NEDARIM 78 (25 Av) - Dedicated by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel of Raanana, l'Iluy Nishmas his mother, Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer (Mrs. Gisela Turkel) who passed away on 25 Av 5760. Mrs. Turkel accepted Hashem's Gezeiros with love; may she be a Melitzas Yosher for her offspring and for all of Klal Yisrael.
 

12TH CYCLE DEDICATION
NEDARIM 78 (1 Adar II) - dedicated in memory of Mordecai (Marcus) ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld, who perished in the Holocaust along with most of his family. His Yahrzeit is observed on 1 Adar. May his death and the deaths of the other Kedoshim of the Holocaust atone for the sins of Klal Yisrael like Korbanos.

1)

(a)'Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Chacham sha'Amar b'Lashon Ba'al ... Lo Amar Klum'. What is the Lashon of ...

1. ... a Chacham?

2. ... a husband?

(b)The Lashon of Hafarah is written specifically in the Torah. How do we learn the Lashon of Hatarah by a Chacham from the Pasuk "Lo Yachel Devaro"?

(c)The Yerushalmi incorporates 'Ein Kan Neder' and 'Ein Kan Shevu'ah' in the Lashon of the Chacham. How does that help us to define the basis of the difference between a Chacham's Hatarah and a husband's Hafarah?

(d)What do we learn from the Pasuk "Zeh ha'Davar"?

1)

(a)'Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Chacham sha'Amar b'Lashon Ba'al ... Lo Amar Klum'. The Lashon of ...

1. ... a Chacham is - 'Mutar Lach'.

2. ... a husband is 'Mufar Lach'.

(b)The Lashon of Hafarah is written specifically in the Torah. We learn the Lashon of Hatarah by a Chacham from the Pasuk "Lo Yachel Devaro" - by extrapolating 'Aval Acheirim Mochlin Lo' (meaning that others may render his Neder Chulin). 'Mutar Lach' simply means that that what was previously 'holy' is now profane.

(c)The Yerushalmi incorporates 'Ein Kan Neder' and 'Ein Kan Shevu'ah' in the Lashon of the Chacham - from which we can extrapolate that he uproots the Neder retroactively, from its inception, as opposed to Hafaras Nedarim, where the husband or the father only remove it from then on.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk "Zeh ha'Davar" - that if a Chacham uses a Lashon of Hafarah or a husband or father, a Lashon of Hatarah, his annulment is invalid.

2)

(a)With regard to Hataras Nedarim, what do we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Zeh ha'Davar", "Zeh ha'Davar" from Shechutei Chutz (where the Torah writes "Aharon u'Vanav v'Chol Yisrael")?

(b)How does Rav Chisda (or Rebbi Yochanan) reconcile this Derashah with the Pasuk, which requires "Roshei ha'Matos"?

(c)Does this mean that any three people can annul Nedarim (likeve'Chol Yisrael' mentioned in the Parshah of Shechutei Chutz)?

(d)Then how will we justify this (unequal) 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

2)

(a)With regard to Hataras Nedarim, we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Zeh ha'Davar", "Zeh ha'Davar" from Shechutei Chutz (where the Torah writes "Aharon u'Vanav v'Chol Yisrael") - that any three Yisre'elim (even Hedyotos) can annul a Neder.

(b)Rav Chisda (or Rebbi Yochanan) reconciles this Derashah with the Pasuk, which requires "Roshei ha'Matos" - by confining that Pasuk to a Yachid Mumcheh (where one expert annuls Nedarim on his own).

(c)This does not mean that any three people can annul Nedarim (like v'Chol Yisrael' mentioned in the Parshah of Shechutei Chutz) - only people who at least understand a Halachah when it is explained to them (as the Yerushalmi explains).

(d)The reason for this is because, in spite of the fact that Shechutei Chutz is speaking about any three people - it is illogical to permit someone who does not know what he is doing, to permit him to annul a Neder, and that if he does, his annulment is meaningless.

3)

(a)How do we know that three Hedyotos are required for Hataras Nedarim, and not two?

(b)What is 'Shechutei Chutz'?

(c)What are the ramifications of the Derashah 'u'Mah Ka'n Roshei ha'Matos, Af Lehalan Roshei ha'Matos'? In which regard do Shechutei Chutz require Roshei ha'Matos?

3)

(a)We know that three Hedyotos are required for Hataras Nedarim, and not two - because they are like a Beis-Din, which (because of the principle 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul, Mosifin Aleihen od Echad'), always requires an odd number.

(b)'Shechutei Chutz' is - the prohibition of slaughtering Korbanos outside the Courtyard of the Beis-Hamikdash.

(c)The ramifications of the Derashah 'u'Mah Kan Roshei ha'Matos, Af Lehalan Roshei ha'Matos' are - that it is possible to have one's Hekdesh revoked by a Beis-Din ('Yesh She'eilah b'Hekdesh' - in which case one will be spared from having contravened the Isur of Shechutei Chutz).

