ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 63
(a) According to Rebbi Meir, the date on which the first Revi'ah is due is on the
third of Marcheshvan, and the second, on the seventh; according to Rebbi Yehudah, the
first is due on the seventh and the second on the seventeenth. The date of the third
rainfall, according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir is - the twenty-third of Marcheshvan.
(b) The three rain seasons according to Rebbi Yossi - are the seventeenth of
Marcheshvan, the twenty-third and Rosh Chodesh Kislev.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah is also - the twenty-third of Marcheshvan.
(c) The significance of the first date is to ask for rain. Rebbi Yossi states the
significance of the third one - as being that, should there still be no rain, the
Talmidei-Chachamim begin a series of fasts (as described in Maseches Ta'anis).
(d) The significance of the middle date - is regarding Noder (as we learned in our
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says in a Beraisa that rain that began to fall on the
first of the three dates and subsequently fell for seven consecutive days - is
counted as two rainfalls, the first and the second.
(b) He can only hold like Rebbi Yossi (because according to Rebbi Meir, there are
only four days between the two dates, and according to Rebbi Yossi, there are ten).
(c) Raban Shimon's statement is quite unnecessary from his own point of view -
because whether the Noder said 'ad ha'Geshem' or 'ad ha'Geshamim', he goes after the
date hat the rain is due and not the actual rainfall itself.
(d) What he is therefore saying to the Rabbanan is - 'Won't you at least agree with
me that seeing as you go after the actual rainfall, this seven-day rain counts as two
seasons (despite the fact that it fell consecutively), and that the Noder's Neder has
(a) The Rabbanan argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel however - inasmuch as, since
they go after the actual rainfall, and in this case, the rain only fell once, they
maintain that it only counts as one rainfall, and the Noder must continue with his
Neder until the next rainfall.
(b) We conclude that the Beraisa of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is speaking about a case
of 'ad ha'Geshamim'. Initially - we thought that, since the Tana does not
differentiate, he speaks about 'ad ha'Geshem' as well, proving that the Rabbanan even
argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel by 'ad ha'Geshem' (a Kashya on Rebbi Zeira [who,
by the way, is also the one to establish the significance of the middle date in the
first Beraisa by Noder], who said that they agree).
(a) The duration of the Neder, if, in a year that will turn into a leap-year, someone
says 'Konem Yayin she'Eini To'em ...
1. ... ha'Shanah' or 'Shanah Zu' - even if he declared the Neder on Rosh Hashanah, is
until the next Rosh Hashanah (thirteen months)?
(b) The reason for the latter Din is - because if he were to begin the Neder later,
he would continue into the following year (from which we see that the Neder is not
connected with the leap-year).
2. ... Shanah Achas' - is twelve months.
(c) The Rashba says - that if the Noder added the words 'mi'Yom Zeh' (when he has no
option but to begin immediately) - then the extra month is included in the Neder
(like 'Shanah Zu').
(d) This has ramifications with regard to the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, which states
that if someone rents a house for one year, and the year turns into a leap-year, then
he gains the extra month. According to what we just said, this will be confined to
when he said 'ha'Shanah' or 'Shanah Zu', but not when he said 'Shanah Achas' (when he
will only have twelve months).
(a) According to the Rashba, it is only if he actually declares the Neder on Rosh
Hashanah that the hirer will have thirteen months in the house - because, if he says
'ha'Shanah' or 'Shanah Zu' later in the year, he will only have until Rosh
We also disagree with the Rashba's distinction between 'Shanah Zu' and 'Shanah
Achas'. If someone declares 'Konem Yayin Shanah Achas' ...
(b) We refute the Rashba's explanation - on the grounds that if the scope of the
Mishnah is so limited, the Tana should have said so.
(c) And we disagree with him - in a case where the hirer hired the house having
stipulated 'Shanah Achas'. Provided he hired it before Adar Sheini, the rental will
run for thirteen months.
