NEDARIM 22 (28 Sivan) - dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev (ben Rav Avrohom Tzvi) Gustman, ZT'L, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Netzach Yisrael-Ramailes (in Vilna, Brooklyn, and then Yerushalayim), author of Kuntresei Shi'urim, and renowned Dayan in pre-war and post-war Vilna, in honor of his Yahrzeit (28 Sivan). Dedicated by Talmidim who merited to study under him in Yerushalayim: Harav Eliezer Stern and Harav Zalman Stern of Brooklyn NY, Rav Avraham Feldman, Yechiel Wachtel, Michoel Starr and Dr. Yehoshua Daniel of Yerushalayim.
NEDARIM 22 - Dedicated by Yeshayahu Schmidt and family of Clifton, NJ. May the Zechus of teaching Torah to many thousands assure them good health and the fulfillment all of their material needs, allowing them to continue dedicating their energy to Torah and Mitzvos and to merit unlimited Berachah in this world and the next!

1) RAN DH haNoder kIlu Banah Bamah

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains why we compare this to building a Bamah.)

(a) Explanation: [It is as if he built a Bamah] at a time when Bamos were forbidden.

(b) Explanation #1: It seems that we compare this to building a Bamah because one might have thought that one who vows does a Mitzvah. The Torah forbade matters to him, and also he forbade to himself;

1. [R. Noson] says that he erred. Just the contrary, he is like one who built a Bamah!

( )

i. Granted, the Torah commanded him to offer Korbanos inside [the Mikdash]. However, it warned him not to add to it to build a Bamah and offer outside;

ii. Also here, granted, the Torah forbade matters to him. When he adds to what the Torah forbade, he does improperly.

iii. Source (Yerushalmi): It is not enough for you what the Torah forbade, that you forbid to yourself other matters?!


(c) Explanation #2: This expression (building a Bamah) is appropriate because one who vows is Matfis in a Korban. Since his Korban is not accepted, it turns out that he is like one who built a Bamah and offered on it outside.


2) RAN DH Amar R. Asi Ein Nizkakin lEilokei Yisrael

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains how R. Asi can hold like Beis Hillel.)

// ( )

(a) Explanation #1: I thought to say that even though we conclude below (28a) that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about whether or not one may ask to permit a Shevuah, and we hold like Beis Hillel, who say that one may ask

( )

1. R. Asi says that granted, one may ask. However, midRabanan we accede [to permit] only for Konam, my wife may not benefit [from me], due to Shalom Bayis.


(b) Retraction: Surely, Beis Shamai hold that it is only midRabanan [that one may not permit a Shevuah], for Lo Yachel Devaro, from which we expound but others may profane (permit) his word, refers also to Hishava Shevuah;

1. Beis Hillel Shamai say that even midRabanan [one may permit a Shevuah]. If so, R. Asi holds like Beis Shamai!

(c) Explanation #2: Rather, R. Asi disagrees with what we say below that [Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel] argue about asking [to permit a Shevuah].

(d) Explanation #3: R. Asi holds that Beis Shamai hold that midRabanan one cannot permit a Shevuah. Even if they permitted it, it is not permitted;


1. Beis Hillel hold that there is Sheelah. If they permitted it, it is permitted. However, lChatchilah we do not accede [to permit it]. So it seems to me.

3) RAN DH Chutz miKonam Ishti Nehenis Li sheGanvah Es Kisi vesheHiksah Es Bni vNoda sheLo Hikaso vNoda sheLo Ganvah

(SUMMARY: The Ran discusses why we permit in this case.)

(a) Version #1: This is the text in most Seforim.

(b) Question: Some say that this is a mistake. If it became known that she did not hit him or steal, how can he say except for Konam Ishti?

