ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 38
(a) The B'nei Ma'arava (the B'nei Eretz Yisrael) - divided the Pasuk
"Vayomer Hashem el Moshe, Hinei Anochi Ba Eilecha be'Av he'Anan ... " into
(b) Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk "P'sal Lecha" - that
the chippings of sapphire from which the Luchos were carved belonged to
(c) And in conjuction with the above Pasuk, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina
learns from the Pasuk there "K'sav Lecha" - that (following the sin of the
Golden Calf) the entire Torah was only given to Moshe.
(d) The connection between this Pasuk and the Pasuk in Mishlei "Tov Ayin Hu
Yevorach" is - that Moshe generously shared it with the rest of Yisrael.
(a) We therefore reinterpret Moshe's words "ve'Osi Tzivah Hashem ba'Eis
ha'Hi Lelamed Eschem" and "Re'ei Limadti Eschem Chukim u'Mishpatim", which
seem to imply that Hashem commanded Moshe to teach Yisrael Torah (as we
learned on the previous Daf) - to mean "Hashem commanded me, and I commanded
(b) We initially think that "ve'Ata Kisvu *Lachem* es ha'Shirah ha'Zos" is
confined to Shiras Ha'azinu only. We finally refute this entire explanation
however, from the continuation of the Pasuk "Lema'an Tihyeh Li ha'Shirah
ha'Zos le'Eid". Now - if the Torah was not given to K'lal Yisrael by Hashem,
then what sort of testimony would the Shirah later testify (seeing as they
had only accepted it voluntarily)?
(c) The Pasuk "Tov Ayin Hu Yevorach" - refers to Moshe Rabeinu with regard
to the Pilpul of Torah, which he received on Har Sinai, and then generously
taught to K'lal Yisrael.
(a) The four attributes that Rebbi Yochanan lists as prerequisites to
prophesy are - strength, wealth, wisdom and humility.
(b) We learn all of these from Moshe. We have already learned about Moshe's
excessive wealth. His immense strength cannot be proved from the fact that
he was able to erect the Mishkon single-handedly- since he might have been
exceptionally tall, without being exceptionally strong.
(c) We learn that Moshe was exceptionally strong - from the fact that he was
able to hold the two Luchos, which were made of sapphire and each of which
measured six by six by three Amos.
(a) Rav and Shmuel learn from the Pasuk "Vatechasreihu Me'at me'Elokim" -
that Moshe was acquainted with all but one of the fifty 'Gates of Knowledge'
that Hashem created, proving Moshe's exceptional wisdom.
(b) The significance of the one 'Gate of Knowledge' that remained closed to
him - was that he knew everything except the essence of G-d Himself.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan lists four Nevi'im from whom we learn that all the
prophets were wealthy. The implications of Moshe's statement in Korach "Lo
Chamor Echad Meihem Nasa'si" are - that he even declined to rent animals
from them when he needed them. It does not prove however, that Moshe (the
first of the four) was wealthy, because it might well have been an
indication of his poverty (because he could not afford to pay for them), and
not of his wealth.
(b) Rava interprets the Pasuk "u'Teshuvaso ha'Ramasah Ki Sham Beiso" to
mean - that wherever Shmuel (the second of the four) went, he carried his
house with him, meaning that, due to his wealth, he always traveled with all
his traveling requirements, and that he never needed to come on to anybody.
(c) According to Rava - Shmuel was even greater than Moshe, inasmuch as
Moshe would never force anyone to rent him anything, but he *would* rent
from them with their full approval; whereas Shmuel had a policy not to do
(d) Shmuel's reason for adopting this policy was - the fear that people
might sometimes acquiesce to rent him something only out of embarrassment.
(a) Amos was the third of the four prophets in Rebbi Yochanan's list.
Rebbi Yochanan draws this information from Rav Yosef's Targum - who explains
the Pasuk "Ki Boker Ana u'Bo'leis Shikmin" 'Because I am the owner of cattle
and of Shikmin trees in the lowlands.
(b) The fourth is Yonah. Rebbi Yochanan explains the Pasuk "Vayitein
S'charah ve'Yarad Bah" to mean - that Yonah paid the full rental for the
boat for the entire trip, a sum of four thousand golden Dinrim.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk in "Vayitein el Moshe ke'Chaloso
Ledaber Ito" - that until that point, Moshe was learning the Torah and
forgetting it, until Hashem presented it to him as a gift (like a Chasan to
a Kalah - see Agados Maharsha).