(d) Nevertheless, someone who purchases a house in a walled city, in whose connection
the Gemara says in Erchin, that were it not for a specific Pasuk, the sale would be
finalized in twelve months even if it was a leap-year - because that is talking about
a stipulation made not by the people involved, but by the Torah, which tends to
standardize its Halachos.
1. ... and it turns out to be a leap-year - his Neder will extend for thirteen
2. ... and, believing that the Halachah was like the Rashba, he wants to commence his
Neder half a year later - he cannot do so, because his Neder comes into effect
immediately, and has no Tashlumin.
(a) If, in a leap-year, the Noder says ...
1. ... 'ad Rosh Chodesh Adar' - his Neder lasts until Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon.
(b) In the latter case, some texts read 'ad Sof Adar Sheini' - because this Tana
considers the two Adarim as one.
2. ... 'ad Sof Adar' - it lasts until the end of Adar Rishon.
(c) According to Rebbi Meir, if one writes a Sh'tar in Adar Rishon, one dates it
'Adar Rishon; if one writes it in Adar Sheini, he dates it 'Adar' S'tam. Rebbi
Yehudah says - the other way round.
(d) We initially assume that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, who holds
that S'tam Adar refers to Adar Rishon. According to the text 'ad Sof Adar Sheini'
that we quoted above we will simply reiterate what we wrote earlier (that the two
Adarim are considered one, so that the end of Adar is synonymous with the end of Adar
Sheini). Abaye nevertheless reconciles the Mishnah with Rebbi Meir - by establishing
it when at the time of the Neder, they did not yet know that it was a leap-year.
(a) We prove Abaye right from the Beraisa 'ad Rosh Chodesh Adar, ad Rosh Chodesh Adar
ha'Rishon. Im Haysah Shanah Me'uberes, ad Rosh Chodesh Adar ha'Sheini', which cannot
be interpreted literally - because if the Reisha (as is implied by the Seifa), speaks
in an ordinary year, why does the Tana say 'ad Rosh Chodesh Adar *ha'Rishon*'
(implying that there is an Adar Sheini)?
(b) We therefore interpret the Seifa to mean that they knew at the time of the Neder
that it was a leap-year, and the Reisha, that they did not (even though it later
turned out to be one).
(c) In any event, we established our Mishnah when they did not know that it would be
a leap-year. This poses a Kashya on the alternative text (in the Seifa) that we
quoted above - because if the Tana speaks when they did not yet know that this year
was destined to become a leap-year, how can he say 'ad Sof Adar Sheini' (seeing as it
is not feasible for the Noder to have had it in mind)?
(d) Based on the principle 'Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Yehudah, Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah',
we rule like Rebbi Yehudah (regarding S'tam Adar). This has ramifications with
regard to a Sh'tar that was written in Adar Sheini as 'Adar' S'tam - inasmuch as it
will be a Sh'tar Mukdam (predated) and therefore Pasul.
(a) If someone declares a prohibition on wine 'ad she'Yehei ha'Pesach, in spite of
his having said 'ad she'Yehei', Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah only prohibits wine
until Seider-night - because it is obvious that he only intended to forbid wine until
then, seeing as that is when everyone drinks wine.
(b) By the same token, if he said 'Konem Basar ... ad she'Yehei ha'Tzom' - he will be
forbidden to eat meat until the Se'udah ha'Mafsekes (the meal immediately prior to
the commencement of Yom Kipur), when it is customary for everyone to eat meat.
(c) This case teaches us (over and above the previous one) - that even though 'ad
Leilei' implies until nightfall, we interpret it to mean earlier than that.
(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah adds 'Konem Shum she'Eini To'em ad she'Tehei Shabbos,
Eino Asur Ela ad Leilei Shabbos' - because Ezra instituted the eating of garlic on
Erev Shabbos. The Chidush is - that even though this is only a Takanah of Ezra, we
assume even there, that that is what the Noder meant.
(a) The Ramban rules like the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Yehudah (and certainly
with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah). They nevertheless agree with Rebbi Yehudah in
'ha'Noder min ha'Mevushal', in the case of 'Ta'an ve'Hizi'a ... Amar Konem Tzemer ...