4)

(a)Why do we conclude that Beis Shamai do not hold of the previous 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

(b)What do Beis Shamai then learn from "Zeh ha'Davar" by ...

1. ... Shechutei Chutz?

2. ... Hataras Nedarim?

(c)We learned earlier that Beis Hillel agree with this latter Derashah? How can they then use the same words for a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

(d)What do Beis Hillel learn from "Asher Yishchat" written in connection with Shechutei Chutz?

4)

(a)We conclude that Beis Shamai do not hold of the previous 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because they hold 'Ein She'eilah b'Hekdesh'(in contravention to what we just learned from it).

(b)Beis Shamai learn from "Zeh ha'Davar" by ...

1. ... Shechutei Chutz - to preclude Melikah (of a bird of Hekdesh) from the Lav of Shechutei Chutz.

2. ... Hataras Nedarim - that a Chacham must be Matir a Neder, and a husband must be Mefer it (as we learned earlier).

(c)Despite the fact that Beis Hillel agree with this latter Derashah, they are able to use the same words for a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because "Zeh ha'Davar" by Shechutei Chutz is superfluous, and a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is 'Mufneh mi'Tzad Echad' (superfluous on one side) is a legitimate 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

(d)Beis Hillel learn from "Asher Yishchat" written in connection with Shechutei Chutz - to preclude Melikah (that the Kohen performs with birds) from the Lav of Shechutei Chutz.

5)

(a)What problem did Rav Asi bar Nasan have with the Beraisa, which, (discussing the Pasuk "Vayedaber Moshe es Mo'adei Hash-m el Bnei Yisrael") states 'Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili Omer, Mo'adei Ne'emrah, v'Lo Ne'emrah Shabbos Bereishis Imahen; ben Azai Omer, Mo'adei Ne'emrah v'Lo Ne'emrah Parshas Nedarim Imahen'?

(b)What did Rav Asi bar Nasan do when he failed to find Rav Sheshes in Neherda'a?

(c)How did Rav Sheshes eventually interpret ...

1. ... 'Mo'adei Ne'emrah, v'Lo Ne'emrah Shabbos Bereishis Imahen'?

2. ... 'Mo'adei Ne'emrah v'Lo Ne'emrah Parshas Nedarim Imahen'?

(d)How does Rav Chisda (or Rebbi Yochanan) reconcile this latter Derashah with the Pasuk "Roshei ha'Matos"?

5)

(a)The problem that Rav Asi bar Nasan had with the Beraisa, which, discussing the Pasuk "Vayedaber Moshe es Mo'adei Hash-m El Bnei Yisrael" states 'Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili Omer, Mo'adei Ne'emrah, v'Lo Ne'emrah Shabbos Bereishis Imahen; ben Azai Omer, Mo'adei Ne'emrah v'Lo Ne'emrah Parshas Nedarim Imahen' - was that both statements appear to be incorrect, seeing as a. Shabbos is inserted in the Parshah of Mo'ados, and b. the Parshah of Mo'ados is followed immediately by that of Nedarim.

(b)When Rav Asi bar Nasan failed to find Rav Sheshes in Neherda'a - he went to see him in Mechoza.

(c)Rav Sheshes eventually interpreted ...

1. ... 'Mo'adei Ne'emrah, v'Lo Ne'emrah Shabbos Bereishis Imahen' to mean - that Mo'adei Hash-m require Kidush Beis-Din to fix, whereas Shabbos (Bereishis) does not

2. ... Mo'adei Ne'emrah v'Lo Ne'emrah Parshas Nedarim Imahen' - that Mo'adei Hash-m require Mumchin, but not Nedarim.

(d)Rav Chisda (or Rebbi Yochanan) reconcile this latter Derashah with the Pasuk "Roshei ha'Matos" - by restricting this Pasuk to a Yachid Mumcheh (as we explained earlier according to Beis Hillel's Derashah).

78b----------------------------------------78b

6)

(a)From where do we learn that the fixing of the Mo'ados requires Mumchin?

(b)Based on this Derashah, what sort of Yachid Mumcheh ought to be required by Hataras Nedarim?

(c)What does the Rambam nevertheless say?

(d)How will we explain the Kashya 've'Ha Roshei ha'Matos K'siv', according to ...

1. ... the initial interpretation of a Yachid Mumcheh?

2. ... the Rambam's interpretation?

6)

(a)We learn that the fixing of the Mo'ados requires Mumchin - because the Torah writes in Bo (in the Parshah of fixing Rosh Chodesh) "Vayedaber Hash-m el Moshe v'el Aharon ... ", and Moshe and Aharon were certainly Mumchin.

(b)Based on this Derashah - the sort of Yachid Mumcheh that ought to be required by Hataras Nedarim is - someone who has Semichah.

(c)The Rambam however - requires only one who is Gamir v'Savir (an expert in matters of Halachah), but who does not necessarily have Semichah.

(d)According to ...

