POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nedarim 36
NEDARIM 36 - dedicated anonymously in honor of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, and in
honor of those who study the Dafyomi around the world.
1) FOR WHOM DO KOHANIM SERVE?
(a) Question (Rav Simi Bar Aba - Beraisa): A Kohen may throw
for (one that vowed not to benefit from the Kohen) the
blood of his sin-offering or guilt-offering.
2) THE CONSENT REQUIRED FOR SACRIFICES
(b) Answer: This refers to the sin and guilt-offerings of a
leper (atonement sacrifices) - "This is the law of the
leper" (whether an adult or minor).
(c) (Mishnah): Kohanim that Piglu (offered sacrifices with
improper intent, e.g. to eat from them after the allowed
time) - if this was intentional, they must compensate the
owner of the sacrifice.
1. We infer, if it was unintentional, they need not
pay, but the sacrifice is Pigul (an abomination).
(d) Question: According to the opinion that they are agents
of Yisrael - it should not be Pigul!
2. This fits well according to the opinion that Kohanim
are agents of Hash-m.
1. The owner can say, you were only my agent to help
me, not to hurt me!
(e) Answer: Even though they are agents of Yisrael, Pigul is
an exception - the Torah said "He will not Yechashev
(think; it will be considered) to him" - in any case, it
(a) (R. Yochanan): Every sacrifice requires the consent of
the one for whom it is brought, except for atonement
sacrifices, for a man may bring these for his children
that are minors.
3) SEPARATION OF TERUMAH
(b) Question: According to this, a person should be able to
bring a sin-offering for his friend that ate Chelev, just
as a man brings this for his wife if she is insane, as R.
1. But R. Elazar said, if a person separated a
sin-offering for his friend, this has no effect!
(c) Counter-question #1: What is the case of a sin-offering
for an insane wife?
1. Suggestion: If she ate while insane - no sacrifice
is brought for this!
(d) Counter-question #2: According to R. Yochanan, a person
should be able to bring a Pesach sacrifice for his
friend, for he can bring for his minor children!
2. Suggestion: She ate while sane, and later became
3. Rejection: R. Yochanan taught, if a (sane) man ate
Chelev, separated his sin-offering, became insane,
and returned to sanity, the animal is disqualified -
since it was unfitting to bring while he was insane,
it is forever unfitting.
i. (We conclude, the one who asked question (b)
holds that we can learn from cases which are
impossible, such as a sin-offering on behalf of
an insane person).
1. But R. Elazar taught, one who separated a Pesach
sacrifice for his friend - this has no effect!
(e) Answer (R. Zeira): "A lamb for the household" (the law
that a man brings for his minor children) is only
(f) Question: How does he know this?
(g) Answer (Mishnah): A man told his children, I am
slaughtering the Pesach sacrifice on behalf of whoever is
first to ascend to Yerushalayim. Once one of them enters,
he acquires his portion, and acquires on behalf of his
1. If mid'Oraisa, the children must be enumerated on
the sacrifice - the acquisition could not work after
(h) Question: If so, why did he tell his children that the
acquisition will be through the 1st to ascend?
(i) Answer: To train them to zealously perform Mitzvos.
1. (Beraisa): It happened, the daughters ascended
before the boys - they were zealous, the boys were
(a) (Mishnah): He may separate Terumah for him ...
(b) Question: For Reuven to separate Terumah for Shimon -
does he need Shimon's consent?
4) IS LEARNING CONSIDERED BENEFIT?
1. Do we say, since this is advantageous for Shimon,
his consent is not needed?
(c) Answer (Mishnah): He may separate Terumah and Ma'aser for
him with his consent ...
2. Or, perhaps he prefers to do the Mitzvah himself!
(d) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: Reuven separates parts of Shimon's
produce to be Terumah to exempt the rest of Shimon's
(e) Answer: Rather, we must say that Reuven separates his own
produce to be Terumah to exempt Shimon's produce.
2. Question: Whose consent does he have?
i. Suggestion: If Reuven's - the separation is
invalid, for he was not made an agent to do
ii. Suggestion: If Shimon's - but this gives Shimon
pleasure, that Reuven fulfills his mission!
(f) Question: Whose consent does he have?
1. Suggestion: If Shimon's - but this gives Shimon
pleasure, that Reuven fulfills his mission!
(g) Answer: Rather, Reuven's - we see, Shimon's consent is
(h) Rejection: Really, he took the Terumah from Shimon's
1. The case is as Rava said (elsewhere) - Shimon said,
'Whoever wants to separate Terumah may do so'.
(i) Question (R. Yirmiyah): If Reuven separates his produce
to be Terumah to exempt Shimon - who decides which Kohen
1. If not for Reuven's produce, Shimon's produce would
(j) Answer #1 (R. Zeira): "All the produce of your seed you
will give" (the giving is dependent on the owner of the
produce being exempted).
2. Or - do we say, if not for Shimon's produce,
Reuven's produce would not become Terumah!
1. Question (Mishnah): He may separate Terumah and
Ma'aser for him with his consent ...
(k) Answer #2 (R. Avahu): The one who made an object Hekdesh
adds the fifth when he redeems it; the one getting
atonement from a sacrifice can make Temurah from it; if
Reuven makes his produce Terumah to exempt Shimon's
produce, Reuven decides to which Kohen it will go.
i. If Shimon decides which Kohen gets it, Reuven
benefits Shimon (since the Terumah was from
2. Answer: Really, the Terumah was from Shimon's
produce; the case is, Shimon said, 'Whoever wants to
separate Terumah may do so'.
ii. Rather, it must be that Reuven decides!
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven may teach Shimon Medrash, laws and
Agadata, but not written Torah.
(b) Rhetorical question: Why can't he teach him written Torah
- because he benefits him?
(c) Question: The same applies to Medrash!
(d) Answer (Shmuel): The Mishnah is in a place where people
take money for teaching written Torah, but not for
(e) Question: Why should the Mishnah assume that is the case?