(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 57


1) The Tana of our Mishnah states 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Alai ... ', Asur be'Chilufeihen u've'Giduleihen'. This would not be the case if he said 'Konem Te'einim va'Anavim Alai' - because there, since he did not specify any particular fruits, he merely means to prohibit that species on himself; whereas in our Mishnah, where he specifies certain fruits, he means to give them a Din Hekdesh (whose Chilufin and Gidulin are forbidden).


(a) In Perek ha'Shutfin, Rami bar Chama asked whether, if someone declared 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu al P'loni', the exchange of the fruit will be forbidden too. The two sides to the She'eilah are - whether the Tana of our Mishnah forbids the Chilufin and the Gidulin because he goes after his intentions, in which case it is only the Noder who will be forbidden to benefit from them, or whether it is because 'Chilufin ke'Gidulin', which will be forbidden in spite of the Noder's intentions.

(b) Bearing in mind that Rami bar Chama did not ask whether 'Eilu' is Dafka or not, this creates a problem with regard to our Mishnah - because, since, according to the second side of the She'eilah 'Eilu is not Dafka (seeing as Chilufin is Asur by all Isurei Hana'ah), according to the first side of the She'eilah too, it must be 'La'av Dafka'. So how can we say that it is Dafka?

(c) We conclude that in fact, 'Eilu' is Dafka. The Tana of our Mishnah teaches us with the word 'Eilu' - that the exchange is forbidden to the Noder even if someone else made the exchange (something that we would not have known from 'Chilufin ke'Gidulin').

(d) Rami bar Chama's She'eilah - acknowledges that 'Eilu' is Dafka (in which case if someone else were to exchange the forbidden fruit, it could be forbidden on the Noder, but not on the Mudar). What he is asking is whether the Tana mentions 'Eilu' specifically in *this* case, where it is someone else who exchanged the fruit, but that when the Noder himself made the exchange, maybe we will not need 'Eilu', and the exchange will be forbidden even on the Mudar because of the principle 'Chiufeihen ke'Giduleihen', or whether he requires 'Eilu' even when the Noder himself made the exchange.

(a) The Tana continues 'she'Eini Ochel, she'Eini To'em, Mutar be'Chilufeihen u've'Giduleihen'. Despite the fact that this Lashon implies an inclusion, we neveretheless exclude Chilufin and Gidulin - because, on the other hand, when he eats or tastes the Chalipin, he has not eaten or tasted the fruit that he forbade.

(b) The inference from the above prohibition regarding the Gidulin is confined to something whose seeds decompose. We can infer from it - that the Gidulei Gidulin are permitted, which would not be the case with regard to something whose seeds do not decompose.

(c) The Tana ...

1. ... forbids the Gidulin of something whose seeds decompose (despite the fact that nothing remains of the original Isur) - because it is no different than Chalipei Isurei Hana'ah, which are forbidden.
2. ... permit the Gidulei Gidulin of something whose seeds decompose - because Chalipei Chalipin of Isurei Hana'ah are also permitted.
(d) The Tana nevertheless forbids Gidulei Gidulin by something whose seeds do not decompose - because seeing as a small amount of the Isur remains intact, we will apply the principle 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin Asur'. Consequently, even though what grows is the majority, the small part that remains does not become Bateil.
(a) The Tana then repeats the same Halachah with regard to someone who says to his wife 'Konem Ma'asei Yedei Ishti Alai ... '. He finds it necessary to do this - to teach us that, even though he did not say 'Eilu', having speficied his wife's products it is as if he had actually said it (otherwise the Chilufin would not be forbidden, as we explained earlier).

(b) This is not a case of forbidding something that is non-existent (seeing as the work of her hands are not yet in the world), because it might speak when the husband declared a Konem his wife's hands viv-a-vis the work that she will produce - or it might speak when he specifically forbade the products of his wife's hands *after they come into the world*.

(c) Rabeinu Yonah says about this Halachah - that if, in a case where the wife then ground wheat, baked bread and sold it, it is only the value of his wife's work that is forbidden, but not the original value of his wheat, which should be deducted from the total, and from which he may derive benefit.

(a) If a man says to his wife 'she'At Osah Eini Ochel ad ha'Pesach', he is permitted whatever to benefit after Pesach, from whatever she produces; whereas if he says 'she'At Osah ad ha'Pesach Eini Ochel', he is not. The Chidush lies in the first statement - which comes to teach us that we do not suspect that 'ad ha'Pesach' really pertains to 'she'At Osah', and that he is therefore forbidden to benefit from whatever she produces until Pesach, forever (like the Din in the second statement). The reason for this is because then, he should have used the wording of the second statement.

(b) If a husband says to his wife 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Pesach Im Holeches At le'Veis Avich ad ha'Chag' if she went to her father's house ...

1. ... before Pesach - she is forbidden to benefit from him until Pesach.
2. ... after Pesach - she will have transgressed 'Bal Yachel' retroactively.
(c) And if the husband says to his wife 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Chag Im Holeches At le'Veis Avich ad ha'Pesach' if she went to her father's house ...
1. ... before Pesach - she is forbidden to benefit from him until Sukos.
2. ... after Pesach - she is permitted to benefit from him.



(a) The Beraisa cites the She'eilah of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama (or de'Yama), who once brought with him to the Beis ha'Medrash - an onion which he uprooted in the Shmitah-year and replanted in the eighth, and the part that subsequently grew was in excess of the part that grew in the Sh'mitah.

(b) He asked whether the majority that grew be'Heter negated the part that grew be'Isur or not. The She'eilah is based - on the fact that the main part of the onion (which was Asur) remained intact.

(c) He could have asked - whether the part that grew be'Heter was Asur too, or not.

(d) There is no significance in the fact that he asked the She'eilah the way he did - because if what grew be'Heter is Mevatel the original onion, then it is obvious that it itself is permitted, whereas if it does not, it is obvious that it is not (as we shall see later in the Sugya).

(a)Initially, Rebbi Ami did not know the answer. Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha though, resolved the She'eilah from a statement quoted from Rebbi Yanai, who said that if one planted an onion of Terumah in a case when what subsequently grew was in excess of the original onion - what grew be'Heter is Mevatel the original Isur.

(b) When he said Mutar, he did not mean that the entire onion became Chulin, but - that it was Tevel, in which case one was permitted to eat from the fruit Arai (casually).

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah (or Rebbi Zerika) objected to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha's proof - on the grounds that he accepted the ruling of one person (Rebbi Yanai), when there are two (Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan) who forbid it.

(a) If one cut down a young tree (less than three years old - which is Orlah) and grafted it in an old tree ...
1. ... which had no fruit currently growing on it, the Gemara in Sotah says - that it is Bateil.
2. ... which had fruit growing on it, Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that the fruit is forbidden even if it increased by two hundred fold.
(b) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan says - that if one planted an onion in a vineyard and then uprooted the vineyard, the onion remains Asur, even what grew later was sufficient to be Mevateil what previously grew be'Isur.
(a) When the She'eilah came back to Rebbi Ami, he resolved it from a statement by Rav Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who said that if one replanted a 'Litra' of onions that had already been Ma'asered, one is obligated to Ma'aser the entire batch of onions (and not just what grew), proving that what grows is Mevatel the Ikar (like Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha).

(b) Rebbi Yitzchak speak about sowing the onions ('ve'Zar'ah') rather than of planting them (ve'Nat'ah') - because he is speaking about planting a number of onions, and when one plants a number of seeds or fruits it is called sowing.

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak, who quotes Rebbi Yochanan as saying that the growth is Mevateil the Ikar - argues with Rebbi Avahu who quoted him earlier (regarding the Din of Orlah) as saying that it does not.

(d) We reject Rebbi Ami's proof from Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan - on the grounds that in all likelihood, Rebbi Yochanan holds that the growth is *not* Mevateil the Ikar (like Rebbi Avahu), but that here he holds that it is, le'Chumra.

(a) At first, this appears to be a Chumra that will end up being a Kula. The problem, should one separate Ma'aser ...
1. ... from the onions themselves, would be - that, assuming that what grew is Chayav Ma'asros (min ha'Torah), he will be separating from what is Chayav (min ha'Torah) on what is Patur.
2. ... from an external source is - that he will giving more than a tenth for Ma'aser, which is forbidden.
(b) In fact, the Kashya is not really a Kashya in the first pace - because it is wrong to assume that the growth is Chayav Ma'asros (min ha'Torah). As a matter of fact, since the growth is not Mevatel the Ikar, it becomes like it, seeing as it grew from it. Consequently, neither of the two is Chayav Ma'asros min ha'Torah.
Next daf


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