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah permits the Madir to feed the wife and children
of the Mudar - only if he does so in order to perform a Mitzvah, but not if
he intends to pay the husband's debt.
(b) The reason that it is permitted is because the Madir is performing a
Mitzvah, and the Mudar's benefit is only G'rama (as we have already learned
a number of times).
(c) We need to say this - in order to establish the Mishnah even according
to the Rabbanan of Chanan. Otherwise, the author would have to be Chanan,
who permits all cases of 'Mavri'ach Ari'.
(a) The Madir is not however, permitted to feed the Mudar's animals -
because that will raise their value and benefit the Mudar.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer differentiates between Kasher animals and non-Kasher
ones - he forbids feeding the former, but permits the latter.
(c) He explained this distinction to the Chachamim - because, he said,
fattening the former, improves the quality of the meat for the Mudar to eat,
but permits the latter, which he will not eat anyway.
(d) They countered his argument - by pointing out, that even if he cannot
eat the animal, he can sell it a Nochri or feed it to his dogs, and by
feeding it, the Madir has raised its value for those purposes.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer's leniency is restricted to *fattening* non-Kasher
animals, but does not extend to feeding them. He ...
1. ... is bound to agree that feeding them is forbidden - because it is an
undeniable fact that a fed animal is worth more than one that is starved
(and that is bound to die).
(b) He argues S'tam without speficying this distinction - because he is
merely responding to the Chachamim, who forbid all animals outright, even
non-Kasher ones. To which he replies that sometimes, non-Kasher animals are
2. ... argue with the Chachamim and permits fattening - because, in his
opinion, a non-Kasher animal's chief function is for working with, in which
case, fattening it lowers its value rather than raising it.
(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Chananyah states 'ha'Mudar Hana'ah me'Chaveiro, Mutar
Lehasi Lo Bito'. The problem that Rebbi Zeira had with this statement if it
was referring to ...
1. ... the Madir giving his daughter to the Mudar, is - that considering
that he is giving him 'a servant to serve him', how can it possibly be
(b) We establish the case when it is the Madir giving his daughter to the
Mudar, but when she is a Bogeres (not a Na'arah, as we thought until now) -
in which case, he is not giving the Mudar anything, seeing as it is his
daughter's Da'as that is required, and not his.
2. ... the Madir marrying the daughter of the Mudar, is - that seeing as our
Mishnah permits even feeding the Mudar's wife and daughter whilst they are
still under his jurisdiction, it goes without saying that he may feed them
when after they have left it.
(c) 'u'mi'Da'atah' might be the reason for the Halachah (as we just
explained). It might also come to exclude when the Chasan made the Madir a
Sheli'ach, when it will be forbidden.
(a) If someone is Madir his son to Torah-study - he is not permitted to
derive any benefit from him that will take his mind off his studies, but
small chores such as kindling a light for him or frying him a small fish,
(b) According to the Yerushalmi, the son is permitted to buy his mother or
his father (if he is an important person) something from the store, (seeing
as they are not [at least they were not] accustomed to visiting the store.
Consequently, it is evident that this was not intended to be included in the
Neder). He is not however, permitted to do so on behalf of his father who is
a regular citizen, and who regularly attends the store himself.
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Rebbi Yochanan permits a Madir to give the Mudar the
Kos shel Shalom. In Bavel, this was interpreted to refer to handing an Aveil
a cup of wine - in Eretz Yisrael, they interpreted it to refer to the cup of
hot water that they would hand to each bather (see Rosh), both of which are
permitted because of Darkei Shalom.
(d) These concessions will only apply - if the cup or the object that the
Madir is handing to the Mudar belongs to the Mudar, but not if it is the
(a) Yehoshua Ish Uza permits feeding the Mudar's slaves but not his
animals - meaning that he is permitted to feed his slaves excessive food
(but not what they need to live on - which is considered Hana'ah).
Overfeeding them on the other hand, makes them fat and lazy, and is not
considered a Hana'ah for the owner.
(b) In his opinion, Rebbi Eliezer agrees that non-Kasher animals stand to be
sold (and are therefore forbidden for him to feed just like Kasher animals).
When he says 'Avadav ve'Shifchosav li'Menachrusa Avdin' - he means that when
they die, they will be torn up (and not eaten - meaning that, as opposed to
non-Kasher animals, once they die, they have no use).
(c) Others have the text 'li'Menakrusa' Avdinan' - in which case Yehoshua
Ish Uza means that the owner needs them to tidy the house (in which case
overfeeding them is not a favor).