POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi N. Slifkin
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nedarim 4
NEDARIM 2,3,4,5 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in honor of Rav
Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.
1) TRANSFERRING LAWS FROM NEDER TO NAZIR (Cont.)
(a) Answer #3 (R. Acha bar Yaakov): Bal T'acher applies in a case
where he accepted Nezirus in a cemetary.
1. Question: How will Bal T'acher apply here according to the
view that the Nezirus takes effect immediately, even in a
(b) Answer #4 (R. Acha b. R. Ikka): It applies where he delayed his
2. Question #2: Even the other view does not dispute that it
takes effect immediately, only whether he is liable for
3. Answer: He transgresses Bal T'acher for delaying Tahor
4. (R. Ashi) It follows that a Nazir who makes himself Tamei
likewise transgresses Bal T'acher.
1. This is true even according to the view that it is not
critical for the Nezirus, as it is still a mitzvah.
(c) Answer #5 (Mar Zutra b. R. Mari): It applies where he delayed his
1. Question: That is learned from the standard Pasuk for Bal
T'acher of Korbanos (so we wouldn't need the Hekesh for
2. Answer: One wouldn't know to learn Bal T'acher for Nazir
from there, as it is a novel case.
3. Question: How is it novel? It can't be because it cannot be
the subject of Hatfasah, as neither can Chatas Cheilev, and
that still has Bal T'acher!?
4. Answer: It is novel in that one becomes a full Nazir even if
only vowing to abstain from grapeskins.
5. Question #1: How will we explain it according to the view
that one does not become a full Nazir in such a case?
6. Question #2: That law is a stringency (which makes it all
the more likely to be subject to Bal T'acher)!?
2) SHMUEL ON YADOS OF NEDARIM
7. Answer: It is novel in that if he has his hair cut before
bringing all three Korbanos, he is released from the
(d) Question: Why did the Hafarah of the father and husband with
Nazir have to be learned from Nedarim with a Hekesh - why not use
a Mah Matzinu?
8. Alternate answer: It is novel in that it cannot be the
subject of Hatfasah.
i. The fact that neither can Chatas Cheilev, and yet that
still has Bal T'acher, would be explained as due to it
serving as atonement.
9. Question: Chatas Yoledes does not serve as atonement and yet
still has Bal T'acher!?
10. Answer: Chatas Yoledes permits her to eat the neccesary
Kodshim (and it is therefore expected that it would have a
(e) Answer: One might think that this ability only exists with
Nedarim which are of unlimited duration.
(a) (Shmuel) The vows of Mudrani, Mufreshani and Meruchkani of the
Mishnah only work in conjunction with him saying "on my eating of
yours" or "on my tasting of yours."
(b) Question: We find a Beraisa that splits them up, saying that each
(c) Answer: It means that the first phrases are binding in a case
where he said the latter qualifications.
1. Question: Another Beraisa first lists the latter
qualifications as binding, then the former!?
(d) New answer: Shmuel meant that only with the latter qualifications
is the proclaimer forbidden from benefiting from the subject, but
the subject may benefit from him; otherwise, they are mutually
2. Answer: It means that the qualifications are binding in a
case where he already said the other phrases.
3. Question: But that would be the same as the other Beraisa!?
4. Question #2: Why state the word "binding" with both types?