12TH CYCLE DEDICATION
NEDARIM 6 (18 Teves) - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the eighth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1) RAN DH Mah Nezirus bHaflaah vChulei (cont.)

()

(a) Consequence: Therefore, we say that just like Nezirus requires Haflaah, i.e. this Haflaah that we say, also Yados Nezirus must be with Haflaah.

(b) Explanation: We do not learn from this Haflaah itself, for if so, why do we need the verse? Would we think that Yados Nezirus are better than Nezirus itself?!

1. Rather, it is a different Haflaah, that applies to Yados, i.e. the Yados must be clear and explicit.

(c) Distinction: According to Rabanan, who argue there with R. Tarfon, and say that Nezirus does not require Haflaah, there is no Hekesh;

1. Rather, the Haflaah itself written regarding Nezirus comes to teach only about Yados, that they require Haflaah.

.

2. The [Gemara] makes a Hekesh due to R. Tarfon. Even though he holds that Haflaah was not written regarding Yados, we learn it from the Hekesh.

2) RAN DH vRava Amar Lecha (pertains to Daf 5b)

( :)

(SUMMARY: The Ran discusses how we rule regarding Gitin.)

,

(a) Explanation: Rabanan said that we do not need a Yad Mochiach only regarding a Get, for one cannot divorce his friends wife.

(b) Objection (Rashba): The text is wrong. It is not precise. Rava did not say that Rabanan do not require a Yad Mochiach;

,

1. Rather, they hold that the Yad regarding a Get is Mochiach, for one cannot divorce his friends wife.

(c) Defense: The text is fine. Surely, the Yad itself is not Mochiach, because the words do not prove that he divorces her;

,

1. Rather, the matter itself is Mochiach that he divorces her; for one cannot divorce his friends wife. Therefore, even though the words are not Mochiach, it works. We need not alter the text in Seforim.

(d) Inference: Since we say here that the reason is because one cannot divorce his friends wife, this implies that the argument of R. Yehudah and Rabanan is [whether or not one must write] from me;

,

1. R. Yehudah holds that one must write it, and Chachamim do not require it.

( :)

(e) Question: In Gitin (85b), it connotes that they argue about whether or not we need vDein;

1. R. Yehudah requires vDein. If not, we say that he divorces through mere speech. Rabanan are not concerned for this.

(f) Answer: This is not difficult. These are two Sugyos. Each reveals about the other, that they argue about both of these;

,

1. Here we explain the reason why they argue about from me, and there we explain the reason why they argue about vDein.

(g) Opinion #1: One opinion holds that since Rabanan argue with R. Yehudah about from me, we hold like Rabanan, and we do not require from me, for when an individual argues with a Rabim, the Halachah follows the Rabim.

(h) Implied question: We hold like Rava, that Yad sheEino Mochiach is not a Yad!

(i) Answer: We say in our Sugya that even according to Rava, a Get does not require Yad Mochiach, and [Rava] said even according to Rabanan. Therefore, we do not require from me.

(j) Distinction: We require vDein, for in Gitin (85b) we asked whether or not we require vDein, and did not resolve this;

1. Since Rabanan of the Gemara were unsure, we should be stringent. Perhaps R. Yehudahs reasoning for vDein is better than his reasoning for from me.

(k) Opinion #2: Since regarding vDein, we are concerned for R. Yehudah, this shows that we are unsure;

1. Perhaps Rabanan do not require vDein because they hold that a Yad sheEino Mochiach is a Yad, and we hold like Rava [that it is not a Yad].

2. Therefore, also regarding from me, we can say that Rabanan [do not require it] due to their reasoning. It is not because one cannot divorce another mans wife. Rather, it is because a Yad sheEino Mochiach is a Yad.

.

i. We hold like Rava that it is not a Yad. Therefore, we require vDein and from me.

3) RAN DH Meisivei Harei Hu Alai vChulei

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains the question against Abaye.)

(a) Explanation: He is forbidden because he said Alai. Had he not said it, he is not forbidden, even though without Alai, it is surely a Yad!

, ( )

1. We answer perhaps he means that it is Hefker. I.e. without Alai, it is not even a Yad sheEino Mochiach to forbid, for a Yad of Isar is only when he said Alai;

( ) ,

2. He said Harei Zeh Alai, and we finish his words, that he said Harei Alai Asur.

(b) Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asked that [the Beraisa] said because it is a Yad for Korban! I.e. it does not say that it is Yad for Neder. It says that it is a Yad for Korban. For Korban, Harei Hu, [even] without Alai, is a Yad;

1. It is normal for people who accept Nedavos to say Harei Hu Korban, and even so [it takes effect] only if he said Alai;

.

