(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 90


(a) According to Rav Papi, what ...
  1. ... does Rebbi Nasan learn from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Chafrah ha'Levanah" (as if it had written "ve'Hafarah Chal Banah" - Rashi)?
  2. ... do the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk in Iyov "Meifer Machshevos Arumim"?
(b) He also holds that, by Hataras Nedarim, even the Rabbanan agree that a Chacham cannot annul a Neder until it has taken effect.
From where does he learn this?

(c) Assuming that Rav Acha bar Rav Huna (in the story at the end of the previous Amud) might well agree with Rav Papi, why did Rava then cite him as saying that they argue by Hatarah in the same way as they argue by Hafarah?

(d) The Beraisa says 'Konem she'Eini Neheneh li'Peloni u'le'Mi she'Esh'al Alav, Nish'al al ha'Rishon, ve'Achar-Kach Nish'al al ha'Sheini'.'
How do we ...

  1. ... try and prove Rav Papi's ruling from there?
  2. ... reject the proof?
(a) We bring a similar proof from another Beraisa ''Konem she'Eini Neheneh li'Peloni, Hareini Nazir le'che'she'Esh'al Alav, Nish'al al Nidro, ve'Achar-Kach Nish'al al Nizro'.
What is the proof from there?

(b) How do we reject it?

(a) Mereimar told Ravina that his (Ravina's) father, quoted Rav Papi differently than we quoted him earlier.
How did he quote him? What did he then learn from "Lo Yachel Devaro"?

(b) How do we repudiate this interpretation of Rav Asi, from the Beraisa ''Konem she'Eini Neheneh li'Peloni, Hareini Nazir le'che'she'Esh'al Alav, Nish'al al Nidro, ve'Achar-Kach Nish'al al Nizro' (because a Chacham cannot annul a Neder before the Isur takes effect)?

(a) We rule like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Nasan, because Rebbi Akiva in the previous Sugya holds like them, and so does the Sugya of 'Im Erchatz Im Lo Erchatz' at the beginning of the Perek.
What is the most basic reason of all to follow their opinion?

(b) Why is there no proof from Rava (who was Rav Papi's Rebbe, and who praised Rav Acha bar Rav Huna) that the Halachah is like Rebbi Nasan?

(c) If we rule like the Rabbanan, in whose opinion a husband can annul a Neder even before the Isur has taken effect, how will we account for the Kashya 'Lamah Lah Hafarah, Lo Tirchatz ve'Lo Listen' at the beginning of the Perek? Why should her husband nevertheless not annul her Neder?

(a) And what is the Halachah regarding Hataras Nedarim? May a Chacham annul Nedarim before they have become effective?

(b) What will be the Halachah if someone declares a Neder connecting it, not to an event, but to a number of days? May a Chacham annul it immediately?

Answers to questions


6) Our Mishnah lists three women whom initially, Chazal permitted to demand a Get and to receive their Kesuvah.
What is this Mishnah doing in Nedarim?


(a) The first of the three women is one who claims that she was raped.
Why can this only be speaking about the wife of Kohen?

(b) On what grounds may she claim her Kesuvah, seeing as *she* was the one who wittingly or otherwise, caused the divorce?

(c) The second woman is one who claims that her husband is responsible for their childlessness (because his Zera does not 'shoot like an arrow' - which a woman perceives more than a man).
On what grounds can she force him to divorce her, seeing as a woman is not obligated to have children?

(a) What do the words 'ha'Shamayim Beini le'Veinecha' mean?

(b) Seeing as there is no indication there that Sarah Imeinu was worried about the future, how can we justify her statement to Avraham in Lech-Lecha "Yishpot Hashem Beini u'Veinecha", which Chazal interpret to mean 'ha'Shamayim Beini u'Veinecha'?

(a) The third case is when a woman claims 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim'. What does this mean?

(b) Chazal retracted however, in all three cases.

(c) What is the Din nowadays if a woman claims ...

  1. ... 'Temei'ah Ani Lecha'?
  2. ... 'ha'Shamayim Beini le'Veinecha'?
  3. ... 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim'?
(a) What is the problem with Chazal's Takanah, with regard to the first case (a woman who claims 'Temei'ah Ani Lach')?

(b) How do we ultimately resolve the problem?

(c) What is wrong with the answer given by some, that Chazal permitted her to her husband, despite the Torah's prohibition, seeing as they have the right to make Takanos when there is good reason to?

(d) Are they any circumstances when Chazal do have the authority to enact positive Takanos, even though they entail contravening a Torah law?

11) We try to justify the initial answer by explaining that what Chazal really did was to remove the original Kidushin (because every betrothal is performed on the condition that Chazal sanction it).
On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?


(a) They asked a She'eilah whether the wife of a Kohen who claims that she was raped is permitted to continue eating Terumah.
On what grounds does Rav Sheishes permit her to do so?

(b) How does Rava counter Rav Sheishes' argument?

(c) Even Rav Sheishes will concede however, that once she is widowed or divorced (having had children from her husband), she may no longer eat Terumah.
Why is that?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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