(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 28



(a) Nodrin la'Haragin, la'Charamin u'le'Muchsin she'Hi Terumah, Af-al-Pi she'Eino Terumah'.
1. 'Haragin' are - Jewish robbers who are *prepared to kill*.
2. 'Charamin' are - robbers who are *not*.
3. 'Muchsin' are - tax-collectors.
(b) Beis Shemei restrict this concession - to Nedarim, but prohibit making a Shevu'ah to these people.

(c) Beis Shamai even qualify this Din with regard to Neder - inasmuch as they forbid making a Neder to them unless they demand it.

(d) When Beis Shamai also forbid extending the Neder beyond what they ask him - they mean that even if they order him to declare 'Konem Ishti Nehenis Li Im ... ', he is not allowed to add 'Ishti *u'Banai* ... '.

2) Beis Hillel permit - making a Shevu'ah in this case, making a Neder even without having been asked, and adding 'u'Banai' to their demand of 'Ishti'.


(a) We have a problem with the Tana's insertion of Muchsin in our Mishnah, based on the principle issued by Shmuel - 'Dina de'Malchusa Dina'.

(b) Shmuel establishes our Mishnah by a 'Moches she'Ein Lo Kitzvah' - a tax-collector who claims as much as he pleases (pocketing the difference), to whom the principle does not apply.

(c) Rebbi Yanai answers the Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah by a tax-collector who is self-appointed.

(a) The problem with the Din in our Mishnah, should it speak when he said to the Harag ...
1. ... 'Ye'asru Peiros Olam Alai Le'olam ... ' is - that the Neder that he made would override the fact that he was forced (because whatever he thought in his heart would be 'Devarim she'ba'Lev').
2. ... 'Ye'asru Peiros Olam Alai ... ' is - again that the Neder would override the fact that he was forced (because 'Ye'asru' S'tam implies 'Le'olam', even though he did not say it explicitly).
(b) So we establish the Mishnah when he says 'Ye'asru Peiros Olam Alai ha'Yom ... ' - adding 'ha'Yom' silently (in his heart); because otherwise, the Harag would not take him seriously, and he would not have gained nothing by saying it.

(c) The fact that he said it silently is not considered 'Devarim she'ba'Lev' - because the fact that he is being forced renders what he is thinking as if he would have actually expressed it aloud.

(d) Had he not been forced however, the fact that he said 'ha'Yom silently would not have invalidated the Neder - because, due to the circumstances, he actually meant to say 'Ye'asru Peiros Olam Alai ... ' (which he knew implied 'Le'olam'); whereas if someone meant to forbid on himself wheat-bread, and by mistake, he declared a Neder forbidding 'bread', his Neder is automatically void - because he meant to say *wheat*-bread and not bread (in which case [unlike our's] it is not 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin').

(a) Rav Huna cites a Beraisa 'Beis Shamai Omrim, Lo Yiftach Lo bi'Shevu'ah'. Besides the fact that Beis Shamai have prohibited even a Neder if one opens the proceedings (before having been asked by the Harag), the difficulty with this statement is - the implication that if the Harag had ordered him to make a Shevu'ah, then he would be allowed to do so. But Beis Shamai have already forbidden making a Shevu'ah categorically?

(b) What we mean when we answer that our Mishnah tells us how far Beis Shamai go, and the Beraisa, Beis Hillel, is - that the Beraisa is not written for its implications (like we thought it was), but to teach us the extent of Beis Hillel's opinion (that one may even open the proceedings even with a Shevu'ah), whereas our Mishnah teaches us the extent of Beis Shamai's (that opening the proceedings is forbidden even with a Neder).

(c) According to Rav Ashi, the Beraisa does not pertain to the Din of Haragin at all - but to whether one can annul a Shevu'ah at all; Beis Shamai forbids, Beis Hillel permits.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that in a case of ...
1. ... 'Harei Neti'os ha'Eilu Korban Im Einan Niktzazos' and 'Talis Zu Korban Im Einah Nisrefes' - 'Yesh Lahen Pidyon'.
2. ... 'Talis Zu Korban ad she'Tisaref' - 'Ein Lahen Pidyon'.
(b) The fact that Pidyon is required in the Reisha suggests that the Tana is speaking about the value of the plants or of the cloak being used for the purchase of a Korban. But 'Korban might also mean - 'ke'Korban', pertaining to an ordinary Konem.

(c) They nevertheless require Pidyon - because the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, who considers a Konem K'lali (a general Konem forbidding an object to the world at large) as if it was a real Korban.

(d) Rebbi Meir (in 'Ein Bein ha'Mudar') - differentiates between someone who says 'Konem Kikar Zu' and eats it (where he is guilty of Me'ilah, and by the same token, the loaf [had he not eaten it] would require Pidyon to become permitted); and 'Konem Kikar Zu Alai', (where he would not be guilty of Me'ilah, and where the loaf would not require Pidyon).




(a) When we ask 've'Lisni Kedoshos' - we mean to ask why the Tana needs to say 'Yesh Lahen Pidyon' in the Reisha. Why did he not just say 'Kedoshos', seeing as his principle Chidush is the fact that the Kedushah is effective, in spite of the Noder conviction that it will not lead to that?

(b) What is wrong with the wording ' ... Kedoshos ve'Einan Kedoshos' is - the fact that in the Seifa, the Tana could not possibly have said 'Einan Kedoshos', seeing as the Kedushah there also takes effect.

(c) Even according to those who interpret 'Korban' to mean Konem, the principle Chidush of 'Kedoshos' cannot be that a Konem K'lali requires Pidyon, like Rebbi Meir - because (based on the fact that he chose to present this Din in connection with 'Im Einan Niktzatzos'), the Tana should first have informed us that the Kedushah is effective, and then added that they require Pidyon.

(d) We resolve the original Kashya 've'Lisni Kedoshos' - by answering that the Tana wrote 'Yesh Lahen Pidyon' in the Reisha, to balance the Seifa, where he *had to* write 'Ein Lahen Pidyon'.

(a) Seeing as the plants are bound to be detached at some stage, we have to amend the Mishnah to read 'Harei Neti'os ha'Eilu Korban, Im Einan Niktzatzos *ha'Yom*'. The problem with the Mishnah is then - that there is no Chidush (seeing as there is no reason for the Neder not to take effect).

(b) It helps to answer that there is a storm wind blowing - because then, it might have been possible to say that the Noder declared the Neder only because he did not expect the plants to survive the storm (in which case the Neder would not take effect).

(c) In similar fashion - we establish the case of 'Talis Zu Korban Im Einah Nisrefes' - when there was a fire in the vicinity of the Talis.

(a) When we ask 'u'Le'olam' - we are querying the Seifa of the Mishnah. Does the Tana really mean that the plants can never be redeemed (even after they have been detached).

(b) bar Pada explains that 'Ein Lahen Pidyon' in the Seifa means only until they have been detached (or until the garment has been burned). 'Ein Lahen Pidyon' now means - *permanent* Pidyon (because although the Pidyon is valid, the Kedushah immediately returns).

(c) The difference between before they have been detached and after, according to bar Pada will be - that once they have been detached, the Pidyon is permanent.

(d) According to Ula, once they have been detached, they do not even require Pidyon - because in his opinion, the Kedushah of an object, can under certain circumstances, fall away; whereas according to bar Pada, this is not possible.

(a) According to the Rashba, Ula only argues with bar Pada with regard to *after* the plants have been detached (as is implied by his Lashon). What does he extrapolate from here that, if someone instructs his friend to acquire a field with Chazakah' until he goes to Yerushalayim (adding me'Achshav)' - his friend will continue to acquire the field, even if the owner buys it back from him, until he arrives in Yerushalayim.

(b) The significance of 'Me'achshav' here is - that, without it, he would not be able to re-acquire the field, seeing as the Chazakah is no longer in evidence.

(c) The Din would not be the same if ...

1. ... they had used a Kinyan Kesef - which is Koneh after thirty days, even though the money is no longer in existence (due to the fact that money as a Kinyan creates per se a counter-obligation, whereas Chazakah per se does not) ...
2. ... or if it had not been the original owner who acquired the field (or the plants in our Mishnah), but a third person - because he breaks the sequence.
(a) Rebbi Moshe Kartavi disagrees with the Rashba. According to him, bar Pada's ruling of 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos' is based directly on the fact that he holds 'Kedushah Lo Pak'ah Bichdi' - because otherwise, why would the Noder need to add 'Ad she'Tikatzetzu' (seeing as, since he *does* hold 'Kedushah Lo Pak'ah Bichdi' it cannot be in order that the Kedushah should fall away automatically after they have been detached).

(b) It therefore follows that Ula, who holds 'Kedushah Pak'ah Bichdi' disagrees with the concept of 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos' - since, according to him, the Noder added 'Ad she'Yekatzetzu', so that then, the Kedushah should fall away automatically).

(c) Ula did not specifically argue with bar Pada with regard to 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos' - because it was not necessary, seeing as, since he holds 'Kedushah Pak'ah Bichdi', it is obvious that he does not hold 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos' (as we just explained).

(d) Rebbi Moshe Kartabi proves his point from a Yerushalmi. Assuming that we follow the opinion of bar Pada (as it would appear from the Yerushalmi), he also argues with the Rashba regarding someone who invites his friend to acquire a field with Chazakah' until he goes to Yerushalayim (adding me'Achshav)' - because unlike Kedushah, 'Mamon Pak'ah Bichdi', and even bar Pada will therefore agree that the donor added 'Ad she'Avo li'Yerushalayim' so that the recipient's rights will automatically cease then.

(a) The Rashba for his part, had second thoughts about his proof regarding someone who invites his friend to acquire a field with Chazakah' until he goes to Yerushalayim (adding me'Achshav)' from Hekdesh. He now feels inclined to say that, although in the Seifa of the Mishnah, Ula agrees that 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos', he will not apply the same S'vara in there - because unlike by Hekdesh, where a word alone effects the Kinyan, a monetary transaction requires a proper Kinyan (Kesef, Shtar or Chazakah). Consequently, once the donor buys the field back, the initial Kinyan terminates, and there is no way for it to be reinstated without a new Kinyan.

(b) If someone says 'Karka Zeh la'Aniyim Ad she'E'eleh li'Yerushalayim' - it will have the same Din as Hekdesh, since with Tzedakah, like with Hekdesh, a word alone effects the Kinyan.

Next daf


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