2. Inference: He holds that Yad sheEino Mochiach is not a Yad.

6b----------------------------------------6b

4) RAN DH Bai Rav Papa Yesh Yad lKidushin vChulei

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains that he asks even about a Yad Mochiach.)

(a) Explanation: He asks even about a Yad Mochiach. Do we say that granted, Yados were not explicitly included, but we learn them from a Mah Matzinu from Nedarim?

1. Or, there is no Yad, even a Yad Mochiach. Nedarim are different, for they are stringent. They take effect through mere speech;

.

2. Kidushin is different. It requires an action, i.e. money, a document or Biah.

5) RAN DH dAmar Lah lIshah Harei At Mekudeshes Li

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains that the first was a Shaliach for the latter.)

(a) Explanation: And he gave to her two Perutos, and said to her colleague and you. Do we that said (meant) to her colleague also you [are Mekudeshes to me]?

1. When she says that she is pleased, she is Mekudeshes, for her friend was a Shaliach to accept for her.

( )

2. This is like we hold in Kidushin (52a) that a woman can become a Shaliach for her friend even in a situation that she becomes a co-wife.

(b) Suggestion: Perhaps he gave a Perutah to the first, and a Perutah to the second.

(c) Rejection: It connotes that in such a case, there is no doubt at all [that he means] and you see;

[] .

1. Even if you will say that there is no Yad for Kidushin, this is Kidushin itself.

6) RAN DH Migo Mai dSevira Lei Amar Lei lAbaye

(SUMMARY: The Ran resolves Rav Papas challenge with his Safek.)

(a) Explanation: Granted, Rav Papa was unsure. Perhaps there is no Yad for Kidushin at all. However, he cannot ask against Shmuel, for perhaps Shmuel holds that there is a Yad;

1. However, we can ask Shmuel against himself. Even if he holds that there is a Yad for Kidushin, Yad sheEino Mochiach is not a Yad, for Shmuel says so regarding Nazir!

(b) Question: What was his Safek about Kidushin? Why is it different than Gitin, for which all agree that there is a Yad, like is clear from the Sugya above (5b)? They argue only about Yad sheEino Mochiach!

(c) Answer: Get is different, for there is an action, i.e. giving the Get to her hand. This is more than a Yad. It is called that the primary [matter] is Mochiach;

.

1. This is unlike our question, in which he gave two Perutos to one, and did not give anything to her friend.

7) RAN DH miChlal dIy Amar Tihavi Sadeh Kulah Peah Havya Kulah Peah

(SUMMARY: The Ran proves that the first patch has a Shiur to be Peah for the entire field.)

(a) Explanation: Surely, Rav Papa asks in such a case, that the first patch has a Shiur;

1. If it does not, even if you will say that there is no Yad for Peah, this is proper Peah;

i. Surely, once he began to make Peah, when he said and this, he intended to complete [giving the Shiur]!

.

(b) Conclusion: Rather, surely, he asks because the first patch has a Shiur.

8) RAN DH Oh Dilma Ki Itkash lBal Teacher Hu dItkash

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains why we need not learn from the Hekesh.)

( // :)

(a) Implied question: We hold that a Hekesh is never only half-way!

.

(b) Answer: Peah is different, for it is not written explicitly. It comes from a Drashah. Therefore, we can say that there is no Yad, even if it is Mochiach.

9) RAN DH Yesh Yad liTzedakah Oh Ein Yad liTzedakah (pertains to the coming Daf)

( )

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains that the questions about Tzedakah and Peah are independent.)

(a) Explanation #1: If you will say that there is a Yad for Peah, since it is stringent, for the Torah obligates giving primary Peah against his will, what is the law of Tzedakah? My Rebbeyim explained like this.

(b) Rebuttal: The Torah also obligates giving primary Tzedakah against his will!

(c) Suggestion: He is not obligated to give all [the money for Tzedakah].

(d) Rejection: Also Peah, he is obligated to give only the Shiur [that Chachamim fixed, i.e. one part in 60], and not the entire field!

.

(e) Explanation #2: These two questions were not taught together. One does not depend on the other.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF