NEDARIM 84 (1 Elul) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya Rayzel (Friedman) bas Gershon Eliezer (Yahrzeit: 30 Av, Yom Kevurah: 1 Elul) by her daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel. Esther Friedman was a woman of valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly, inspiring all those around her.

1)

(a)Rava queries Rav Nachman from the Mishnah later, which discusses the case of woman who declares 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' where the Tana rules that he may annul the section of the Neder that involves himself only. What does 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' mean?

(b)What does the Tana rule there?

(c)Why does this Mishnah pose a Kashya on Rav Nachman?

(d)How does Rav Nachman answer it?

1)

(a)Rava queries Rav Nachman from the Mishnah later, which discusses the case of woman who declares 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' - with reference to Isur Tashmish.

(b)... The Tana rules that he may annul the section of the Neder that involves himself only, whilst she remains forbidden to everybody else.

(c)This Mishnah poses a Kashya on Rav Nachman - because if the husband was not included in 'ha'Yehudim', why would he need to annul the section of the Neder that affects him?

(d)Rav Nachman answers that this Mishnah is different, inasmuch as it must be speaking when the woman meant to include her husband in the Neder, since otherwise she would be forbidden to her anyway.

2)

(a)According to other texts, Rava's Kashya reads 'v'I Amrat ... Nidrei Inuy Nefesh Hein?'. If, as Rav Nachman says, a husband is not included in 'ha'Yehudim', how will we need to interpret 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim'?

(b)What is now the problem?

(c)Why would this not be a problem if we held that a husband is included in 'ha'Yehudim'?

(d)How does Rav Nachman's resolve it?

2)

(a)According to other texts, Rava's Kashya reads 'v'I Amrat ... Nidrei Inuy Nefesh Hen', in which case, if a husband is not included in 'ha'Yehudim', we will need to interpret 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' - to mean from other pleasures, besides Tashmish.

(b)The problem now is - that not to derive any benefit from any other Jew falls under the category of Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, which the husband ought to be able to annul!

(c)This would not be a problem if we held that a husband is included in 'ha'Yehudim' - because then we would associate 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' with reference to Tashmish (as it implies), in which case the husband is only permitted to annul whatever affects him on account of Beino l'Beinah, but not affects others.

(d)Rav Nachman resolves the problem by rejecting the suggestion that 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' might refer to pleasures other than Tashmish, in which case irrespective of whether a husband is generally included in 'ha'Yehudim' or not, he certainly is here, since whoever else she had in mind when declaring her Neder, she certainly included her husband in the prohibition, since he was the only person who was permitted to her in the first place.

3)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah permits a woman who forbade the Hana'ah of others upon herself to collect Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah, but not Ma'aser Ani. What is Ma'aser Ani?

(b)What problem do we have with this from a Beraisa?

(c)Rav Yosef connects these two opinions to another Machlokes in a Mishnah in Demai. Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan there both agree that one is obligated to separate Ma'aser Rishon from Demai and to take Terumas Ma'aser from that. What does one then do with ...

1. ... the Terumas Ma'aser?

2. ... the remainder of the Ma'aser Rishon?

3)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah permits a woman who forbade the Hana'ah of others upon herself to collect Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah, but not Ma'aser Ani - which is one tenth of one's crops that one is obligated to give to the poor every third and sixth year (in place of the Ma'aser Sheni that one ate oneself in Yerushalayim in the other four years of the six-year cycle).

(b)The problem that we have with this from a Beraisa - is that the Tana there permits her to receive Ma'aser Ani too.

(c)Rav Yosef connects these two opinions to another Machlokes in a Mishnah in Demai. Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan there both agree that one is obligated to separate Ma'aser Rishon from Demai and to take Terumas Ma'aser from that. One then ...

1. ... gives the Terumas Ma'aser to a Kohen.

2. ... eats the remainder of the Ma'aser Rishon oneself (because, seeing as there is no intrinsic Isur in eating it, we apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah').

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer, the purchaser is not obligated to separate Ma'aser Ani. What do the Chachamim say?

