ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 25
(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana states that the Beis-Din would clarify to the
person taking an oath that they were making him swear, not by his personal
understanding (referring to someone who changed something to suit his
interpretation), but according to what Hashem and they had in mind. They
were speaking to - a person who was about to make a Shevu'as Modeh
be'Miktzas (which is a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa).
The Shevu'ah there must have been one of 'Modeh be'Miktzas' and not 'Kofer
ba'Kol' (as the Lashon suggests) - because the Shevu'ah by Kofer ba'Kol
(known as a Shevu'as Heses), is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and does not require
holding a Sefer-Torah.
(b) We initially explain this Beraisa - to preclude someone who paid back
part of the loan with 'money' (a title that he was now ascribing to the
wooden chips 'Askundri' that he gave his creditor). This poses a Kashya on
Rav Ashi, in whose opinion such a Shevu'ah would be automatically void,
seeing as that is not Hashem and Beis-Din did refer to wooden chips.
(c) In fact, we conclude, Beis-Din come to preclude the case of 'Kanya
de'Rava' - where the debtor filled his cane with coins amounting to half the
loan, and went to Beis-Din, where the creditor claimed his debt. After
countering that he already paid him half, he asked the creditor to hold his
cane whilst he held a Sefer-Torah and swore that he had given him half his
(d) Beis-Din discovered the truth - when, in his anger, the creditor broke
the cane, and all the money fell out.
(a) In view of the fact that the Torah in Nitzavim already writes "Ki es
Asher Yeshno Poh ... ve'es Asher Einenu Poh ... ', says the Tana in the
Beraisa, the Pasuk "ve'Lo Itchem Levadchem" must be coming to teach us -
that Hashem's oath was not subject to each person's interpretation ("and not
what is with you in your hearts"), but according to what He and the Beis-Din
had in mind.
(b) Initially, we explain this to preclude those who claim that they
undertook to serve 'Elokah', and that what they really meant was some other
god whom they called by that name, posing a Kashya on Rav Ashi. But we
reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Ashi - by explaining that other gods are also
called 'Elo'ah' (as we find in Bo - "u've'Chol Elohei Mitzrayim E'eseh
Shefatim ... "). Consequently, he is not lending his own interpretation to
anything, but is using one that is commonly accepted, in which case, it has
nothing to do with Rav Ashi's ruling.
(c) Moshe did not make them swear that they would keep ...
1. ... 'Torah' - because 'Torah' implies the written Torah only.
(d) Nor did he make them swear that they would keep ...
2. ... 'Toros' - because 'Toros' implies 'the Torah of a Minchah, of a
Chatas and of an Asham ... '.
3. ... 'Mitzvos' - because 'Mitzvos' implies the commands of the king.
4. ... 'Kol Mitzvos' - because 'Kol Mitzvos' implies the Mitzvah of Tzitzis,
which is compared to all the (Mitzvos Asei of the) Torah.
1. ... 'Toros and Mitzvos' - since that implies the Korbanos and the
commands of the king.
2. ... 'Torah Kulah' - which implies that they will not serve idols, since
Avodah-Zarah is compared to all (the Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh of the) Torah.
(a) We conclude that Moshe could well have said 'Avodas-Kochavim ve'Torah
Kulah' - or 'the Taryag Mitzvos'.
(b) The reason that he said 've'Lo Itchem Levadchem" is - because it is more
incorporating (though it is not clear how).
(a) Our Mishnah presumes that there is no such thing as a snake like (which
we intially take to mean) a beam from the oil-press. We query this however,
from a snake that lived in the days of Shavur Malka, King of Persia - which
would eat thirteen stables-full of straw.
(b) So we explain Koros Beis-ha'Bad to refer to cracks, on which we ask
further that all snakes have cracks. We answer - that all snakes have cracks
on their necks, whereas the Tana is referring to cracks on their backs.
(c) The Tana needs to describe the cracks like 'Koros Beis-ha'Bad' (rather
than to just say 'Ra'isi Nachash Taruf') - to teach us that the beams of the
Beis-ha'Bad are expected to contain cracks, so that someone who sells such a
beam, must make sure that it does.
(d) The Yerushalmi interpret's 'Taruf' - as square (i.e. flat, rather than
round - Rosh).
