(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 5

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) 'Hareini Alayich Cherem' (cited later in the Mishnah in 'ha'Shutfin') is similar to she'Ani Ochal Lach', which, we just learned, implies a two- way Neder.
In that case, why does the Tana conclude 'ha'Mudar Asur' (and not 'Sh'neihem Asurim')?

(b) And by the same token, why does the Tana continue 'At Alai Cherem, ha'Noder Asur' (and not 'Sh'neihem Asurim')?

(c) In any event, we can infer from both of these cases that S'tama, the Neder would act both ways.
What problem do we have with this?

(d) So how do we now amend Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's original statement? What distinction does he draw between 'Mudar Ani Lach' and 'Mudrani Heimech' (or Mimcha)?

(a) What problem does this explanation present, regarding Shmuel's interpretation of our Mishnah 'Mudrani Mimcha, she'Ani To'em Lach'?

(b) So we retract from our original understanding of Shmuel (and in fact, even 'Mudrani Mimcha' is only a one-way Neder).
Then what is the difference between 'Mudrani Mimcha she'Ani Ochal Lach' and 'Mudrani Mimcha' on its own? Why does our Mishnah present it as one case?

(c) What can we deduce from here regarding Shmuel's opinion on 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos'?

(d) We reject this on the basis of Shmuel's Lashon 'be'Chulan ad she'Yomar she'Ani Ochal Lach'.
According to this explanation, what should Shmuel have said?

(a) So we start from the other end: What Shmuel means to say is - that it is only if the Noder said 'she'Ani Ochal Lach' that it is a Yad le'Neder.
What would be the Din had he only said 'Mudrani Mimcha' without adding she'Ani Ochal Lach'?

(b) What are the two possible implications of 'Mudrani Mimcha'?

(c) How does this differ from our original interpretation of Shmuel?

(d) Why can we no longer ask on Shmuel from the Beraisa?

(a) Others explain Shmuel differently. According to them, Shmuel conforms with the Beraisa, too.
What, in their opinion, is definitely implied by ...
  1. ... 'Mudrani Mimcha'?
  2. ... 'Mufreshani Mimcha'?
  3. ... 'Meruchkani Mimcha'?
(b) Then what does not become forbidden until the Noder says 'she'Ani Ochal Lach'? In which connection does Shmuel hold 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'?

(c) Either way, like which Tana will Shmuel now hold?

Answers to questions



(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Gitin, all the husband needs to write in a Get is 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam'.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b) What makes this a case of 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos'? What is unclear about the Tana Kama's version of the Get, according to Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) What causes Shmuel to establish our Mishnah as one case, to teach us 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'? Which word in the Mishnah prompts him to learn the Mishnah this way?

(d) How might we otherwise explain 'Mudrani Mimcha, she'Ani Ochal' without the word Lach?

(a) What is the basis of the previous Kashya? What is wrong with saying that Shmuel explains the Mishnah that way because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah?

(b) Is Shmuel now simply explaining the Mishnah this way (contrary to his own personal opinion), or does he accept our Mishnah as Halachah?

(c) How do we reconcile Shmuel's opinion here with his own opinion in Gitin, where he requires space to be left on a Get to write 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam' apparently precluding 've'Dein de'Yehavi Lechi Mina'i'? Why might Gerushin be different?

(d) How else might we answer this Kashya?

(a) Abaye holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Havyan Yadayim'.
What does Rava say?

(b) What does Rebbi Tarfon say about someone who says that, if his friend is a Nazir, he undertakes to be a Nazir, too?

(c) How does Rava, quoting Rebbi Idi, learn from "Nazir Lehazir' that 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'?

(d) What is the difference between the two types of 'Hafla'ah'? How do we know that the Hafla'ah by Yados must have a different meaning than the Hafla'ah of the Nezirus itself?

(a) All this is the opinion of Rebbi Tarfon.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(b) According to them, from where does Rava learn that 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'?

(c) According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah, Rava explained that a Get is different, because a person would not divorce someone else's wife.
Does that transfer Get into a case of Yadayim Mochichos?

9) It appears initially that Abaye in this Sugya follows the opinion of the Rabbanan in Gitin (who hold 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Havyan Yadayim'), whereas Rava holds like Rebbi Yehudah ('Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim').
How do we establish ...
  1. ... Abaye even like Rebbi Yehudah? Why might Rebbi Yehudah confine his ruling to Gitin?
  2. ... Rava even like the Rabbanan? Why might the Rabbanan confine their opinion to Get?
(a) How do we reconcile the fact that our Sugya seems to take on that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over whether one needs to write the word 'Mina'i' or not (because the Rabbanan apply the S'vara that a person does not divorce soomeone else's wife); whereas the Sugya in Gitin assumes that they argue over whether or not, one needs to write the whole Nusach 've'Dein de'Yehavi Lichi Mina'i ... ' (because otherise it conveys the impression that he is divorcing his wife with mere words)?

(b) There are some who rule that one needs to write 've'Dein', but not 'Mina'i.
Why is that?

(c) What does the Ran rule?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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