ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 84
(a) We have already quoted the Mishnah later, which discusses the case of
woman who declares 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' - where the Tana rules that
her husband may annul the part of the Neder that affects him, whilst she
remains forbidden to everybody else.
According to both texts, the answer is the same: 'Netulah Ani min
ha'Yehudim' definitely refers specially to Tashmish, and whether a husband
is generally included in 'people' or not, he certainly is here, since
whoever else she had in mind when declaring her Neder, she certainly
included her husband in the prohibition, since he was the only person who
was permitted to her in the first place.
(b) We think at first, that a husband must be included in 'people', because
otherwise, it would fall under the category of Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and her
husband would be able to annul it completely - because we are currently
interpreting 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' to refer to all kinds of Hana'ah
on herself (not specifically Tashmish).
(c) We would not have a problem if a husband would be included in 'people' -
because then 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim' could easily be interpreted to
refer specifically to Tashmish.
(d) According to other texts, we think that if a husband was not included in
'people', the Neder would not require Hafarah at all - because, assuming her
Neder to refer to Tashmish (as the Lashon really implies), there would be no
justification for annulling it, since she would then remain permitted to her
husband anyway, and as far as everyone else is concerned, she is forbidden
to them anyway.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah permits a woman who forbade the Hana'ah of
others upon herself to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah, but not Ma'aser
Ani - which is one tenth of one's crops that one is obligated to give to the
poor every third and sixth year (in place of the Ma'aser Sheini that one ate
oneself in Yerushalayim during the other years of the six-year cycle).
(b) The problem that we have with this from a Beraisa - is that the Tana
there permits her to receive Ma'aser Ani too.
(c) Rav Yosef connects these two opinions to another Machlokes in a Mishnah
in D'mai. Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan there both agree that one is
obligated to separate Ma'aser Rishon and to take Terumas Ma'aser from that.
He then ...
1. ... gives the Terumas Ma'aser to a Kohen.
2. ... eats the remainder of the Ma'aser Rishon himself (because, seeing as
there is no intrinsic Isur is eating it, we apply the principle 'ha'Motzi
me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah').
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the purchaser is not obligated to separate
Ma'aser Ani - according to the Chachamim, he is.
(b) Rav Yosef suggests that they argue over whether Ma'aser Ani is 'Tovel'
or not. What he means is - that according to the Chachamim, one will be
Chayav Misah for eating Tevel of Ma'aser Ani (Vaday), according to Rebbi
Eliezer, he is not.
(c) Rav Yosef connects the Din of Tovel with that of Tovas Hana'ah.
Consequently, the author of our Mishnah (which forbids the woman to eat
Ma'aser Ani), is the Chachamim, who hold that Ma'aser Ani is Tovel, and that
the owner therefore has Tovas Hana'ah in it (and it is as if he was giving
it to the woman). Whereas the author of the Mishnah in D'mai (which permits
it) is Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that Ma'aser Ani is not Tovel and that the
owner has no Tovas Hana'ah in it (in which case it is as if she was taking
it from Hefker).
(d) There is no significance in the Lashon 'ka'Savar *S'feiko* Eino Tovel'.
We use this Lashon - only because our Sugya is talking about Safek, not to
imply that Vaday Ma'aser Ani is Tovel.
(a) The Torah writes in Emor "ve'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael Asher
Yarimu la'Hashem". What we learn from ...
1. ... "Asher Yarimu" - is that the Pasuk is speaking about Tevel (from
which the owner has yet to separate certain Ma'asros [implying that he is
obligated to do so]).
(b) The logic behind the opinion that holds 'Ma'aser Ani Eino Tovel' is -
that seeing as one is not Chayav Misah for eating Ma'aser Ani that has been
separated, how can one be Chayav for eating Tevel of Ma'aser Ani, before it
has been separated?
2. ... "ve'Lo Yechalelu" (by feeding them to Zarim) - is that it is also
speaking about something that is Tovel.
3. ... the combination of the two D'rashos is - that whatever is Tovel, the
owner is obligated to separate and that he has Tovas Hana'ah in it.
(c) By the same token, we have no problem with saying that Terumah is
Tovel - seeing as one is Chayav Misah for eating Terumah that has been
(d) Others learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "*Lo Suchal* Le'echol
*bi'She'arecha* ... " "ve'Achlu *bi'She'arecha* ve'Savei'u" (in connection
with Ma'aser Ani) - that the first Pasuk, which prohibits eating Tevel in
its various forms, incorporates Ma'aser Ani (which the second Pasuk is
speaking about), and that consequently, one is Chayav Misah for eating Tevel
of Ma'aser Ani only (just like he would be for eating Tevel of Terumah).
(a) Abaye rejects Rav Yosef's explanation. According to him, both our
Mishnah [and the Chachamim] (which forbids the woman to eat Ma'aser Ani)
and the Beraisa [and Rebbi Eliezer] (which permits it) hold that S'feiko
Tovel. The Tana of the Beraisa (as well as Rebbi Eliezer) permit the woman
to eat it - on the grounds that even Amei ha'Aretz generally separate
Ma'aser Ani from their crops (and there is therefore no Din of D'mai by
(b) What makes us so certain that the Am ha'Aretz separated Ma'aser Ani - is
the fact that effectively, he does not sustain any real loss by doing so,
because if he wanted, he could declare his property Hefker and take the
Ma'aser Ani for himself.
(c) Abaye cannot say that both Tana'im agree that 'S'feiko Eino Tovel' -
because then, why would the Rabbanan obligate the owner to separate Ma'aser
Ani (and why would the Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer forbid the woman to eat
(a) Rava correlates the Pasuk in Ki Savo "ve'Nasata la'Levi, la'Ger ... ',
and that in Re'ei "ve'Hinachta bi'She'arecha ve'Savei'u" - by establishing
the former by Ma'aser Ani which the owner has brought into his house, and
which he is now required to actively give to the poor, and the latter, by
Ma'aser Ani which is still lying in the granary, which he is obligated to
leave where it is, for the poor to help themselves.
(b) He then uses this corollary to resolve the discrepancy between our
Mishnah, which forbids the woman to eat Ma'aser Ani - because it is speaking
about Ma'aser Ani which the owner has already taken into his house (and on
which he has Tovas Hana'ah, as we just explained); and the Beraisa, which
permits it - because it is speaking about Ma'aser Ani which is still lying
in the granary (and which is like Hefker for the poor to help themselves).
(a) We can infer from 'the Reisha' of our Mishnah 'Kohanim u'Levi'im Nehenim
Li, Yitlu al Korcho' that Tovas Hana'ah Einah Mamon. The 'Seifa' however,
states - Kohanim Eilu, u'Levi'im Eilu Nehenim Li, Yitlu Acheirim' clearly
holds 'Tovas Hana'ah Mamon'.
We have now resolved the discrepancy between the 'Reisha' of our Mishnah
(which permits Kohanim to eat from the Noder's property) and the 'Seifa'
(which forbids it) - by establishing the Reisha like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi
Yehudah (who holds 'Tovas Hana'ah Einah Mamon'), and the Seifa like Rebbi
(who holds 'Tovas Hana'ah Mamon').
(b) We resolve this by making it a Machlokes Tana'im (by trying to connect
it to another Machlokes Tana'im, as we shall now see).
(c) According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, someone who steals his friend's Tevel
and eats it, is obligated to pay for everything that he ate. Considering
that part of what he ate is Chulin, and part Ma'asros, he obviously means -
that he pays for the Chulin in full and the and for the Ma'asros according
to the Tovas Hana'ah that he has in them.
(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says - that he only needs to pay for the
Chulin that he ate, but not for the Ma'asros.