(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 87

NEDARIM 87 & 88 (First days of Sukos) - dedicated by Mrs. G. Turkel (Rabbi Kornfeld's grandmother), an exceptional woman who accepted all of Hashem's Gezeiros with love and who loved and respected the study of Torah. Tehei Nafshah Tzerurah bi'Tzror ha'Chaim.


(a) On the assumption that "Al" has the same connotations as "Osah" ad "Lo", how will we explain the Pasuk concerning the Mitzvah of Keri'ah "Al Shaul ve'Al Yehonasan B'no"?

(b) Then how will we explain the Beraisa 'Amru Lo Meis Aviv ve'Kara, ve'Achar-Kach Nimtza B'no, Yatza Yedei Keri'ah'? Why can we not learn from there that "Al" (and subsequently "Osah" and Lo" too) does not come to teach us the above D'rashah?

(c) How do we know that this answer is correct?

(d) What will therefore be the Halachah if someone hears a woman make a Neder, and without knowing whether it was his wife or his daughter who made it, he annuls it, and then discovers that it was the one or the other?

(a) Rav Ashi differentiates between Toch K'dei Dibur and le'Achar K'dei Dibur.
What does he say?

(b) Seeing as Rav Ashi is unlikely to disagree with a Beraisa, why does he offer a new answer?

(c) What does the Beraisa rule in connection with someone who tore Keri'ah, because he believed his relative to have already died, but the relative died only afterwards?

(d) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi comment on this Beraisa?

(a) There are only four exceptions to the rule of 'Toch K'dei Dibur ke'Dibur Dami'. Two of them are Megadef and Oved Avodas Kochamim.
What are the other two?

(b) What do we mean when we say by these four 'Toch K'dei Dibur La'av ke'Dibur Dami'? What are the cases?

(c) How come that in 'Yesh Nochlin', we only reckon two of them (Avodas Kochavim and Kidushin)? Do the two Sugyos argue?

(d) Why are these four cases different than all other cases regarding Toch K'dei Dibur?

(a) What source does the Ramban quoting Rabeinu Tam give for 'Toch K'dei Dibur ke'Dibur Dami'?

(b) On what grounds do we disagree with him?

(a) What will be the Din if a woman forbids figs and grapes on herself, and her husband *upholds* just the Neder on figs?

(b) Should he *annul* just the Neder pertaining to figs, the Neder is not annulled until he annuls the Neder on the grapes as well.
What are the two ways of explaining this latter Halachah?

(c) What does the Tana say about a woman who says 'Konem Te'einah she'Ani To'emes, va'Anavah she'Ani To'emes'?

(d) What are the ramifications of this statement? Does it mean that her husband cannot annul them simultaneously?

Answers to questions



(a) The author of our Mishnah (who says that a woman's Neder is not annulled until her husband annuls the entire Neder) is Rebbi Yishmael, who argues with Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(b) They both agree that 'Iyshah Yekimenu' implies even part of the Neder, whereas 'Iyshah Yeferenu' implies only the entire Neder (because otherwise, the Torah should have written "Yafer Mimenu").
Then what is the basis of their Machlokes.

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba cites a third opinion.
What do the Chachamim say?

(d) How can we extrapolate from the Chachamim's words, that when the Tana in our Mishnah said 'Hafer li'Te'einim, Eino Mufar', he means that the entire Neder is not Mufar, but the part concerning figs, is (as opposed to saying that it is not annulled at all)?

7) On what basis do we therefore change the text of the Chachamim quoted by Rebbi Yochanan to read 'Mah Hafarah, Mah she'Hafer, Lo Hafer' (or 'Hufar')?

8) The author of our Mishnah ('Konem Te'einah she'Ani To'emes, va'Anavah she'Ani To'emes Harei Eilu Sh'nei Nedarim') is Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say (about someone who says to five claimants 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lecha be'Yadi, ve'Lo Lecha, ve'Lo Lecha ... '? What would he need to say to be considered two Nedarim?


(a) What will be the Din if a husband concedes that he had known about Nedarim, but that he had been unaware that he had the authority to annul them?

(b) Should he concede that he was even aware of his authority to annul Nedarim, but not that the Neder that his wife had made was in the category of Nedarim that were subject to Hafarah, Rebbi Meir forbids him to annul it. This seems to mean that he cannot annul it at all.
Why not?

(c) What do the Rabbanan say?

(d) Others explain that what Rebbi Meir means is that he cannot annul the Neder on the following day, but up until the night-time of the day that he discovers that the Neder concerned is subject to nullification, he remains permitted to annul it (even though it was no longer the day on which his wife declared it.
What is ...

  1. ... now Rebbi Meir's reason?
  2. ... the reason of the Rabbanan, who even permit him to annul the Neder on the following day, because his partial knowledge of the previous day is not considered knowledge?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah, in a Beraisa, Darshens the Pasuk in Mas'ei (with regard to someone who killed be'Shogeg) "be'Lo Re'os" to preclude a blind man. How does he (initially) extrapolate this from there?

(b) Rebbi Meir says 'Lerabos es ha'Suma'.
How does he (initially) extrapolate his opinion from the same words?

(c) Assuming the first explanation in our Mishnah (that according to Rebbi Meir, the husband who has only partial knowledge, cannot annul his wife's Neder at all, whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, he can), what discrepancy now appears between the opinion in our Mishnah and his opinion in the Beraisa ...

  1. ... of Rebbi Meir?
  2. ... of Rebbi Yehudah?
(a) According to the second Lashon (that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the husband who has only partial knowledge, can nevertheless annul the Nedarim after he discovers that they are subject to Hafarah, only until nightfall), whereas according to the Rabbanan [Rebbi Yehudah], he can even annul the Nedarim on the following day), why is there no discrepancy between what the latter says in the Beraisa and what he says in our Mishnah?

(b) The two rulings of Rebbi Meir however, appear to clash, because in our Mishnah, he does not consider a partial knowledge to be knowledge, whereas in the Beraisa, he does.
Where in our Mishnah does Rebbi Meir hold that a partial knowledge is not knowledge? Why then does he say in the Seifa 'Lo Yafer'?

(c) If, as it appears, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah learn their respective opinions from their understanding of the words "be'Lo Re'os" (rendering it a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv), why should that then contradict their opinions in our Mishnah regarding Nedarim (which are based on S'varos)?

(a) We answer 'Hacha me'Inyana di'Kera (ve'Hacha me'Inyana di'Kera'). In fact, each one learns from a different word in the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Asher Yavo es Re'eihu ba'Ya'ar".
How does ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Ya'ar" that a blind person is automatically included in the Chiyuv Galus (explaining why he needs "be'Lo Re'os" to preclude him)?
2. ... Rebbi Meir learn from "bi'V'li Da'as" that he is automatically Patur?
(b) What does Rebbi Meir hold intrinsically? Is a partial knowledge considered knowledge or not?

(c) Which principle enables us to learn that a blind person is Chayav from Galus from the two Pesukim "bi'V'li Da'as" and "be'Lo Re'os"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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