NEDARIM 16-19 - Two weeks of Dafyomi study material have been dedicated by Ms. Estanne Abraham-Fawer to honor the eighth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. 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 Masnisin Korban Lo Ochel Lecha Ha Korban sheOchel Lecha lKorban Lo Ochel Lecha Mutar (cont.)


(a) Explanation (cont.): If we say [that he means] it will be a Korban, what I do not eat from you, also he is permitted, for he puts an Isur Korban only on what he does not eat;

1. Also if he said Ha Korban sheOchel Lecha he is permitted, for he means the life of the Korban. People are wont to swear based on this, and it means nothing.

(b) Assertion: It seems to me that the text says Ha Korban, like I wrote, and similarly regarding Shevuah Ha Shevuah;

( )

1. What was taught that it is permitted regarding Korban, it says (in the coming Mishnah) that it is forbidden regarding Shevuah.

(c) Suggestion: Perhaps the text says haKorban.


(d) Rejection: We taught above (13a) that R. Meir forbids haKorban. How can our Mishnah permit? The Gemara establishes our Mishnah like R. Meir!

(e) Conclusion: Rather, it is like we said. Also laKorban Lo Ochel Lecha is permitted, since with a Patach under the Lamed, he means Lo Korban.

(f) Suggestion: We should say that from the negative, we infer that what he eats should be a Korban!


(g) Rejection: We establish our Mishnah like R. Meir, and he holds that from the negative we do not infer the positive.

2) RAN DH Masnisin Shevuah Lo Ochel Lecha Ha Shevuah sheOchel Lecha liShevuah Lo Ochel Lecha Asur


(SUMMARY: The Ran explains why all of these forbid.)

(a) Explanation: Shevuah Lo Ochel Lecha connotes [I accept with] a Shevuah that I will not eat from you;

1. [Also] Ha Shevuah sheOchel Lecha connotes like this (I accept with a Shevuah that I will not eat from you);

i. We cannot explain it to mean in the life of the Shevuah, like we say in the life of the Korban, for people do not talk (Hagahos Yeshanos swear) like this.

2. Also [if he said] liShevuah Lo Ochel, even with a Patach under the Lamed, he is forbidden.

(b) Implied question: A Patach under the Lamed connotes Lo. Our Mishnah is R. Meir, who does not infer the positive from the negative. Even so, regarding Shevuah, he is forbidden!

( )

(c) Answer: It seems to me that the reason is because we conclude in Shevuos (36a) that R. Meir does not infer the positive from the negative, i.e. regarding Mamon, or Isur that entails Mamon;

1. However, regarding only Isur, he holds [that from the negative we infer the positive]. A Neder is an Isur that entails Mamon, for we do not find a Neder without an object. It does not take effect on something intangible;


2. However, Shevuah is only Isur. It takes effect on the person. Since it is Isur alone, even R. Meir agrees that from the negative we infer the positive.


3) RAN DH Hayu Mesarvim Bo Leechol vAmar Achilna Achilna vSu Amar Shevuah sheOchel dAchilna Mashma vChulei (pertains to Amud A)

(SUMMARY: The Ran points out that the Sugya in Shevuos connotes differently.)

(a) Explanation: According to this version, just like we need a proof to show that sheOchel means [sheIy Ochel,] that I will not eat, we similarly need a proof to show that sheOchel means that I will eat.

(b) Contradiction: In Shevuos (20a), the way Abaye himself establishes [our Mishnah], it connotes unlike this. Rather, Stam, without any proof, sheOchel means that I will eat!

(c) Answer: I already wrote there that this is one of the Sugyos that varies [in different places in the Gemara].


(d) Pesak: I wrote there that the Sugya there is preferable.

4) RAN DH Al Seifa dIdach kaTani Lah Shevuah sheEini Yashen sheEini Medaber sheEini Mehalech Asur

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains why here it is proper to say that Shevuos are more stringent.)