(b)Rav Yosef suggests that they argue over whether Ma'aser Ani is 'Tovel' or not. What does he mean by that?

(c)How will this explain the Machlokes between our Mishnah, which forbids the woman who made the Neder to eat Ma'aser Ani, and the Mishnah in Demai, which permits it?

(d)What is the significance in the Lashon 'ka'Savar Sfeiko Eino Tovel'? Can we infer from there that Vaday Ma'aser Ani is?

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer, the purchaser is not obligated to separate Ma'aser Ani; whereas according to the Chachamim - he is.

(b)Rav Yosef suggests that they argue over whether Ma'aser Ani is 'Tovel' or not. What he means is - that according to the Chachamim, one will be Chayav Misah for eating Tevel of Ma'aser Ani (Vaday), whilst according to Rebbi Eliezer, one is not.

(c)Rav Yosef - connects the Din of Tovel with that of Tovas Hana'ah. Consequently, the author of our Mishnah (which forbids the woman to eat Ma'aser Ani), is the Chachamim, who hold that Ma'aser Ani is Tovel, and that the owner therefore has Tovas Hana'ah in it (in which case, it is as if the owner was giving it to his wife). Whereas the author of the Mishnah in Demai (which permits it) is Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that Ma'aser Ani is not Tovel and that the owner has no Tovas Hana'ah in it (in which case it is as if she was taking it from Hefker).

(d)There is no significance in the Lashon 'ka'Savar Sfeiko Eino Tovel'. We use this Lashon - only because our Sugya is talking about Safek, but not to imply that Vaday Ma'aser Ani is Tovel.

84b----------------------------------------84b

5)

(a)The Torah writes in Emor "v'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei Bnei Yisrael Asher Yarimu la'Hashem". What do we learn from ...

1. ... "Asher Yarimu"?

2. ... "v'Lo Yechalelu"? What does this imply?

3. ... the combination of the two Derashos?

(b)What is the logic behind the opinion that holds 'Ma'aser Ani Eino Tovel?

(c)Why, by the same token, do we have no problem with saying that Terumah is Tovel?

(d)What do others learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha ... " "v'Achlu bi'She'arecha v'Save'u" (in connection with Ma'aser Ani)?

5)

(a)The Torah writes in Emor "v'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei Bnei Yisrael Asher Yarimu la'Hashem". We learn from ...

1. ... "Asher Yarimu" - that the Pasuk is speaking about Tevel (from which the owner has yet to separate certain Ma'asros [implying that he is obligated to do so]).

2. ... "v'Lo Yechalelu" (by feeding them to Zarim) - that it is also speaking about something that is Tovel.

3. ... the combination of the two Derashos - that whatever is Tovel, the owner is obligated to separate and that he has Tovas Hana'ah in it.

(b)The logic behind the opinion that holds 'Ma'aser Ani Eino Tovel' is - that seeing as one is not Chayav Misah for eating Ma'aser Ani that has been separated, how can one be Chayav for eating Tevel of Ma'aser Ani before it has been separated?

(c)By the same token, we have no problem with saying that Terumah is Tovel - seeing as one is Chayav Misah for eating Terumah that has been separated.

(d)Others learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha ... " "v'Achlu bi'She'arecha v'Savei'u" (in connection with Ma'aser Ani) - that the first Pasuk, which prohibits eating Tevel in its various forms, incorporates Ma'aser Ani (which the second Pasuk is speaking about), and that consequently, one is Chayav Misah for eating Tevel of Ma'aser Ani only (just like he would be for eating Tevel of Terumah).

6)

(a)Abaye rejects Rav Yosef's explanation. According to him, both our Mishnah [as well as the Chachamim] (which forbids the woman to eat Ma'aser Ani) and the Beraisa [as well as Rebbi Eliezer] (which permits it) hold that S'feiko Tovel. On what grounds then, does the Tana of the Beraisa (as well as Rebbi Eliezer) permit the woman to eat it?

(b)What makes us so certain that the Am ha'Aretz separated Ma'aser Ani?

(c)Why can Abaye not hold that both Tana'im agree that 'S'feiko Eino Tovel'?

