ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 77
(a) We ask with regard to the Mishnah in Shabbos 'Mafirin Nedarim be'Shabbos
ve'Nish'alin li'Nedarim she'Hein le'Tzorech Shabbos' - whether le'Tzorech
Shabbos' pertains to the Reisha too, or whether it is confined to the Seifa.
(b) Beside the fact that Hafaras Nedarim does not require a Chacham or
three Hedyotos (ordinary people) like Hataras Nedarim does, it might also
differ from Hataras Nedarim in this regard - inasmuch as its time is limited
until the end of the day.
(c) Rav Zuti cited a Beraisa that requires Tzorech Shabbos by Hafaras
Nedarim, too. Rav Ashi proved him wrong however, from our Mishnah - which
says 'ad she'Techshach' (implying that until nightfall, one may make Hafaras
Nedarim, even though we are speaking about Nedarim that are not Tzorech
Shabbos [because just before nightfall, no Hafarah is Tzorech Shabbos]).
(a) We reconcile Rav Zuti's Beraisa with our Mishnah - by pointing out that
this a Machlokes Tana'im, and that the Tana of Rav Zuti's Beraisa holds like
the other Tana.
(b) The Tana who holds that Hafaras Nedarim requires Tzorech Shabbos - is
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who hold that
one has twenty-four hours to make Hafaras Nedarim.
(c) The Halachah is like the Tana of our Mishnah - that one only has until
nightfall to make Hafaras Nedarim, in which case, Hafaras Nedarim will not
require Tzorech Shabbos.
(a) 've'Nish'alin li'Nedarim le'Tzorech ha'Shabbos' - even if there was time
to annul them before Shabbos.
(b) Rav Yosef wanted to restrict the concession to annul Nedarim on Shabbos
to a Yachid Mumcheh, but not to three Hedyotos - because it resembles
judging on Shabbos, which Chazal forbade.
(c) Abaye proved him wrong however - from the fact that we permit Hataras
Nedarim standing, through relatives and at night-time (all of which are
forbidden when judging).
(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav 'Halachah Mefirin Nedarim ba'Laylah'.
We query this statement - on the grounds that this Halachah already appears
in our Mishnah 'Nadrah be'Lelei Shabbos' (and does require an Amora to
(b) So we amend it - to read 'Halachah Nish'alin ba'Laylah'.
(c) When Rav Aba asked Rav Huna whether Rav really said this - he replied
'Ishtik' (meaning that Rav remained silent when he [Rav Huna] mentioned this
Halachah to him).
(d) When Rebbi Aba then asked Rav Huna whether he meant 'Ishtik' or
'Shasi' - he meant to ask him whether Rav's silence denoted that he agreed
with Rav Huna (as if to offer him a drink for his fine Chidush), or that he
hoped to silence him with his own silence, because he disagreed with him.
(a) According to a different text, it was Rav Huna who was questioning Rebbi
Aba's motive for querying him. By 'Ashkayan O Ashtikan' he meant very much
the same as according to the previous explanation - whether he (Rebbi Aba)
agreed with him (as if to offer him a drink for his fine Chidush), or
whether he meant to silence him, because he did not consider it feasible
that Rav should have said such a thing.
(b) Rav Ika bar Avin resolves Rebbi Aba's question (according to the
alternative text, it is an independent statement) - from Rav himself, who
told Rabah in the Beis-ha'Medrash that 'Omed, Yechidi *u'va'Laylah* are
Kasher by Hataras Nedarim.
(c) 'Kituna de'Bei Rav' is - the room of the Beis-ha'Medrash.
(a) Rava Amar Rav Nachman lists all the leniencies of Hataras Nedarim, over
judging, including that of performing it standing. Raban Gamliel, who got
off his donkey and sat on the ground in order to annul someone's Neder -
holds 'Ein Poschin ba'Charatah', whereas Rav Nachman follows the opinion of
those Tana'im who hold 'Poschin ba'Charatah'.
(b) We do not agree with the Rashba, who, based on the ruling 'Poschin
ba'Charatah' - holds that even when the Chacham wishes to annul a Neder with
a regular Pesach, he is also permitted to do so standing.
