REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 87
NEDARIM 87 & 88 (First days of Sukos) - dedicated by Mrs. G. Turkel (Rabbi
Kornfeld's grandmother), an exceptional woman who accepted all of Hashem's
Gezeiros with love and who loved and respected the study of Torah. Tehei
Nafshah Tzerurah bi'Tzror ha'Chaim.
(a) On the assumption that "Al" has the same connotations as "Osah" ad "Lo",
how will we explain the Pasuk concerning the Mitzvah of Keri'ah "Al Shaul
ve'Al Yehonasan B'no"?
(b) Then how will we explain the Beraisa 'Amru Lo Meis Aviv ve'Kara,
ve'Achar-Kach Nimtza B'no, Yatza Yedei Keri'ah'? Why can we not learn from
there that "Al" (and subsequently "Osah" and Lo" too) does not come to teach
us the above D'rashah?
(c) How do we know that this answer is correct?
(d) What will therefore be the Halachah if someone hears a woman make a
Neder, and without knowing whether it was his wife or his daughter who made
it, he annuls it, and then discovers that it was the one or the other?
(a) Rav Ashi differentiates between Toch K'dei Dibur and le'Achar K'dei
What does he say?
(b) Seeing as Rav Ashi is unlikely to disagree with a Beraisa, why does he
offer a new answer?
(c) What does the Beraisa rule in connection with someone who tore Keri'ah,
because he believed his relative to have already died, but the relative died
(d) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi comment on
(a) There are only four exceptions to the rule of 'Toch K'dei Dibur ke'Dibur
Dami'. Two of them are Megadef and Oved Avodas Kochamim.
What are the
(b) What do we mean when we say by these four 'Toch K'dei Dibur La'av
ke'Dibur Dami'? What are the cases?
(c) How come that in 'Yesh Nochlin', we only reckon two of them (Avodas
Kochavim and Kidushin)? Do the two Sugyos argue?
(d) Why are these four cases different than all other cases regarding Toch
(a) What source does the Ramban quoting Rabeinu Tam give for 'Toch K'dei
Dibur ke'Dibur Dami'?
(b) On what grounds do we disagree with him?
(a) What will be the Din if a woman forbids figs and grapes on herself, and
her husband *upholds* just the Neder on figs?
Answers to questions
(b) Should he *annul* just the Neder pertaining to figs, the Neder is not
annulled until he annuls the Neder on the grapes as well.
What are the two
ways of explaining this latter Halachah?
(c) What does the Tana say about a woman who says 'Konem Te'einah she'Ani
To'emes, va'Anavah she'Ani To'emes'?
(d) What are the ramifications of this statement? Does it mean that her
husband cannot annul them simultaneously?
(a) The author of our Mishnah (who says that a woman's Neder is not annulled
until her husband annuls the entire Neder) is Rebbi Yishmael, who argues
with Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa.
On what basis do we therefore change the text of the Chachamim quoted by
Rebbi Yochanan to read 'Mah Hafarah, Mah she'Hafer, Lo Hafer' (or 'Hufar')?
What does Rebbi Akiva say?
(b) They both agree that 'Iyshah Yekimenu' implies even part of the Neder,
whereas 'Iyshah Yeferenu' implies only the entire Neder (because otherwise,
the Torah should have written "Yafer Mimenu").
Then what is the basis of
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba cites a third opinion.
What do the Chachamim say?
(d) How can we extrapolate from the Chachamim's words, that when the Tana in
our Mishnah said 'Hafer li'Te'einim, Eino Mufar', he means that the entire
Neder is not Mufar, but the part concerning figs, is (as opposed to saying
that it is not annulled at all)?
The author of our Mishnah ('Konem Te'einah she'Ani To'emes, va'Anavah
she'Ani To'emes Harei Eilu Sh'nei Nedarim') is Rebbi Shimon.
Rebbi Shimon say (about someone who says to five claimants 'Shevu'ah she'Ein
Lecha be'Yadi, ve'Lo Lecha, ve'Lo Lecha ... '? What would he need to say to
be considered two Nedarim?
(a) What will be the Din if a husband concedes that he had known about
Nedarim, but that he had been unaware that he had the authority to annul
(b) Should he concede that he was even aware of his authority to annul
Nedarim, but not that the Neder that his wife had made was in the category
of Nedarim that were subject to Hafarah, Rebbi Meir forbids him to annul it.
This seems to mean that he cannot annul it at all.
(c) What do the Rabbanan say?
(d) Others explain that what Rebbi Meir means is that he cannot annul the
Neder on the following day, but up until the night-time of the day that he
discovers that the Neder concerned is subject to nullification, he remains
permitted to annul it (even though it was no longer the day on which his
wife declared it.
What is ...
- ... now Rebbi Meir's reason?
- ... the reason of the Rabbanan, who even permit him to annul the Neder on the following day, because his partial knowledge of the previous day is not considered knowledge?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah, in a Beraisa, Darshens the Pasuk in Mas'ei (with regard
to someone who killed be'Shogeg) "be'Lo Re'os" to preclude a blind man.
How does he (initially) extrapolate this from there?
(b) Rebbi Meir says 'Lerabos es ha'Suma'.
How does he (initially)
extrapolate his opinion from the same words?
(c) Assuming the first explanation in our Mishnah (that according to Rebbi
Meir, the husband who has only partial knowledge, cannot annul his wife's
Neder at all, whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, he can), what discrepancy
now appears between the opinion in our Mishnah and his opinion in the
- ... of Rebbi Meir?
- ... of Rebbi Yehudah?
(a) According to the second Lashon (that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the
husband who has only partial knowledge, can nevertheless annul the Nedarim
after he discovers that they are subject to Hafarah, only until nightfall),
whereas according to the Rabbanan [Rebbi Yehudah], he can even annul the
Nedarim on the following day), why is there no discrepancy between what the
latter says in the Beraisa and what he says in our Mishnah?
(b) The two rulings of Rebbi Meir however, appear to clash, because in our
Mishnah, he does not consider a partial knowledge to be knowledge, whereas
in the Beraisa, he does.
Where in our Mishnah does Rebbi Meir hold that a
partial knowledge is not knowledge? Why then does he say in the Seifa 'Lo
(c) If, as it appears, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah learn their respective
opinions from their understanding of the words "be'Lo Re'os" (rendering it a
Gezeiras ha'Kasuv), why should that then contradict their opinions in our
Mishnah regarding Nedarim (which are based on S'varos)?
(a) We answer 'Hacha me'Inyana di'Kera (ve'Hacha me'Inyana di'Kera'). In
fact, each one learns from a different word in the Pasuk in Shoftim
"va'Asher Yavo es Re'eihu ba'Ya'ar".
Answers to questions
How does ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Ya'ar" that a blind person is automatically
included in the Chiyuv Galus (explaining why he needs "be'Lo Re'os" to
(b) What does Rebbi Meir hold intrinsically? Is a partial knowledge
considered knowledge or not?
2. ... Rebbi Meir learn from "bi'V'li Da'as" that he is automatically Patur?
(c) Which principle enables us to learn that a blind person is Chayav from
Galus from the two Pesukim "bi'V'li Da'as" and "be'Lo Re'os"?