(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 17


(a) Our Mishnah states 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'.
What about 'Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah'?

(b) The Tana gives as an example of the former 'Hareini Nazir im Ochal, Hareini Nazir im Ochal'. Seeing as the same would have applied had he said 'Hareini Nazir, Hareini Nazir', why did the Tana not state the more simple case?

(c) What are the ramifications of the statement 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'?

(d) What does the phrase mean?

(a) Might 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' also imply that if someone declares two Nedarim on a certain food which he subsequently eats, he receives two sets of Malkos.

(b) What is the reason for the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah'?

(c) Then why do we say 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'?

(a) According to some texts, we pose two Kashyos (on the case of Neder be'Soch Neder 'Hareini Nazir im Ochal, Hareini Nazir im Ochal'): One of them is why the Tana needs to connect Nezirus to Achilah (which we already discussed in our Mishnah).
What is the second Kashya?

(b) Why would he only receive two Malkos if there was a warning between the two k'Zeisim?

(a) According to Rav Huna, 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' only pertains to a case where he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'.
Why is that?

(b) Why should we not say that, seeing as it is only the last day of his second Nezirus that is due to take effect, the Nezirus is Bateil?

(c) What does Shmuel say?

(a) According to Rav Huna, instead of continuing 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', the Tana of our Mishnah could just as well have said 'Ein Neder be'Soch Neder' (with reference to where he accepted both periods of Nezirus to run concurrently).
How does Rav Huna explain the fact that the Tana moved from Neder to Shevu'ah (unnecessarily)?

(b) How might we ask the same Kashya on Shmuel?

(c) Then why do we not do so? Why is the Kashya restricted to Rav Huna?

Answers to questions



(a) 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' and 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah' must of course speak in equivalent cases.
Assuming that 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar' is equivalent to 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Anavim', what do we initially believe to be the equivalent of 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom'?

(b) Why does this pose a Kashya on Rav Huna?

(c) How will Rav Huna resolve this? How will he establish the case of 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah'?

(d) What is the basic difference between our initial interpretation of 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', and the interpretation of Rav Huna?

(a) What does Rabah say about someone who swears first that he will not eat figs, then that he will not eat figs and grapes, should he eat figs, separate a Korban for having contravened the first Shevu'ah, and then eat grapes?

(b) What can we infer from there?

(c) What does Rav Huna say?

(a) The problem with the previous explanation in Rav Huna is that just as in the case of 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', the second Shevu'ah cannot take effect, due to the fact that he has already sworn on figs, so too, should the second Nezirus not take effect, since he has already accepted them in his first Nezirus?
How do we resolve this problem?

(b) What does Rabah now hold?

(c) On what grounds does Rav Huna disagree with Rabah?

(d) In fact, in the equivalent case ('Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'), the Tana rules 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'.
Why, if not for the time factor, would we say there too 'Ein Neder be'Soch Neder'? What makes the two cases similar?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who, after declaring two sets of Nezirus, counted the first one, separated his Korban and then had the first Neder annulled?

(b) Why do we think that the Tana must be speaking when he undertook to keep the two sets of Nezirus concurrently?

(c) Why does this Beraisa pose a problem on Rav Huna, in view of Rava, who will teach us later that, despite the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah', the moment he has the first Shevu'ah annulled, the second one takes effect immediately?

(a) In answer to the previous Kashya on Rav Huna, we establish the Beraisa when he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'.
How will Rav Huna then explain the statement 'Alsah Lo Sh'niyah ba'Rishonah' (like we asked earlier)?

(b) Alternatively, the Tana speaks when he said neither 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar' nor 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom'.
Then what *is* the case? What *did* he say?

(c) In this last case, why will both sets of Nezirus take effect simultaneously?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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