ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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.
***** Perek Kol Kinuyei *****
Please note that unless where otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation
of Ran, instead of that of Rashi, since the latter is purported to have
written by someone other than Rashi. As a result, our notes and comments do
not necessarily have a bearing on the practical Halachah.
(a) There are two categories of Neder, Nidrei Hekdesh and Nidrei Isur. The
definition of ...
1. ... Nidrei Hekdesh is - Nedarim that one makes when designating something
to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, or an animal to go on the Mizbei'ach.
(b) The difference between them is - that whereas the former is confined to
one's own object or animal, the latter extends even to things that belong to
2. ... Nidrei Isur is - Nedarim that one makes forbidding any sort of object
(c) This Masechta deals - with the latter (Nidrei Isur).
(d) The proof for this is from Charamim, which the Tana inserts here, and
which is a Lashon of Isur - because if he was referring to Chermei Bedek
ha'Bayis, they would not belong here, but in Kodshim.
(a) Hatfasah - means connecting the object that one comes to forbid on
oneself to someone which is already forbidden (e.g. 'This should be Asur ...
like a Korban').
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ish ki Yidor *Neder* la'Hashem" - that it is
only possible to make Hatfasah on an object that itself became forbidden
through a Neder (such as a Korban), but not on an object that the Torah
forbade initially (such as Neveilah or T'reifah).
(c) A Neder that one makes without Hatfasah - is valid (if one does make
Hatfasah however, then it must conform with the requirements currently under
(a) The Ikar Neder (with Hatfasah) comprises forbidding an object on oneself
like a Korban. A Kinuy - comprises using one of the other nicknames of
Korban, such as Konem (the most commonly used throughout the Masechta),
Konei'ach or Koneis, either expressions that Nochrim commonly use, or that
were instituted by the Chachamim, as we shall see later.
(b) Kinuyin are d'Oraysa - even according to those who say that Kinuyin are
expressions that the Chachamim initiated.
(c) Yados Nedarim (handles of Nedarim) - are Nedarim that one did not
complete. Like handles (through which one carries the vessel without
actually touching it), one carries the unspoken part of the Neder via the
part that was said.
(a) We prove from our Mishnah 'u'Shevu'os ki'Shevu'os', that it is not
necessary to mention Hashem's Name when making a Shevu'ah - because if it
was, then neither the Shevu'ah nor the Kinuy would be necessary, seeing as
the Name oh Hashem on its own represents a Shevu'ah.
Based on the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sishav'u vi'Sh'mi la'Shaker" - the Ra'avad
explains that both a Shevu'ah with the Name of Hashem and one without it are
d'Oraysa, only for the former, one receives Malkos, whereas for the latter,
one does not.
(b) To reconcile the Sugya in Shevu'os, where Rav Chanina bar Idi requires
the Name of Hashem by Shevu'as ha'Eidus, with our Sugya, Rabeinu Tam
restricts the Din there to a Shevu'ah that is instigated by others, whereas
our Sugya speaks about a Shevu'ah that one makes of one's own volition.
(c) Based on the fact that we learn the Din by Shevu'as ha'Eidus from the
Din of Sotah (from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Alah" "Alah"), who also mentions
the Name of Hashem, the Ran objects to Rabeinu Tam's explanation - because
we have learned in Shevu'os that whoever says 'Amein after a Shevu'ah, is as
if he had uttered the Shevu'ah himself, and we learn this from Sotah (so how
can Rabeinu Tam refer to Sotah as a Shevu'ah that is instigated by others)?
(d) The Ran resolves the apparent discrepancy between the two Sugyos - by
confining the Sugya in Shevu'os to the opinion of Rav Chanina bar Idi,
whereas the author of our Sugya is the Chachamim, who disagree with him.
(a) Besides Nedarim, Charamim and Shevu'os, the fourth area of vow where
Kinuyim are effective is - Nezirus ('Kol Kinuyei Nezirus ki'Nezirus').
(b) The significance of the continuation of the Mishnah 'Mudrani Mimcha,
Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha she'Ani Ochel Lach, she'Ani To'em Lach,
Asur' (which some read as 'she'Eini Ochel Lach, she'Ani To'em Lach') - is in
connection with Yados Nedarim.
