ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
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'.
1. 'Haragin' are - Jewish robbers who are *prepared to kill*.
(b) Beis Shemei restrict this concession - to Nedarim, but prohibit making a
Shevu'ah to these people.
2. 'Charamin' are - robbers who are *not*.
3. 'Muchsin' are - tax-collectors.
(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* ... '.
(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').
(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.
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).
(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'.
(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.
2. ... 'Talis Zu Korban ad she'Tisaref' - 'Ein Lahen Pidyon'.
(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
(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
(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
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
(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
(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.