(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 48


(a) 'Hareini Alecha Cherem, ha'Mudar Asur'.
Bearing in mind that by 'Cherem', the Tana of our Mishnah means Cherem shel Bedek ha'Bayis, is he referring to the people of Yehudah, or of Galil?

(b) 'Harei At Alai Cherem, ha'Noder Asur. Hareini Alecha va'At Alai, Sh'neihem Asurin'. This refers to municipal property.
What is the Din regarding things belonging to the Olei Bavel?

(c) 'Municipal property' comprises the main square of the town, the bathhouse, the Shul, the Bimah and the Sifrei-Torah.
Which three items does 'things belonging to the Olei Bavel' comprise?

(d) Why does the Halachah in the two cases differ? What is the basic difference between 'municipal property' and 'things belonging to the Olei Bavel'?

(a) What does the Tana Kama mean when he says 've'ha'Kosev Chelko le'Nasi'?
How do we amend this statement?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah permits writing out his portion to anyone.
So why did Chazal then specify 'Nasi'?

(c) According to the Rabbanan, both the Nasi and anyone else require a Kinyan.
In that case, why does the Tana Kama specify 'Nasi'?

(d) And why does he need to tell us this, seeing as we have already learned that the Mudar is permitted to benefit from the property that he receives from a third person?

(a) On what grounds do we not rule like our Mishnah, which forbids the Mudar to benefit directly from the Shul?

(b) What problem do we therefore have with the Rambam's ruling?

(c) What does Rebbi Yehudah say about the Anshei Galil with regard to writing out their share for the Nasi?

(d) Why did their fathers do that?

(a) We have already discussed the episode of Beis Choron, where the man gave his Chatzer as a gift, to enable his father to participate in his son's wedding-feast.
What did the Chachamim rule there?

(b) Why did they not just say 'Kol Matanah she'Im Hikdishah ... '? Why did they need to add the word ('Kol Matanah) she'Einah (she'Im Hikdishah ... )'?

(c) What problem do we have with the Mishnah, which begins with the concession to benefit through a third person, and then tells the story of the episode of Beis Choron? Why is the story not really a contradiction to the initial Halachah?

(d) How do amend the Mishnah in order to answer the Kashya?

(a) What do we infer from the Lashon 've'Einan Lefanecha Ela Kedei she'Yavo Aba ve'Yochal ... '?

(b) What does the second Lashon say?

(a) What is the Halachah when one man says to another 'Give four hundred Zuz to so-and-so and let him marry my daughter'?

(b) Then why, according to the second Lashon, do we not say the same with regard to the case under discussion?

(c) According to the Rashba this speaks only if he made the condition at the time that he gave the man the gift, but if he only said it afterwards, it will not override the gift that was already valid when he gave it to him. What does the Rambam say?

Answers to questions



(a) How did that man (who was on his deathbed) react to the fact that his son used to steal bundles of flax?

(b) And what did he reply when they asked him what would happen should his grandson turn out to be a Talmid-Chacham?

(c) But did we not learn earlier that the grandson inherits his grandfather's property anyway? Why is that?

(d) In that case, why might he not do so here?

(a) On what grounds did the Pumbedisa'i rule that the grandson should not inherit the property?

(b) How does this case differ from 'Matanah al-Menas Lehachzir', which is also no more than a Kinyan in order to return the article?

(c) Rav Nachman disagrees.
What does he prove from a Kinyan Sudar?

(d) Rav Ashi argues with Rav Nachman on two scores. One of them, because 'If the recipient wishes to keep the Sudar, who says that he is not permitted to do so?
What is the other one?

(a) Rav Nachman disagrees with Rav Ashi's first query, because he maintains that the recipient is not permitted to retain the Sudar.
On what grounds does he refute his second argument (that the Kinyan only comes into effect later)?

(b) Why does Rav Ashi disagree with that?

(c) On what basis do we disagree with the Rashba, who maintains that Rav Ashi will only argue with Rav Nachman with regard to Kinyan Meshichah or Chazakah, but not in the case of a Kinyan Sh'tar (provided the Sh'tar was still there when the grandson became a Talmid-Chacham?

(a) What did Rava ask Rav Nachman from the case of Matnas Beis Choron in our Mishnah?

(b) On one occasion, Rav Nachman replied that that was different because 'Se'udaso Mochachas Alav'.
What did he mean? What is the difference between the two cases?

(c) On another occasion, he replied 'Rebbi Eliezer Hi, de'Amar Vitur Asur be'Mudar Hana'ah'.
What did he mean by that? What does the case of 'Matnas Beis Choron' have to do with 'Vitur'?

(d) Regarding the case of 'Matnas Beis Choron', our Mishnah concludes 'Amru Chachamim, Kol Matanah she'Einah, she'Im Hikdishah, Tehei Mekudeshes, Einah Matanah'.
On what grounds do we reject the proof from the Lashon 'Kol' (which usually comes to include something) that it comes to include a case of 'K'ni al-Menas Lehaknos', teaching us that it is not effective'? What else might 'Kol' come to include?

***** Hadran Alach ha'Shutfin *****

Answers to questions

Next daf


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