(a) The two cases of Nidrei Shegagos mentioned in our Mishnah are: 'Konem Im
Achalti, ve'Im Shasisi ve Nizkar she'Achal ve'Shasah' - and 'she'Ani Ochel
ve'she'Ani Shoseh', ve'Shacach ve'Achal ve'Shasah'.
(b) The basic differfence between the two cases is - the fact that, in the
first case (which irefers to the past), he was a Shogeg already at the time
when he declared the Neder, whereas in the second case, he became a Shogeg
only at the time when he was supposed to fulfill it.
(a) We already discussed the case of Konem Ishti Nehenis Li she'Ganvah es
Kis'i ... ve'Noda she'Lo Ganvah'. In the case that follows, he saw people
eating his figs, and had already said 'Harei Aleichem Korban' - when he
discovered that his father and his brother were among those partaking. At
that point, he announced that, had he known that they were among those
partaking, he would have worded his Neder differently, as will be explained
in the Sugya.
(b) Beis Shamai say 'Hein Mutarim, u'Mah she'Imahem Asurim' - because they
hold 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Lo Hutar Kulo'.
(c) Beis Hillel hold 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar Kulo'. Consequently,
the Neder is void.
(d) The reason that in this last case, the Neder is void (according to Beis
Hillel) even though the Noder did not mention his father or brothers at all,
whereas in the case of 'Konem Ishti Nehenis Li ... ', the Neder is void
only if he specifically concluded 'she'Ganvah es Kis'i' - because in the
former case, the Noder would have precluded his father and brother
completely from the Neder (in which case, 'there was an error in the Ikar
Neder', to which one could apply the principle 'Ein Piv ve'Libo Shavin);
whereas in the latter case, the Neder pertained to his wife in any case,
only it required qualification (in which case, as far as the Ikar Neder is
concerned, it was a matter of 'Piv ve'Lbo Shavin').
(a) The Tana in the Beraisa compares Shevu'os Shegagos to Nidrei Shegagos.
The case of Shevu'os Shegagos that involved Rav Kahana and Rav Asi was -
when they both quoted Rav, but the one swore that Rav had said this, and the
other swore that he had said that (since each one swore in good faith, it is
considered 'Nidrei Shegagos').
(b) On the assumption that Shevu'os Shegagos apply in exactly the equivalent
case to Nidrei Shegagos, we ask 'Heichi Dami Shevu'os Shegagos', not because
we are looking for the appropriate case - but to discover the extent of
(c) The Chidush of the case of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi is then - the fact it
falls into the category of Nidrei Shegagos, despite the fact that each one
warned the other one that he was making a mistake.
(a) When the Tana says in a Mishnah in 'Rebbi Eliezer' 'Poschin be'Shabbasos
u've'Yamim-Tovim' - he means that if the Noder tells the Chacham that, had
he realised that his Neder contravenes K'vod Shabbos and Yom-Tov, he would
not have declared it, that is a good Pesach.
(b) This Neder requires a Pesach - because there was no error in the Ikar
Neder (seeing as he knew when he declared his initial Neder, that Shabbos
and Yom-Tov were included); whilst the Neder of Beis Hillel in our Mishnah
does not - because there was an error in the Ikar Neder (since he was
unaware that his father and brother were among those partaking of the figs -
as we explained in the Mishnah).
(c) Initially, they would revoke the Neder of someone who had his Neder
annulled on the basis of K'vod Shabbos and Yom-Tov only as regards Shabbos
and Yom-Tov, but not as far as during the week was concerned. This changed -
with the advent of Rebbi Akiva, who taught that 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso,
Hutar Kulo' (like Beis Hillel).
(a) With regard to the case of Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, Rabah makes a
distinction between when the Noder says 'Had I known I would have said 1.
... 'Kulchem Asurim Chutz me'Aba'! - where Beis Hillel will agree that all
the others are forbidden (since he only altered the contents of his original
Neder, but not the Lashon); and when he continued 2. ... 'P'loni u'P'loni
Asurin ve'Aba Mutar', where he altered both the contents and the Lashon,
that they argue with Beis Shamai.
(b) Beis Hillel argue in the latter case (to hold like Rebbi Akiva), even
though they agree with Beis Shamai (and the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva) in the
former case - because they require the error to be both in the contents of
the Neder and in the Lashon before it can be included in Nidrei Shegagos, as
we just explained.