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 11
NEDARIM 11 - dedicated anonymously in honor of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, and in
honor of those who study the Dafyomi around the world.
1) MISHNAH: CASES OF NEDARIM
(a) Statements such as "This person is not as Chullin, that I should
eat from his"; that he is not kosher, pure, or Tahor; that he is
Tamei, Nosar, or Pigul, are binding.
2) WHO THE MISHNAH IS FOLLOWING
(b) Rating it as a lamb, animal corral, wood for the Mizbeyach, fire
of the Mizbeyach, the Mizbeyach itself, the Heichal, Jerusalem,
or any of the equipment for the Mizbeyach, is effective, even
though he did not mention Korban.
(c) (R. Yehudah) If said that it is as Jerusalem, it is meaningless.
(a) The Mishnah was initially understood to mean that he means "You
are not as Chullin but rather as a Korban."
(b) The Mishnah therefore cannot be following R. Meir, as he does not
hold that we can deduce the positive corollary from the negative
1. (R. Meir) A condition is only valid if it states both
outcomes, as with that of the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven.
(c) Question: Yet if the Mishnah follows R. Yehudah, there is a
problem with the latter part, which cites his view, indicating
that the earlier part did not follow him!?
(d) Answer: It all follows R. Yehudah; the latter part should be
read, "The former laws are so because R. Yehudah holds thus."
(e) Question: We see that R. Yehudah would not hold that it is
binding even he said that it is LIKE Jerusalem:
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah) If someone prohibits something "like
Jerusalem" it is meaningless, until he mentions something
that is sacrificed in Jerusalem.
(f) Answer: It all follows R. Yehudah, but there is a dispute between
Tanna'im as to R. Yehudah's opinion.
3) SUBJECTS FOR HATFASAH
1. (Beraisa) If someone said "Chullin," "The Chullin," or "Like
Chullin," whether he then said "that I should eat of yours"
or "that I should not eat of yours," it is not binding.
(g) The first part follows R. Meir, who holds that we cannot deduce
the positive from the negative.
2. If he said "LeChullin, I am eating of yours," it is binding.
3. If he said "LeChullin, I am not eating of yours," it is not
(h) Question: The latter part cannot be following R. Meir:
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir) If he says "LeKorban, I am not eating of
yours," it is binding.
(i) Answer: That Tanna agrees with R. Meir in one aspect and argues
2. Question: How can his saying that what he does not eat is
not a Korban result in his meaning that what he does eat is
a Korban - surely R. Meir holds that you cannot deduce the
positive from the negative?
3. Answer (R. Aba): He means, "You are as a Korban, and
therefore I am not eating of yours."
4. Here too, he means, "You are not as Chullin, and therefore I
am not eating of yours" and it should be binding!
1. He agrees that we cannot deduce a positive from a negative.
(j) Answer #2 (R. Ashi): We can interpret it thus when he said "La";
but in the Beraisa he said "Le-", which means "This is not as
Chullin - that which I am not eating." (It is therefore permitted
because R. Meir does not deduce the positive corollary.)
2. He disagrees that we can interpret his "Le-" to mean "You
are as this, and therefore etc."
(a) Question (Rami bar Chama): If someone prohibits something "like
the flesh of a Shelamim after Zerikah," is it binding?
1. If he said it in those words, then the Hatfasah is on a
2. But if he had a piece of meat and a piece of such a
Shelamim, and said "this is as this," is the Hatfasah on the
prohibited essence of it (a Korban) or the permissible
aspect (that it is after Zerikah)?