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 46
NEDARIM 46 - has been dedicated in memory of Mrs. Gisela Turkel
(Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer) at the completion of the
Shiv'a, by her grandchildren Rachel and Oz Mandelbort and her
great-grandchildren, Yisroel Aryeh and Talya. Her Yahrzeit: 25
1) HOW VOWS AFFECT PARTNERSHIPS
(a) Both partners are forbidden to set up in the courtyard a
grinder, oven, or to raise chickens;
2) IN WHICH CASE DO THEY ARGUE?
(b) If only Reuven was forbidden by a vow to benefit from his
partner, he may not enter the courtyard; R. Eliezer Ben
Yakov permits him, for he can say that he is entering his
1. We force the one who vowed to sell his portion.
(c) If someone else (not a partner) was forbidden to benefit
from one of the partners, he may not enter the courtyard;
R. Eliezer Ben Yakov permits him, for he can say that he
is entering the other partner's portion.
(d) Reuven vowed not to get benefit from Shimon; Shimon has a
bathhouse or olive press rented out.
1. If Shimon still has control on it, Reuven may not
use it; if he does not, Reuven may use it.
(e) Reuven said to Shimon 'It is forbidden for me to enter
your house or buy your field' - if Shimon died or sold
them, Reuven is permitted;
(f) If Reuven said 'It is forbidden for me to enter this
house or buy this field' - if the owner died or sold
them, Reuven is forbidden.
(a) (Gemara): Chachamim and R. Eliezer Ben Yakov argue when
each partner vowed not to benefit from the other;
(b) Question: Do they argue when each vowed that the other
should not benefit from him?
1. Perhaps Chachamim agree that in such a case, they
are permitted, for they are Ones (each was forbidden
against his will)?
(c) Answer (Mishnah): If only Reuven was forbidden by
(Shimon's) vow ... - and Chachamim argue!
2. Or, perhaps they argue even when they forbade each
(d) Rejection: That is no proof - the Mishnah reads, 'If only
Reuven was forbidden to benefit' (which could mean that
Reuven himself vowed).
1. Presumably, this is correct - the Mishnah continues,
'We force the one who vowed to sell his portion.'
(e) Question: If Shimon forbade Reuven to get benefit, why
should we force Reuven to sell - he is blameless!
2. If Reuven himself vowed, we understand why he must
sell his portion.
(f) Opinion #1 (Rabah): They only argue when the field is
large enough that it is standing to be divided; if not,
all agree that they are permitted.
(g) Question (Rav Yosef): But a Shul is not standing to be
divided, yet a Mishnah teaches that they are forbidden in
property of the city!
(h) Opinion #2 (Rav Yosef): They only argue when the field is
not large enough that it is standing to be divided; if it
is standing to be divided, all agree that they are
(i) (Rav Huna and R. Elazar): The law is as R. Eliezer Ben
(j) (Mishnah): Reuven vowed not to get benefit from Shimon;
Shimon has a bathhouse ...
(k) Question: What is considered having control on it?
(l) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Shimon receives 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4
of the profits - but not less than this.
(m) Answer #2 (Abaye): Even if Shimon receives less!
(n) Question: According to Abaye, what is the case when
Reuven is permitted?
(o) Answer: Shimon receives a fixed rental.