted, in those places, to take money for sitting with a sick person, there is no Heter whatsoever, to take money for standing with him.

(a) Alternatively, the Tana holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim later, who holds 'Gezeirah Shema Yashheh'. The Tana is speaking - when the Minhag is not to take money for sitting, yet it is forbidden to sit free of charge because of the decree that he might sit longer than necessary.

(b) When he remains standing, we are not afraid that he may remain longer than necessary to fulfill the Mitzvah - because the fact that he is made to stand will remind him not to remain too long.

(a) Ula establishes our Mishnah when it is the sick person who is the Madir and the visitor, the Mudar, and the reason that the Mudar is even permitted to enter the Madir's house and stand in front of him is because - presumably, when the Madir made the Neder, he did not mean to include those occasions when he needed the Mudar.

(b) Some have the text '*u'Kegon* de'Lo Adrei min Chiyutei'. This text however - has no significance, because, whether he said so specifically or not makes no difference, since, in any event, that is what we presume.

(c) He is not however, permitted to sit, since he can fulfill the Mitzvah by remaining standing, in which case, sitting is included in the Neder and forbidden.

(a) The Beraisa (which we assumes, comes to elaborate on our Mishnah) states 'Chalah Hu', Nichnas Levakro; Chalah B'no, Sho'alo be'Shuk'. This Beraisa poses no problem on Ula, whose opinion we have just discussed - because according to him, the Tana permits the Mudar to visit the Madir when he is sick (due to the S'vara 'de'Lo Adrei min Chiyutei'), but not his son (whom we cannot assume was also precluded from the Neder).

(b) This proves what we stated earlier (that the Noder meant to preclude those occasions where he needed the Mudar from the Neder, whether he said so *specifically* or not) - because if he had to state it specifically, then what would be the difference between himself and his son (if he specifically precluded mentioned both, then the Madir would be permitted to visit both of them, and if he did not, then he would be permitted to visit either).

(c) The problem with Shmuel (who learns our Mishnah when the visitor is the Madir and the sick person, the Mudar) from this Beraisa is - why there should be any difference between the Madir and his son? If anything, it should the distinction should be the reverse (even if the Madir is forbidden to visit the Mudar, he should be permitted to visit the son)?

(d) Shmuel agrees with Ula in establishing the Beraisa when the sick person is the Madir, and the visitor, the Mudar, because he too, holds of the S'vara ('de'Lo Adrei min Chiyutei'). What makes him then learn our Mishnah when the visitor is the Madir and the sick person, the Mudar - is the fact that the Tana differentiates between standing and sitting, and in his opinion, if the sick person was the Mudar, there would be no more reason to forbid the Madir to sit than to stand (because he does not agree with Ula, who maintains that he is forbidden to sit, seeing as he is able to stand).

(a) Shmuel and Ula both established the Beraisa (which permits the visitor to visit the sick person) when it is the sick person who was Madir the visitor. The concession to visit the sick person will only apply however, if it was the sick person who had declared the Neder forbidding his property on the visitor - but not to where it was the visitor who had declared the Neder on himself, because then the S'vara ('de'Lo Adrei min Chiyutei') will not apply.

(b) The Halachah in the above Machlokes is like Shmuel - because Rava supports him from our Mishnah.

(c) In the case of our Mishnah, where it is the property of the visitor that is forbidden on the sick person, and when the former is permitted to visit the latter provided he does not sit down - he should also take care not to give him anything, because it is only abstract Hana'ah that is permitted, and not real Hana'ah that is tangible.



7) Resh Lakish explains the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Im K'mos Kol ha'Adam Yemusun Eileh" to mean - 'If these men will die like everyone else who fall ill and die on their death-beds'.
2. ... "u'Fekudas Kol Adam Yipakeid Aleihem" - 'and people come to visit them'.
(a) What the following have in common - is that they were all created before the world was: Torah, Teshuvah, Gan Eden, Gehinom, Kisei ha'Kavod - the Beis-Hamikdash and the name of Mashi'ach.

(b) When Rava says that these things were created before the creation - he means that Hashem's decision to create them was made before the world was created (because they were an essential part of the creation).

(c) Seeing as Gehinom was one of the initial creations, when Moshe requested "Im B'riyah Yivra Hashem" (If it is not created already, then Hashem should create it now) - he was asking, not for the creation of Gehinom, but for a new entrance.

(d) In order not to clash with the Pasuk "Ein Chadash Tachas ha'Shemesh" - we amend this too, to a request to move the entrance (at least temporarily) to the spot in the desert where they were currently located.

(a) Despite the fact that the sun and moon 'reside' in the heaven called 'Raki'a' - they had currently moved up to 'Z'vul' following the rebellion of Korach, refusing to shine upon the world until Hashem avenged Moshe's honor.

(b) Hashem responded - by shooting arrows at them and accusing them of defending Moshe's honor, but not His, when, every day, people insult His honor when they bow down to them.

(c) The punishment that they received was - that from that time on, they shine each day only after arrows have been shot at them.

(d) We establish the Pasuk "Shemesh Yarei'ach Amad Zevulah ... " with regard to the episode of Korach - because the Navi Chavakuk has just referred to the Exodus from Egypt and the crossing of the Yam-Suf, when he writes "Machatzta Rosh mi'Beis Rasha", which appears to refer to Korach.

(a) The Beraisa states 'Bikur Cholim Ein Lah Shiur', which Rav Yosef interpreted to mean that there is no fixed limit to the reward that one receives for fulfilling it. The problem with this is - from the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos 'Hevei Zahir be'Mitzvah Kalah ke'va'Chamurah', which teaches us that no Mitzvah has any fixed limit.

(b) Abaye therefore interprets the Beraisa to mean that one is even obligated to visit someone of a lower status than oneself. According to Rava - it means that there is no limit how many times a day one should visit him (even a hundred).

(c) Rav Acha bar Chanina says that someone who visits a sick person removes one sixtieth of his illness. This does not mean however, that if sixty people visit him, he will be fully cured - but that each successive person removes one sixtieth of what remains. Furthermore, it is only a 'ben Gil' (someone born under the same Mazel as the sick person - on average, one in twelve) who has the power to achieve this.

(d) This answer is based on 'Isuraisa de'Rebbi' - the ruling of Rebbi that when a man dies, each unmarried daughter will become entitled to one tenth of his property. When they asked Rebbi whether that meant that a man who dies leaving twelve daughters would receive the entire inheritance, leaving the sons with nothing, he replied that each successive daughter would be entitled to a tenth of what remained after the preceding one had taken her share. Having made that Cheshbon, they would then divide the sum total of all the tenths equally among the ten daughters.

Next daf


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