(a) Explanation: Regarding this it is appropriate to say Shevuos are more stringent than Nedarim, for midRabanan it is a Neder, like Ravina taught above, that Bal Yachel applies midRabanan;

1. However, the Shevuah is more stringent than the Neder, for it is forbidden midOraisa.

2. The Gemara gave this answer according to Ravina, for his Perush is true. Bal Yachel of the Mishnah is midRabanan.

(b) Implied question: Why dont we infer also regarding Nedarim are more stringent than Shevuos, that there is a Shevuah [to be Mevatel a Mitzvah]?


(c) Answer: Indeed, it is a Shevuah, and one is lashed for it for a vain oath, just it does not take effect to be Mevatel the Mitzvah.

5) RAN DH Ha dAmar Hanaas Sukah Alai Ha dAmar Shevuah sheLo Ahaneh miSukah

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains why it is more reasonable that Nedarim override Mitzvos.)

(a) Explanation: It is logical that laShem does not refer to Shevuah, rather, to Ki Yidor Neder, because it is proper that a Neder take effect on a Devar Mitzvah, because he forbids Hanaah of the Sukah to himself;

1. The expression of a Neder is like this (he forbids Hanaah of an object to himself), and we do not feed to a man something forbidden to him;


2. However, the expression of a Shevuah is I will not sit in a Sukah. One may not uproot himself from the Mitzvah of Sukah, which he is commanded in!

6) RAN DH Ela Amar Rava Ha dAmar Yeshivas Sukah Alai Ha dAmar sheLo Eshev bSukah

(SUMMARY: 1. The Ran discusses why this takes effect. 2. He discusses forbidding matters without Hanaah.)

(a) Question: Even when he said Yeshivas Sukah Alai, what does this do? This is intangible! (It is not a Neder.)

(b) Answer #1: The case is, he said Konam is a Sukah for me to sit in;

1. Rava was concerned only to fix the expression of Hanaah that Abaye said, but indeed, the case is, he said [Konam is] a Sukah for me to sit in.

(c) Answer #2 (the Ran): Even if he said Konam Yeshivas Sukah Alai, it helps. It is called intangible only when he does not mention the object he forbids to himself, e.g. that I sleep, or that I speak.

1. However, when he mentions the object forbidden, this is tangible.

( :) // ( :)

(d) Implied question: In Kesuvos (58b) and below (85b) regarding one who was Makdish his wifes Maaseh Yadayim (earnings), we establish the case that he said my hands are Kodesh to their Maker! (According to the Ran, there was no need to do so, since he mentioned the hands!)

1. Note: The text in a Kesav Yad says your hands. This is unlike it says below (85b). The Rashash says that the text should say that she said this. It says so below (85b), and in Kesuvos 59a. If so, in the next line he must change four words to the feminine, i.e. bOmeres, Naasis, kOmeres and sheHizkirah. Perhaps the Ran was not particular about who said so. He merely asks why it did not suffice that the vow mentioned hands.

(e) Answer: He did not truly say so. Rather, it means that it is as if he said so, since he mentioned the hands!

(f) Question: Even when he said sitting in a Sukah is Alai, why is he forbidden to sit for a Mitzvah? Since Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu, he does not benefit from the Sukah at all!

(g) Answer (the Ran): In any case, since he forbade to himself sitting, even though he has no Hanaah from it, it takes effect.

(h) Consequence: If so, if he said Konam throwing a rock to the sea, it is forbidden to him, even though he has no Hanaah from throwing.

(i) Limitation: This is only if he specified sitting in a Sukah or throwing a rock;

1. However, if he said Konam Sukah Alai, or Konam this rock Alai, he may sit in it for a Mitzvah, or throw that rock, that was forbidden to him, to the sea, if he wants. Presumably, he forbade to himself only Hanaah.

(j) Source: One who was Makdish his animal forbade it to the entire world, and even so, there is no Isur to touch it;


1. Also here, Stam Isur connotes eating and Hanaah, but anyone who specified to forbid to himself even touching, it takes effect.