(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nedarim 25



(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana states that the Beis-Din would clarify to the person taking an oath that they were making him swear, not by his personal understanding (referring to someone who changed something to suit his interpretation), but according to what Hashem and they had in mind. They were speaking to - a person who was about to make a Shevu'as Modeh be'Miktzas (which is a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa).

(b) We initially explain this Beraisa - to preclude someone who paid back part of the loan with 'money' (a title that he was now ascribing to the wooden chips 'Askundri' that he gave his creditor). This poses a Kashya on Rav Ashi, in whose opinion such a Shevu'ah would be automatically void, seeing as that is not Hashem and Beis-Din did refer to wooden chips.

(c) In fact, we conclude, Beis-Din come to preclude the case of 'Kanya de'Rava' - where the debtor filled his cane with coins amounting to half the loan, and went to Beis-Din, where the creditor claimed his debt. After countering that he already paid him half, he asked the creditor to hold his cane whilst he held a Sefer-Torah and swore that he had given him half his money.

(d) Beis-Din discovered the truth - when, in his anger, the creditor broke the cane, and all the money fell out.

2) The Shevu'ah there must have been one of 'Modeh be'Miktzas' and not 'Kofer ba'Kol' (as the Lashon suggests) - because the Shevu'ah by Kofer ba'Kol (known as a Shevu'as Heses), is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and does not require holding a Sefer-Torah.


(a) In view of the fact that the Torah in Nitzavim already writes "Ki es Asher Yeshno Poh ... ve'es Asher Einenu Poh ... ', says the Tana in the Beraisa, the Pasuk "ve'Lo Itchem Levadchem" must be coming to teach us - that Hashem's oath was not subject to each person's interpretation ("and not what is with you in your hearts"), but according to what He and the Beis-Din had in mind.

(b) Initially, we explain this to preclude those who claim that they undertook to serve 'Elokah', and that what they really meant was some other god whom they called by that name, posing a Kashya on Rav Ashi. But we reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Ashi - by explaining that other gods are also called 'Elo'ah' (as we find in Bo - "u've'Chol Elohei Mitzrayim E'eseh Shefatim ... "). Consequently, he is not lending his own interpretation to anything, but is using one that is commonly accepted, in which case, it has nothing to do with Rav Ashi's ruling.

(c) Moshe did not make them swear that they would keep ...

1. ... 'Torah' - because 'Torah' implies the written Torah only.
2. ... 'Toros' - because 'Toros' implies 'the Torah of a Minchah, of a Chatas and of an Asham ... '.
3. ... 'Mitzvos' - because 'Mitzvos' implies the commands of the king.
4. ... 'Kol Mitzvos' - because 'Kol Mitzvos' implies the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, which is compared to all the (Mitzvos Asei of the) Torah.
(d) Nor did he make them swear that they would keep ...
1. ... 'Toros and Mitzvos' - since that implies the Korbanos and the commands of the king.
2. ... 'Torah Kulah' - which implies that they will not serve idols, since Avodah-Zarah is compared to all (the Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh of the) Torah.
(a) We conclude that Moshe could well have said 'Avodas-Kochavim ve'Torah Kulah' - or 'the Taryag Mitzvos'.

(b) The reason that he said 've'Lo Itchem Levadchem" is - because it is more incorporating (though it is not clear how).

(a) Our Mishnah presumes that there is no such thing as a snake like (which we intially take to mean) a beam from the oil-press. We query this however, from a snake that lived in the days of Shavur Malka, King of Persia - which would eat thirteen stables-full of straw.

(b) So we explain Koros Beis-ha'Bad to refer to cracks, on which we ask further that all snakes have cracks. We answer - that all snakes have cracks on their necks, whereas the Tana is referring to cracks on their backs.

(c) The Tana needs to describe the cracks like 'Koros Beis-ha'Bad' (rather than to just say 'Ra'isi Nachash Taruf') - to teach us that the beams of the Beis-ha'Bad are expected to contain cracks, so that someone who sells such a beam, must make sure that it does.

(d) The Yerushalmi interpret's 'Taruf' - as square (i.e. flat, rather than round - Rosh).