(c) This is a Yad, either because although he is Matfis, he omits the word
'ke'Hekdesh', or because he does not explicitly mention the Isur.
(d) In a case of 'Menudeh Ani Lach' - Rebbi Akiva tended to be strict, to
treat it like a Neder (though he was uncertain).
(a) In Nazir, the Tana only deals with Kinuyei Nezirus. The reason that the
Tana here sees fit to insert all the Kinuyim (Charamim, Shevu'os and
Nezirus, as well as Nedarim) is - because it mentions Kinuyei Shevu'os
(seeing as Shevu'os are mentioned in the Torah together with Nedarim), and
once he mentions Kinuyei Shevu'os, he thinks that he may as well throw in
the other two as well.
(b) Nevertheless, he puts Charamim next to Nedarim (and not Shevu'os),
because these two are both Isurei Cheftza (the Isur is placed on the object,
which becomes forbidden to the person), as opposed to Shevu'os, which are an
Isur Gavra (the Isur is on the person not to benefit from the object).
(c) Most Rishonim say that, if someone attempts to make a Shevu'ah by
forbidding the object on himself, or a Neder by forbidding himself on the
object - the Shevu'ah or the Neder is ineffective?
(d) They explain the various Sugyos, which seem to validate them - as being
La'av Dafka (the Tana'im or the Amora'im were simply not careful with their
(a) The Ramban says that a Shevu'ah that one makes by forbidding the object
on himself, or a Neder by forbidding himself on the object - is valid (and
one cannot just accuse Tana'im and Amora'im of carelessness), only not
because of a Neder or a Shevu'ah, but because of a Yad le'Neder or
(b) Our Sugya, which appears to insist that the two run along different
lines and cannot be confused - is talking about a pure Neder and Shevu'ah,
and not a Yad. A pure Neder is an Isur Cheftza, and a pure Shevu'ah, an Isur
(a) One problem with our Mishnah is that it opens with Kinuyin and goes on
to explain Yados. The second problem with the Tana's opening statement of
Yados - is that he has not yet mentioned Yados and he is already explaining
(b) We answer the second Kashya by amending the opening phrase of the
Mishnah to read - 'Kol Kinuyei Nedarim ki'Nedarim ... ve'Yados Nedarim,
(c) We then answer the first Kashya by citing a series of other Mishnahs.
The following Mishnahs all have in common - that the Tana begins explaining
the second case first. 'ba'Meh Madlikin, u'va'Mah Ein Madlikin'?; 'ba'Meh
Tomnin, uva'Mah Ein Tomnin'; 'ba'Meh Ishah Yotz'ah, u'va'Mah Einah Yotz'ah'.
(d) If that is the procedure that the Tana always follows - then why in the
following Mishnahs, does it specifically not do so: 'Yesh Nochlin
u'Manchilin, Nochlin ve'Ein Manchilin ... '; 'Yesh Mutaros le'Ba'aleihen,
va'Asuros le'Yibmeihen, Mutaros le'Yibmeihen, va'Asuros le'Ba'aleihen ... '?
(a) The basic distinction that one can one draw between the two groups of
Mishnahs that provides us with the initial answer to the above Kashya is -
that the first group is confined to two cases (and that is where the Tana
always begins to discuss the second case first); whereas each case in the
second list comprises many cases - usually four (when the Tana always begins
with the first case).
(b) The problem from the Mishnah 'ba'Meh Beheimah Yotz'ah, u'va'Mah Einah
Yotz'ah' is - that, according to the above-mentioned principle, that
Mishnah, which only contains two cases, belongs in the *first* list, whereas
in actual fact, the Tana deals with the first case first (like all the cases
in the *second* list).
(c) To resolve the Kashya therefore, we conclude that the Tana has no fixed
procedure regarding which of the cases to discuss first. In spite of this
however, it is possible that our Tana makes a point of mentioning Kinuyim
first but of discussing Yados first - because Kinuyim are more obvious than
Yados, which are learned from a Derashah (as we shall soon see), and it is
the way of the Tana to open the proceedings with the one that is more
obvious, but when it comes to discussing them, he first discusses the one
that is less obvious.