Olah Alai, Mutar Lehiskasos ve'Asur Lehafshil le'Acharav' - because there, due to the
incident that occurred, it is obvious that that is what he meant (whereas in our
case, there was no incident, only an assumption).
(b) The Ra'ah disagrees with the Ramban, and rules like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah
- because, since this Mishnah appears among a series of Mishnahs (of 'Umd'na') which
are all Halachah, we can assume that it is Halachah, too.
(c) The Ramban proves his point from the fact that the Mishnah earlier 'ad ha'Pesach
... Asur ad she'Yeitzei, ad she'Yehei, Asur ad she'Yeitzei', which clearly refers to
our Sugya of Konem Yayin, from which we see that the the Rabbanan hold 'ad she'Yehei,
Asur ad she'Yeitzei' (not like Rebbi Yehudah). The Ra'ah refutes the Ramban's proof -
because the Tana may not be referring to 'Konem Yayin', but to other Nedarim which he
connects to Pesach that are not so obvious; and even if he is, he only uses 'Konem
Yayin' as an example, and the case should be taken with a pinch of salt.
(a) The Mishnah states that, if the Noder stipulated that, unless his friend accepts
a Kur of wheat and two barrels of wine on behalf of his son, he (the Noder) will not
accept any benefit from him, the Neder does not require Hatarah - because the Mudar
can say that since the Madir only meant his Kavod, as far as he is concerned, he
considers it as if he had received the wheat and the wine.
(b) The Ramban proves his opinion from the Mishnah that we learned earlier 'ad
ha'Pesach, Asur ad she'Yagi'a; ad she'Yehei, Asur ad she'Yeitzei' - which does not
specify what the content of the Neder was, in which case we can assume that it refers
to the same case as the Seifa (of our Mishnah - ' ... Konem Yayin she'Eini To'em ad
(c) The Ra'ah disagrees with the Ramban, and rules like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah
- on the basis of the fact that the current Halachos are all pure Halachah.
(d) He repudiates the proof of the Ramban - because he maintains that the Mishnah 'ad
ha'Pesach, Asur ad she'Yagi'a; ad she'Yehei, Asur ad she'Yeitzei' does not speak in
the same case as the Seifa; and besides, even if it does, the Tana mentioned 'ad
ha'Pesach' there only as an example, but not really meaning that case.
(a) Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan argue in the Seifa in the reverse case to the
previous one (when the Madir forbids the Mudar to have Hana'ah from him unless he
gives *his* son a Kur of wheat and two barrels of wine). Like before, the Chachamim
do not require Hatarah in this case - because this time it is the Noder who can say
to the Mudar 'It is as if I received the wheat and the wine from you'.
(b) Rebbi Meir says in the previsous case (the Seifa) - that the Mudar is forbidden
to having any Hana'ah from the Madir until he gives his son the specified amount of
wheat and wine.
(c) He also argues in the Reisha - forbidding the Madir to have Hana'ah from the
Mudar until the latter accepts the wheat and the wine on behalf of his son.
(a) If someone declares Konem she'Hi Nehenis Li Le'olam', in response to efforts by
his sister to marry her daughter, or following his divorce of his wife, they are
permitted to benefit from him - because, in either case, it is clear that his
intention was only that he would never marry her (again).
(b) The Tana refer specifically to a case of marrying his sister's daughter - because
it is a Mitzvah to do so (which we derive from the Pasuk "Az Tikra va'Hashem
(c) And he permits someone who, in response to his friend's efforts to invite him for
a meal, declares 'Konem le'Veischa she'Eini Nichnas' or 'Tipas Tzonan she'Eini To'em
Lach', to enter his house and to have a drink - because in this case too, it is
obvious that his sole intention was not to eat the meal by him, and nothing else.
(d) If someone responds to his friend's efforts to get him to partake of a feast that
he is preparing, by declaring 'Konem le'Veischa she'Eini Nichnas' - the Tosefta
forbids him to participate during the feast, but permits him to do so afterwards.