6)

(a)Abaye rejects Rav Yosef's explanation. According to him, both our Mishnah [and the Chachamim] (which forbids the woman to eat Ma'aser Ani) and the Beraisa [and Rebbi Eliezer] (which permits it) hold that Sfeiko Tovel. And the Tana of the Beraisa (as well as Rebbi Eliezer) permits the woman to eat it - on the grounds that even Amei ha'Aretz generally separate Ma'aser Ani from their crops (and there is therefore no Din of Demai by Ma'aser Ani).

(b)What makes us so certain that the Am ha'Aretz separated Ma'aser Ani - is the fact that effectively, he does not sustain any real loss by doing so, because if he wanted, he could declare his property Hefker and take the Ma'aser Ani for himself.

(c)Abaye cannot hold that both Tana'im agree that 'Sfeiko Eino Tovel' - because then, why would the Rabanan obligate the owner to separate Ma'aser Ani (and why would the Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer forbid the woman to eat it)?

7)

(a)How does Rava correlate the Pasuk in Ki Savo "v'Nasata la'Levi, la'Ger ... ', and the one in Re'eh "v'Hinachta bi'She'arecha v'Save'u"?

(b)How does he then use this corollary to resolve the discrepancy between our Mishnah (which forbids the woman to eat Ma'aser Ani) and the Beraisa (which permits it)?

7)

(a)Rava correlates the Pasuk in Ki Savo "v'Nasata la'Levi, la'Ger ... ', and that in Re'eh "v'Hinachta bi'She'arecha v'Save'u" - by establishing the former by Ma'aser Ani which the owner has brought into his house, and which he is now required to actively give the poor, and the latter, by Ma'aser Ani which is still lying in the granary, which he is obligated to leave where it is for the poor to help themselves.

(b)He then uses this corollary to resolve the discrepancy between our Mishnah, which forbids the woman to eat Ma'aser Ani - because it is speaking about Ma'aser Ani which the owner has already taken into his house (and on which he has Tovas Hana'ah, as we just explained); and the Beraisa, which permits it - because it is speaking about Ma'aser Ani which is still lying in the granary (and which is like Hefker for the poor to help themselves).

8)

(a)What can we infer from...

1. ... the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Kohanim u'Leviyim Nehenim Li, Yitlu al Korcho'?

2. ... the Seifa 'Kohanim Eilu u'Leviyim Nehenim Li, Yitly Acherim'?

(b)How does Rav Hoshaya (or Rav Yosef) initially resolve the discrepancy?

(c)According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, someone who steals his friend's Tevel and eats it, is obligated to pay for everything that he ate. Considering that part of what he ate is Chulin, and part Ma'asros, what exactly does this mean?

(d)What does Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah say?

8)

(a)We can infer from ...

1. ... the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Kohanim u'Leviyim Nehenim Li, Yitlu al Korcho' - that Tovas Hana'ah Einah Mamon.

2. ... the Seifa 'Kohanim Eilu, u'Leviyim Eilu Nehenim Li, Yitlu Acheirim' - that 'Tovas Hana'ah Mamon'.

(b)Initially, Rav Hoshaya (or Rav Yosef) resolves this discrepancy by making it a Machlokes Tana'im (by connecting it to another Machlokes Tana'im, as we shall now see).

(c)According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, someone who steals his friend's Tevel and eats it, is obligated to pay for everything that he ate. Considering that part of what he ate is Chulin, and part Ma'asros, he obviously means - that he pays for the Chulin in full and the and for the Ma'asros according to the Tovas Hana'ah that he has in them.

(d)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says - that he only needs to pay for the Chulin that he ate, but not for the Ma'asros.

9)

(a)How have we now resolved the discrepancy between the 'Reisha' of our Mishnah, and the 'Seifa'?

9)

(a)We have now resolved the discrepancy between the 'Reisha' of our Mishnah (which permits Kohanim to eat from the Noder's property) and the 'Seifa' (which forbids it) - by establishing the Reisha like Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'Tovas Hana'ah Einah Mamon'), and the Seifa like Rebbi (who holds 'Tovas Hana'ah Mamon').

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF