ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 57
The Tana of our Mishnah states 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Alai ... ', Asur
be'Chilufeihen u've'Giduleihen'. This would not be the case if he said
'Konem Te'einim va'Anavim Alai' - because there, since he did not specify
any particular fruits, he merely means to prohibit that species on himself;
whereas in our Mishnah, where he specifies certain fruits, he means to give
them a Din Hekdesh (whose Chilufin and Gidulin are forbidden).
(a) In Perek ha'Shutfin, Rami bar Chama asked whether, if someone declared
'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu al P'loni', the exchange of the fruit will be
forbidden too. The two sides to the She'eilah are - whether the Tana of our
Mishnah forbids the Chilufin and the Gidulin because he goes after his
intentions, in which case it is only the Noder who will be forbidden to
benefit from them, or whether it is because 'Chilufin ke'Gidulin', which
will be forbidden in spite of the Noder's intentions.
(b) Bearing in mind that Rami bar Chama did not ask whether 'Eilu' is Dafka
or not, this creates a problem with regard to our Mishnah - because, since,
according to the second side of the She'eilah 'Eilu is not Dafka (seeing as
Chilufin is Asur by all Isurei Hana'ah), according to the first side of the
She'eilah too, it must be 'La'av Dafka'. So how can we say that it is Dafka?
(c) We conclude that in fact, 'Eilu' is Dafka. The Tana of our Mishnah
teaches us with the word 'Eilu' - that the exchange is forbidden to the
Noder even if someone else made the exchange (something that we would not
have known from 'Chilufin ke'Gidulin').
(d) Rami bar Chama's She'eilah - acknowledges that 'Eilu' is Dafka (in which
case if someone else were to exchange the forbidden fruit, it could be
forbidden on the Noder, but not on the Mudar). What he is asking is whether
the Tana mentions 'Eilu' specifically in *this* case, where it is someone
else who exchanged the fruit, but that when the Noder himself made the
exchange, maybe we will not need 'Eilu', and the exchange will be forbidden
even on the Mudar because of the principle 'Chiufeihen ke'Giduleihen', or
whether he requires 'Eilu' even when the Noder himself made the exchange.
(a) The Tana continues 'she'Eini Ochel, she'Eini To'em, Mutar be'Chilufeihen
u've'Giduleihen'. Despite the fact that this Lashon implies an inclusion, we
neveretheless exclude Chilufin and Gidulin - because, on the other hand,
when he eats or tastes the Chalipin, he has not eaten or tasted the fruit
that he forbade.
(b) The inference from the above prohibition regarding the Gidulin is
confined to something whose seeds decompose. We can infer from it - that the
Gidulei Gidulin are permitted, which would not be the case with regard to
something whose seeds do not decompose.
(c) The Tana ...
1. ... forbids the Gidulin of something whose seeds decompose (despite the
fact that nothing remains of the original Isur) - because it is no different
than Chalipei Isurei Hana'ah, which are forbidden.
(d) The Tana nevertheless forbids Gidulei Gidulin by something whose seeds
do not decompose - because seeing as a small amount of the Isur remains
intact, we will apply the principle 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin Asur'.
Consequently, even though what grows is the majority, the small part that
remains does not become Bateil.
2. ... permit the Gidulei Gidulin of something whose seeds decompose -
because Chalipei Chalipin of Isurei Hana'ah are also permitted.
(a) The Tana then repeats the same Halachah with regard to someone who says
to his wife 'Konem Ma'asei Yedei Ishti Alai ... '. He finds it necessary to
do this - to teach us that, even though he did not say 'Eilu', having
speficied his wife's products it is as if he had actually said it (otherwise
the Chilufin would not be forbidden, as we explained earlier).
(b) This is not a case of forbidding something that is non-existent (seeing
as the work of her hands are not yet in the world), because it might speak
when the husband declared a Konem his wife's hands viv-a-vis the work that
she will produce - or it might speak when he specifically forbade the
products of his wife's hands *after they come into the world*.
(c) Rabeinu Yonah says about this Halachah - that if, in a case where the
wife then ground wheat, baked bread and sold it, it is only the value of his
wife's work that is forbidden, but not the original value of his wheat,
which should be deducted from the total, and from which he may derive
(a) If a man says to his wife 'she'At Osah Eini Ochel ad ha'Pesach', he is
permitted whatever to benefit after Pesach, from whatever she produces;
whereas if he says 'she'At Osah ad ha'Pesach Eini Ochel', he is not. The
Chidush lies in the first statement - which comes to teach us that we do not
suspect that 'ad ha'Pesach' really pertains to 'she'At Osah', and that he is
therefore forbidden to benefit from whatever she produces until Pesach,
forever (like the Din in the second statement). The reason for this is
because then, he should have used the wording of the second statement.
(b) If a husband says to his wife 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Pesach Im
Holeches At le'Veis Avich ad ha'Chag' if she went to her father's house ...
1. ... before Pesach - she is forbidden to benefit from him until Pesach.
(c) And if the husband says to his wife 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Chag Im
Holeches At le'Veis Avich ad ha'Pesach' if she went to her father's house
2. ... after Pesach - she will have transgressed 'Bal Yachel' retroactively.
1. ... before Pesach - she is forbidden to benefit from him until Sukos.
2. ... after Pesach - she is permitted to benefit from him.
(a) The Beraisa cites the She'eilah of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama (or de'Yama),
who once brought with him to the Beis ha'Medrash - an onion which he
uprooted in the Shmitah-year and replanted in the eighth, and the part that
subsequently grew was in excess of the part that grew in the Sh'mitah.
(b) He asked whether the majority that grew be'Heter negated the part that
grew be'Isur or not. The She'eilah is based - on the fact that the main part
of the onion (which was Asur) remained intact.
(c) He could have asked - whether the part that grew be'Heter was Asur too,
(d) There is no significance in the fact that he asked the She'eilah the way
he did - because if what grew be'Heter is Mevatel the original onion, then
it is obvious that it itself is permitted, whereas if it does not, it is
obvious that it is not (as we shall see later in the Sugya).
(a)Initially, Rebbi Ami did not know the answer. Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha
though, resolved the She'eilah from a statement quoted from Rebbi Yanai, who
said that if one planted an onion of Terumah in a case when what
subsequently grew was in excess of the original onion - what grew be'Heter
is Mevatel the original Isur.
(b) When he said Mutar, he did not mean that the entire onion became Chulin,
but - that it was Tevel, in which case one was permitted to eat from the
fruit Arai (casually).
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah (or Rebbi Zerika) objected to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha's
proof - on the grounds that he accepted the ruling of one person (Rebbi
Yanai), when there are two (Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan) who forbid it.
(a) If one cut down a young tree (less than three years old - which is
Orlah) and grafted it in an old tree ...
1. ... which had no fruit currently growing on it, the Gemara in Sotah
says - that it is Bateil.
(b) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan says - that if one
planted an onion in a vineyard and then uprooted the vineyard, the onion
remains Asur, even what grew later was sufficient to be Mevateil what
previously grew be'Isur.
2. ... which had fruit growing on it, Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan says -
that the fruit is forbidden even if it increased by two hundred fold.
(a) When the She'eilah came back to Rebbi Ami, he resolved it from a
statement by Rav Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who said that if one
replanted a 'Litra' of onions that had already been Ma'asered, one is
obligated to Ma'aser the entire batch of onions (and not just what grew),
proving that what grows is Mevatel the Ikar (like Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha).
(b) Rebbi Yitzchak speak about sowing the onions ('ve'Zar'ah') rather than
of planting them (ve'Nat'ah') - because he is speaking about planting a
number of onions, and when one plants a number of seeds or fruits it is
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak, who quotes Rebbi Yochanan as saying that the growth is
Mevateil the Ikar - argues with Rebbi Avahu who quoted him earlier
(regarding the Din of Orlah) as saying that it does not.
(d) We reject Rebbi Ami's proof from Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan - on
the grounds that in all likelihood, Rebbi Yochanan holds that the growth is
*not* Mevateil the Ikar (like Rebbi Avahu), but that here he holds that it
(a) At first, this appears to be a Chumra that will end up being a Kula.
The problem, should one separate Ma'aser ...
1. ... from the onions themselves, would be - that, assuming that what grew
is Chayav Ma'asros (min ha'Torah), he will be separating from what is Chayav
(min ha'Torah) on what is Patur.
(b) In fact, the Kashya is not really a Kashya in the first pace - because
it is wrong to assume that the growth is Chayav Ma'asros (min ha'Torah). As
a matter of fact, since the growth is not Mevatel the Ikar, it becomes like
it, seeing as it grew from it. Consequently, neither of the two is Chayav
Ma'asros min ha'Torah.
2. ... from an external source is - that he will giving more than a tenth
for Ma'aser, which is forbidden.