(a) The two cases of Nidrei Shegagos mentioned in our Mishnah are: 'Konem Im Achalti, ve'Im Shasisi ve Nizkar she'Achal ve'Shasah' - and 'she'Ani Ochel ve'she'Ani Shoseh', ve'Shacach ve'Achal ve'Shasah'.

(b) The basic differfence between the two cases is - the fact that, in the first case (which irefers to the past), he was a Shogeg already at the time when he declared the Neder, whereas in the second case, he became a Shogeg only at the time when he was supposed to fulfill it.

(a) We already discussed the case of Konem Ishti Nehenis Li she'Ganvah es Kis'i ... ve'Noda she'Lo Ganvah'. In the case that follows, he saw people eating his figs, and had already said 'Harei Aleichem Korban' - when he discovered that his father and his brother were among those partaking. At that point, he announced that, had he known that they were among those partaking, he would have worded his Neder differently, as will be explained in the Sugya.

(b) Beis Shamai say 'Hein Mutarim, u'Mah she'Imahem Asurim' - because they hold 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Lo Hutar Kulo'.

(c) Beis Hillel hold 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar Kulo'. Consequently, the Neder is void.

(d) The reason that in this last case, the Neder is void (according to Beis Hillel) even though the Noder did not mention his father or brothers at all, whereas in the case of 'Konem Ishti Nehenis Li ... ', the Neder is void only if he specifically concluded 'she'Ganvah es Kis'i' - because in the former case, the Noder would have precluded his father and brother completely from the Neder (in which case, 'there was an error in the Ikar Neder', to which one could apply the principle 'Ein Piv ve'Libo Shavin); whereas in the latter case, the Neder pertained to his wife in any case, only it required qualification (in which case, as far as the Ikar Neder is concerned, it was a matter of 'Piv ve'Lbo Shavin').

(a) The Tana in the Beraisa compares Shevu'os Shegagos to Nidrei Shegagos. The case of Shevu'os Shegagos that involved Rav Kahana and Rav Asi was - when they both quoted Rav, but the one swore that Rav had said this, and the other swore that he had said that (since each one swore in good faith, it is considered 'Nidrei Shegagos').

(b) On the assumption that Shevu'os Shegagos apply in exactly the equivalent case to Nidrei Shegagos, we ask 'Heichi Dami Shevu'os Shegagos', not because we are looking for the appropriate case - but to discover the extent of Shevu'os Shegagos.

(c) The Chidush of the case of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi is then - the fact it falls into the category of Nidrei Shegagos, despite the fact that each one warned the other one that he was making a mistake.

(a) When the Tana says in a Mishnah in 'Rebbi Eliezer' 'Poschin be'Shabbasos u've'Yamim-Tovim' - he means that if the Noder tells the Chacham that, had he realised that his Neder contravenes K'vod Shabbos and Yom-Tov, he would not have declared it, that is a good Pesach.

(b) This Neder requires a Pesach - because there was no error in the Ikar Neder (seeing as he knew when he declared his initial Neder, that Shabbos and Yom-Tov were included); whilst the Neder of Beis Hillel in our Mishnah does not - because there was an error in the Ikar Neder (since he was unaware that his father and brother were among those partaking of the figs - as we explained in the Mishnah).

(c) Initially, they would revoke the Neder of someone who had his Neder annulled on the basis of K'vod Shabbos and Yom-Tov only as regards Shabbos and Yom-Tov, but not as far as during the week was concerned. This changed - with the advent of Rebbi Akiva, who taught that 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar Kulo' (like Beis Hillel).

(a) With regard to the case of Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, Rabah makes a distinction between when the Noder says 'Had I known I would have said 1. ... 'Kulchem Asurim Chutz me'Aba'! - where Beis Hillel will agree that all the others are forbidden (since he only altered the contents of his original Neder, but not the Lashon); and when he continued 2. ... 'P'loni u'P'loni Asurin ve'Aba Mutar', where he altered both the contents and the Lashon, that they argue with Beis Shamai.

(b) Beis Hillel argue in the latter case (to hold like Rebbi Akiva), even though they agree with Beis Shamai (and the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva) in the former case - because they require the error to be both in the contents of the Neder and in the Lashon before it can be included in Nidrei Shegagos, as we just explained.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,