1. ... the initial interpretation of a Yachid Mumcheh - the Kashya 've'Ha Roshei ha'Matos K'siv' queries the fact that Hataras Nedarim does not require Mumchin (like by Kidush Mo'ados).

2. ... the Rambam's interpretation - the Kashya is why Hedyotos are sufficient.

7)

(a)According to the Rambam, what would the Torah have written had it been referring to Semuchin (rather than Roshei ha'Matos)?

(b)We now know from "Roshei ha'Matos" that Hataras Nedarim requires experts (though not necessarily Semuchin). What problem would we now have, if the word "Eleh" (written by Kidush Mo'ados) would come to preclude Shabbos from Kidush Beis-Din (and not pertain to Hataras Nedarim)?

(c)How do we know that the Torah writes "Eleh" to preclude Nedarim from the Din of Mumchin?

(d)What do we now learn from the combination of the two Derashos ("Roshei ha'Matos" and "Eleh")?

7)

(a)According to the Rambam, had the Torah been referring to Semuchin - it would have written "Elohim" (rather than Roshei ha'Matos).

(b)We now know from "Roshei ha'Matos" that Hataras Nedarim requires experts (though not necessarily Semuchin). If the word "Eleh" (written by Kidush Mo'ados) came to preclude Shabbos from Kidush Beis-Din (and not pertain to Hataras Nedarim) - we would have the problem why we should not learn from "Roshei ha'Matos" that although we do not need three Semuchin, we should at least require three experts (when in fact, the Halachah requires only one).

(c)We know that the Torah writes "Eleh" to preclude Nedarim from the Din of Mumchin - because of the juxtaposition of Nedarim to the Parshah of Mo'ados.

(d)We now learn from the combination of the two Derashos ("Roshei ha'Matos" and "Eleh") - that on the one hand, Hataras Nedarim requires experts, but on the other, we preclude Hataras Nedarim from the Din of Semuchin (meaning from the Din of experts, seeing as we already know the preclusion from Semuchin from "Roshei ha'Matos). Consequently, we require only one Mumcheh, whilst the other two can be Hedyotos.

8)

(a)If 'Mumcheh' means an expert who is not a Samuch, then why did Rebbi Zeira (in the Yerushalmi) maintain that Rav Huna was not eligible to annul Nedarim on his own?

(b)What can we extrapolate from that Yerushalmi?

(c)What stringency do others extrapolate from it?

8)

(a)Although 'Mumcheh' means an expert who is not a Samuch, Rebbi Zeira (in the Yerushalmi) nevertheless maintained that Rav Huna was not eligible to annul Nedarim on his own - because, in his opinion, not all experts are eligible to annul Nedarim on their own, only the greatest in their generation (as is implied by "Roshei ha'Matos"), and Rav Huna, according to him, did not belong to that category.

(b)We can extrapolate from that Yerushalmi that any Rav who is outstanding in his generation is permitted to annul Nedarim on his own.

(c)Others extrapolate from there - that even if Semuchin are not required, there is nevertheless nobody who even falls under the category of Mumcheh any more.

9)

(a)What does Rebbi Chanina say about a husband who hears his wife declare a Neder, and remains silent 'Lemeikat' (in order to tease her, and not because he intends to uphold the Neder)?

(b)On what grounds do we query Rebbi Chanina from the Beraisa that we learned above ' ... Aval Shama ... v'Shasak, u'Mes b'Yom shel Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer'? What makes us think that the Tana is speaking about Shosek al-Menas Lemeikat?

9)

(a)Rebbi Chanina says - that if a husband hears his wife declare a Neder, and remains silent 'Lemeikat' (in order to tease her, and not because he intends to uphold the Neder) - he remains permitted to annul the Neder, even in ten days time.

(b)We query Rebbi Chanina from the Beraisa that we learned above ' ... Aval Shama ... v'Shasak, u'Mes b'Yom shel Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer' - on the grounds that the Tana states 'Shama v'Shasak' Stam, suggesting that he is covering all cases of Shesikah (even Shesikah al-Menas Lemeikat).

10)

(a)We answer 'Lo, b'Shosek al-Menas Lekayem'. What do we mean by that?

(b)On what grounds do we reject this answer?

(c)So what does 'Shama v'Shasak' finally mean?

(d)What would one then be the Din in a case of Shosek al-Menas Lemeikat

10)

(a)We answer 'Lo, b'Shosek al-Menas Lekayem' - meaning that he was silent with the specific intention of upholding the Neder (and not in order to tease his wife).

(b)We reject this answer however - on the grounds that in that case, there will be no difference between the two cases mentioned in the Beraisa: 'Shama v'Shasak' and 'Shama v'Kiyem'.

(c)So what Shama v'Shasak finally means - is Shasak Stam, because he was yet undecided whether to annul the Neder or to uphold it.

(d)But in a case of Shosek al-Menas Lemeikat - he will remain permitted to annul his wife's Neder (like Rebbi Chanina).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF