REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 3
NEDARIM 2,3,4,5 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in honor of Rav
Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.
(a) Some define 'Kinuyim' as expressions used by the Nochrim.
others define it?
(b) According to the latter interpretation, Yados are more obvious than
Kinuyim. Seeing as it is the way of the Tana to open with the more obvious
case, how will we then explain the fact that our Tana seems to open with
Kinuyim rather with Yados ?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish ki Yafli Lindor Neder
*Nazir Lehazir* la'Hashem"?
(b) How do we learn Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim from the same Pasuk?
(c) We also learn from this Hekesh that the La'avin of bal Yachel and bal
Te'acher apply to Nezirus like they apply to Neder.
To which kind of Neder
(d) Can a father annul the Neder Nezirus of his daughter, and a husband,
that of his wife?
- ... 'bal Yachel' apply?
- ... 'bal Te'acher' apply?
(a) Why do we need a Hekesh to teach us 'Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim'? Why can
we not learn it from the fact that the Torah uses a double expression by
Neder "Lindor Neder" (just like it uses a double expression by Nezirus, from
which we learn 'Yados Nezirus ki'Nezirus')?
(b) Then why does the Torah use the double expression "Lindor Neder"?
(c) Does this opinion hold 'Dibrah Torah ki'L'shon B'nei Adam' even when
there is an alternative way of explaining the Pasuk?
(d) Those who maintain that, when there is an alternative way of explaining
the Pasuk, the Torah does not speak like human beings, will learn the Hekesh
from Neder to Nazir (and not vice-versa, as we learned earlier).
will they learn from "Nazir Lehazir"?
(a) Why, when we thought that "Lindor Neder" was eligible for a Derashah
like "Nazir Lehazir", did we ask 'Hekeisha Lamah Li', and not 'Lindor Neder
Lamah Li' (like we ask after we discover that it is not)?
Answers to questions
(b) Does the principle 'Milsa de'Asya ... Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' also
extend to a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?
(a) 'Melamed she'ha'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus'.
What is the case?
(b) We suggest that those who hold 'Dibrah Torah ki'L'shon B'nei Adam', and
who also learn Yados Nezirus from "Nazir Lehazir', will hold 'Ein Nezirus
Chalah al Nezirus'.
How will we reconcile this with the Sugya in the
second Perek, which assumes that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' is unanimous?
(c) If on the other hand, we take the Gemara in the second Perek literally
(that it really is unanimous), bearing in mind that this opinion already
uses "Nazir Lehazir" for Yados, from where will they learn 'Nezirus Chalah
(a) In Eretz Yisrael, they also cited two possible sources for Yados
Nedarim, "Lindor Neder" and "ke'Chol ha'Yotze mi'Piv Ya'aseh" (depending on
whether 'Dibrah Torah ... ' or 'Lo Dibrah ... ').
Why do they discard the
source from "Nazir Lehazir"?
(b) What do those who do learn Yados from "Nazir Lehazir" learn from
"ke'Chol ha'Yotze mi'Piv Ya'aseh"?
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learned earlier that 'Bal Yachel' pertains to
What is the problem with that?
(b) Why do we initially decline to explain that one transgresses both 'bal
Yochal' as well as 'bal Yachel' or 'bal Yishteh'?
(c) Why can we not establish 'bal Te'acher' when the person says 'Harei Alai
Liheyos Nazir' (like 'bal Te'acher' of Korbanos)?
(d) Rava suggests that 'bal Yachel' will apply when he says
On what grounds do we reject Rava's suggestion?
(a) So how does Rava establish the case?
(b) How is this different than someone who says 'Harei Alai Liheyos Nazir',
where 'bal Te'acher' does not apply, as we just explained?
(c) This case is very similar to a man who says to his wife 'Harei Zeh
Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Misasi'.
What is the Din there? What is the
difference between that case and ours?
(a) Seeing as we learn 'bal Te'acher' by Nezirus from 'bal Te'acher' by
Neder, how do we account for the fact that by Neder one transgresses only
after three Regalim, whereas here one transgresses immediately?
Answers to questions
(b) How else might Rava have established the case by Nezirus to conform
exactly with the case of Korbanos?
(c) Then why did he decline to do so?