1. This is Nidrei Shegagos, and we concluded above that it does not require Sheelah for a Chacham [who vowed]!

2. We say below (25b) that just like Nidrei Shegagos are permitted, also Shevuos Shegagos are permitted!

(c) Answer: The Rashba wrote that the text can say so. The Mishnah said that such a case does not require Sheelah, i.e. when he says that if not for this (that she hit or stole), he would not have vowed to forbid her;

1. However, when he is Maamid his words, and says that even so he intended that she not benefit from him, Sheelah is required. Here, we discuss when he is Maamid.

(d) Opinion #1: According to his Perush, it seems that when he says except for Konam Ishti, it is [an exception] because there are two [reasons to be lenient]. There is Shalom Bayis, and also, it is like Nidrei Shegagos.

(e) Opinion #2: However, [the Rashba] said that even if it was found that she stole, and he asked, we permit him due to Shalom Bayis.

(f) Implied question: If so, why does it say it was found that she did not steal?

( // :)

(g) Answer: The Gemara adopted the words of the Mishnah below (25b). It is not precise.


(h) Rebuttal: I am not pleased [with Opinion #2 and this answer].

4) RAN DH Amar Rava Amar Rav Nachman Hilchesa Posechin bCharatah vNizkakin lEilokei Yisrael

(SUMMARY: The Ran discusses what and how we permit nowadays.)

(a) Explanation: We are Poseach with regret both for a Neder and for a Shevuah, and we accede lChatchilah for Elokei Yisrael;

1. We do not distinguish whether or not he held a [Kodesh] item in his hand [at the time of the oath]. Even if he held an item, we accede;

2. Holding an item is more severe only regarding Shevuas haDayanim (Modeh bMiktzas), to scare him [into admitting]. The primary Shevuah is with Hashems name or a Kinuy (it does not depend on an item).

(b) Implied question: A Gaon said that one who swore with a Sefer Torah or Aseres haDibros, this can never be annulled!

(c) Answer: This is totally wrong. The Gemara rules that even for Shevuos, we accede to permit them, and we are Poseach with regret, and all the more so for Nedarim.

(d) Opinion #1: However, Rav Hai Gaon was stringent about Nedarim, not to be Poseach with regret;

1. He said that nowadays, if we are [Poseach], we do similar to Rav Asi, who said that a Chacham permits only [Nedarim] like four Nedarim, i.e. with a Pesach, but not through regret.

(e) Opinion #1 (cont.): [Rav Hai Gaon] was more stringent about Shevuos, and said that we do not accede to permit them at all, unless it occurs that there is a Tikun (correction) or Mitzvah [through permitting them]

1. E.g. to make Shalom between a man and his wife, or Shalom in the Tzibur in the Beis haKeneses, and similar cases to these, we accede [to permit] through clear matters [reasons to consider it a mistake], close to Rav Asis teaching.

( )

2. However, a Pesach like that of the people who came in front of Rav Huna (21b), R. Shimon bar Rebbi (23a) and R. Yishmael bRebbi Yosi (21b), Abayes wife (23a), and the one who came in front of R. Elazar (21b), and similar cases, we do not [permit with such Pesachim].

(f) Opinion #2: HaRav haNasi El Bargeloni, citing Mar Yehudai Gaon, was more stringent than about Nedarim, and equated them to Shevuos;

1. He permits them even with a Pesach only for a Mitzvah. Then, we permit with a Pesach, but not with regret.

2. He also wrote that they were stringent only for Heter of a Chacham, but not for a husbands Hafarah;


i. A husband may annul on the day he hears, for a Neder or Shevuah. This is from HaRav haNasi.

5) RAN DH Nadarta aDaita dHachi

(SUMMARY: The Ran explains why he was not Poseach with regret.)

(a) Implied question: Why wasnt he Poseach for him through regret? Rav Nachman himself ruled that the Halachah is that we are Poseach with regret!

( )

(b) Answer #1: Rav Nachman understood that Rav Sechorah came to him only in order to find a Pesach. He was stringent for himself not to permit through regret.

(c) Answer #2: Some say that it was like a Neder for a Mitzvah, e.g. to fast for a certain time, and he fasted part of the time. (This Dibur continues on the coming Daf.)