(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 25


(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana states that the Beis-Din would clarify to the person taking an oath that they were making him swear, not by what he thought in his heart, but according to what Hashem and they had in mind. To whom were the Beis-Din speaking? What sort of Shevu'ah was he about to make?

(b) How do we initially explain this Beraisa in a way that poses a Kashya on Rav Ashi? What are 'Iskund'ri'?

(c) In fact, we conclude, Beis-Din come to preclude the case of 'Kanya de'Rava'.
What happened there?

(d) How did Beis-Din discover the truth?

2) How do we know that the Shevu'ah there was one of 'Modeh be'Miktzas' and not 'Kofer ba'Kol' (as the Lashon suggests)?


(a) In view of the fact that the Torah in Nitzavim already writes "Ki es Asher Yeshno Poh ... ve'es Asher Einenu Poh ... ', how do we interpret the Pasuk "ve'Lo Itchem Levadchem"? What, according to the Tana of a Beraisa, is it coming to teach us?

(b) Initially, we explain this to preclude those who claim that they undertook to serve 'Elokah', and that what they really meant was some other god whom they called by that name, posing a Kashya on Rav Ashi. How do we reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Ashi?

(c) Then why did Moshe not make them swear that they would keep ...

  1. ... 'Torah'?
  2. ... 'Toros'?
  3. ... 'Mitzvos'?
  4. ... 'Kol Mitzvos'?
(d) Then why did he not make them swear that they would keep ...
  1. ... 'Toros and Mitzvos'?
  2. ... 'Torah Kulah'?
(a) We conclude that Moshe could well have said explicitly 'Avodas-Kochavim ve'Torah Kulah'.
What else could he have said that would cover all possible misunderstandings?

(b) So why did he say 've'Lo Itchem Levadchem"?

(a) Our Mishnah presumes that there is no such thing as a snake like (which we initially take to mean) as large as a beam from the oil-press. We query this however, from a snake that lived in the days of Shavur Malka, King of Persia.
How much was that snake known to have eaten?

(b) So we explain Koros Beis-ha'Bad to refer to cracks, on which we ask further that all snakes have cracks.
What do we answer?

(c) Why then, did the Tana need to describe the cracks like 'Koros Beis-ha'Bad'? Why did he not just say 'Ra'isi Nachash Taruf'?

(d) How does the Yerushalmi interpret 'Taruf'?

Answers to questions



(a) The Tana describes Nidrei Shegagos: 'Konem Im Achalti, ve'Im Shasisi v'Nizkar she'Achal ve'Shasah'.
What is the second case mentioned in the Mishnah?

(b) What is the basic difference between the two cases?

(a) We already discussed the case of Konem Ishti Nehenis Li she'Ganvah es Kis'i ... ve'Noda she'Lo Ganvah'. In the case that follows, he saw people eating his figs, and he said 'Harei Aleichem Korban'.
What happened next?

(b) Beis Shamai say 'Hein Mutarim, u'Mah she'Imahem Asurim'.
Why is that?

(c) What do Beis Hillel say?

(d) Why, in this last case, is the Neder void (according to Beis Hillel) even though the Noder did not mention his father or brothers at all, whereas in the case of 'Konem Ishti Nehenis Li ... ', the Neder is only void if he specifically concluded 'she'Ganvah es Kis'i'?

(a) The Tana in the Beraisa compares Shevu'os Shegagos to Nidrei Shegagos. What is the case of Shevu'os Shegagos that involved Rav Kahana and Rav Asi?

(b) On the assumption that Shevu'os Shegagos apply in exactly the equivalent case to Nidrei Shegagos, why did we need to ask 'Heichi Dami Shevu'os Shegagos'?

(c) And what is then the Chidush on the case of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi?

(a) What does the Tana mean when he says in a Mishnah in 'Rebbi Eliezer' 'Poschin be'Shabbasos u've'Yamim-Tovim'?

(b) Why does this Neder require a Pesach, whilst the Neder of Beis Hillel in our Mishnah does not?

(c) Initially, they would revoke the Neder of someone who had his Neder annulled on the basis of K'vod Shabbos and Yom-Tov as regards Shabbos and Yom-Tov, but not as far as during the week was concerned.
When did this change?

(a) With regard to the case of Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, Rabah makes a distinction between when the Noder says 'Had I known I would have said 1. ... 'Kulchem Asurim Chutz me'Aba'! and 2. ... 'P'loni u'P'loni Asurin ve'Aba Mutar'.
In which case do Beis Hillel agree that all the others are forbidden, and in which case do they argue?

(b) On what grounds do Beis Hillel argue in the latter case (to hold like Rebbi Akiva), even though they agree with Beis Shamai (and the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva) in the former case?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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