(a) Rava seemed rather surprised at what they used to do in Eretz Yisrael.
The Rabbanan there - after annulling the Neder of Rav Huna bar Avin's son,
instructed him to pray for forgiveness for having declared a Neder.
(b) They derived this from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Sechdal Lindor, Lo Yihyeh Becha
Chet", 'Ha Lo Chadalta, Ika Chet'!
(a) 'ha'Omer la'Ishto Kol Nedarim she'Taduri, I Efshi she'Taduri', or 'Kol
Nedarim she'Taduri, Ein Zeh Neder, Lo Amar K'lum'. Assuming the future
tense of 'she'Taduri' to be literal - this Beraisa is teaching us that if a
husband upholds his wife's past Nedarim by annulling future ones (by
inference), his Kiyum is invalid.
(b) According to this interpretation - the case of 'Ein Zeh Neder' (which
implies Nedarim that she already declared) must have been learned
erroneously, since the Tana is referring to *future* Nedarim, as we just
(c) If he says 'Yafeh Asis', 'Ein Kamosech' or 'Im Lo Nadart, Madirech
Ani' - his Hakamah is valid.
(d) The Hakamah is invalid in the Reisha - because it is not a Lashon of
Hakamah, and valid in the Seifa - because it is.
(a) If we want to retain the case of 'Ein Zeh Neder' - then we will have to
explain that the Tana of the Beraisa is speaking about *Hafarah* in the
Reisha, which is not valid because this is not a Lashon of Hafarah.
(b) The Tana uses the future tense - even though it is referring to the
past, because this is common practice among the Tana'im.
(c) According to this interpretation, a Lashon that applies by inference is
valid by Hakamah but not by Hafarah - by virtue of the fact that Kiyum by
thinking alone is valid, whereas Hafarah is not (as we shall see later).
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa states 'Lo Yomar Adam le'Ishto be'Shabbos, Mufar
Lechi, Bateil Lechi'. What he should say is - 'T'li ve'Ichli, T'li u'Shesi',
and the Neder is Batel automatically.
The Tana specifically says 'Lo Yomar Adam le'Ishto be'Shabbos Mufar Lechi,
Bateil Lechi, ke'Derech she'Omer Lah be'Chol' - not because he is obligated
to use this Lashon during the week (because Beis Hillel specifically states
otherwise, as we shall now see), but because it is the Lashon that one
(b) The reason for this is - because like in many other issues, wherever it
is possible to effect a change from the way that one does it on weekdays,
(c) The reason cannot be because of a decree on account of Hataras Nedarim,
which is basically forbidden on Shabbos - because Hataras Nedarim in this
case would be permitted too, since it is a case of Tzorech Shabbos.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan comments on this Beraisa - 've'Tzarich she'Yevatel
(a) Beis Shamai in a Beraisa says 'be'Shabbos Mevatel be'Libo, be'Chol Motzi
bi'Sefasav'. Beis Hillel say 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh, Mevatel be'Libo'.
In spite of what we just learned, that 'Ein Ka'an Neder', or 'I Efshi
she'Taduri' is not a Lashon Hafarah - Beis Hillel permit Bitul be'Leiv in
conjunction with 'T'li ve'Ichli, T'li u'shsi' - because specific Bitul
be'Leiv is better than 'Ein Ka'an Neder' and 'I Efshi she'Taduri', and the
fact that the Hafarah is only be'Leiv is compensated by adding 'T'li
ve'Ichli, T'li u'Shesi'.
(b) This does not mean that Beis Shamai permit Hafaras Nedarim which is not
verbalized on Shabbos, and Beis Hillel, even during the week - because they
both pertain to the previous case, where the husband first said 'T'li
ve'Ichli, T'li u'Shesi' (and they require both, in similar vein to Rebbi
(c) Some have the text (in the second half of Beis Shamai's statement)
've'la'Erev be'Chol Motzi bi'Sefasav' - in which case, Beis Shamai are
saying that after having annulled it in one's heart on Shabbos, he is
obligated to annul it verbally on Motza'ei Shabbos.
(d) We reject this text however - on the basis of Beis Hillel, who say
'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh, Mevatel be'Libo'. According to this explanation,
'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh' is meaningless.