ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 83
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa states that if a woman who has undertaken to be a
Nazir drinks wine or renders herself Tamei for a dead person, she receives
Malkos. If her husband annulled her Neder, and she subsequently
'transgressed' without being aware that he had done so - she will
nevertheless not receive Malkos (even though she is considered a sinner).
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan (who, we just saw, holds 'Meifer
le'Mis'anah, ve'Ein Meifer le'she'Ein Mis'anah') - the Tana ought to have
added that, even though her husband annulled her Neder, she will receive
Malkos should she eat the pits or the skin of grapes (since not eating them
does not constitute Inuy Nefesh.
(c) Rav Yosef answers 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in' - meaning that, since there
is no such thing as Nezirus without a prohibition on the pits and skins of
grapes, these are an intrinsic part of the Nezirus, and the husband's
Hafarah automatically covers them too.
(d) Abaye objects to Rav Yosef's answer - on the grounds that the Lashon
infers that although there is no Nezirus la'Chatza'in, the Korbanos of
Nezirus can be brought la'Chatza'in. Otherwise, Rav Yosef should have said
'Ein Chatza'in bi'Nezirus'.
(a) So Abaye amends Rav Yosef's answer to read - 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in,
ve'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in'.
(b) The ramifications of 'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in' are - that if the
husband annulled his wife's Nezirus after fifteen of the thirty days had
elapsed, she is Patur from bringing any of the Korbanos.
(a) A Nazir who becomes Tamei brings a Chatas ha'Of.
(b) 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah be'Nazir, ve'Hifrishah Behemtah ve'Achar-Kach Hafer
Lah Ba'alah ... '. The Korban that the Tana is referring to is the Asham
Nazir that a Tamei Nazir is obligated to bring after he becomes Tahor.
(c) The bird-offering that the Tana obligates her to bring is - the Chatas
ha'Of, and he exempts her from the Olas ha'Of.
(d) The Tana finds it necessary to mention that she already designated her
Asham - as an additional Chidush, to teach us that although she had already
designated it before the Hafarah, once the husband is Meifer, she becomes
Patur from Olas ha'Of.
(a) The previous Beraisa poses a Kashya on Abaye - because, according to
him, since she is exempt from the Olas ha'Of, she ought to be exempt from
the Chatas ha'Of, too.
(b) Abaye's retort to this Kashya is - that if, as you suggest, we will say
'Yesh Korban la'Chatzi Nezirus, why does the Tana not obligate her to bring
three Korbanos (either the Asham plus the two bird-offerings that a Tamei
Nazir is obligated to bring, or the Korban Chatas, Olah and Shelamim, that
even a Tamei Nazir will have to eventually bring.
(c) To resolve the issue - Abaye exploits the fact that it is specifically
the *Chatas* that she has to bring. The Chatas ha'Of of a Nazir enjoys the
unique leniency that it can be brought on a Safek (a leniency that no other
Chatas shares). Consequently, it is possible to add the leniency of
permitting it to be brought for a Chatzi Nezirus (but not her other
Korbanos, which are like any other Korbanos).
(a) In a similar Beraisa to the previous one, the Tana issues the same
ruling. Assuming that Tum'ah is not considered Inuy Nefesh, we now ask on
Rebbi Yochanan ('Meifer le'Mis'anah ... ') - why do we not accept the
Hafarah of the Neder on wine (which constitutes Inuy Nefesh), but not that
of the Neder on Tum'as Nefesh (which does not)?
(b) Based on a statement by Rebbi Meir - we explain that the Tana accepts
the Hafarah regarding Tum'as Meis too, because, seeing as there is a great
benefit to be obtained from participating in the burial of the dead, as we
shall now see, Tum'as Meis, like drinking wine, constitutes Inuy Nefesh.
(c) Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Chai Yiten el Libo" - that to
the extent that one eulogizes a dead person, cries for him and participates
in his burial, others will do the same for him.
(d) We might not answer here like Rav Yosef answered above ('Ein Nezirus
la'Chatza'in') because we want to point out there is Tza'ar by Tum'as Meis,
as we just explained. Or it might be - because unlike the other branches of
Nezirus, it is possible to become a Nazir without adopting the prohibition
of Tum'ah (in the case of a Nezir Shimshon, who is forbidden to drink wine,
but not to become Tamei Meis).
(a) Our Mishnah states 'Konem she'Eini Neheneh li'Beri'os ('people'), Eino
Yachol Lehafer'. The Tana (Rebbi Yossi) goes on to permit the woman who
declared the Neder to benefit from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah - because,
since the Torah in Kedoshim wrote an extra "Ta'azov" (and not a Lashon of
Nesinah), we learn that there is no Mitzvah to give them to the poor, only
to leave them in the field. Consequently, the owner has no 'Tovas Hana'ah'
(financial rights to give them to whoever he pleases) in them.
(b) Assuming that 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos mi'Leket, Shikchah u'Pei'ah' is an
additional concession, we infer from the Reisha, from the fact that her
husband cannot annul the Neder - that she is permitted to benefit from him,
which means that he is not included in the 'people' (whom she mentioned in
(a) What leads us to believe that the Seifa of our Mishnah is an additional
concession, and not the main reason for the husband's prohibition to annul
her Neder is - the Lashon 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos ... '. What the Tana
should otherwise have said is - 'Mipnei she'Yecholah Lehanos'.
(b) We also initially reject the suggestion that a husband is included in
'people', and that he cannot annul her Neder on the sole basis of her option
to eat from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah - because why should her husband in
conjunction with 'people' be any worse than a storekeeper from whom she
purchases regularly, where the Tana permitted her husband to annul her Neder
(even though there too, she is able to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah).
(c) From the Seifa, which permits her to eat from Leket, Shikchah and
Pei'ah, we infer exactly the opposite (that her husband is included in
'people') - because otherwise, how could a woman who is fed by her husband,
collect Leket ... ?
(a) To reconcile the Reisha and the Seifa, Ula explains that a husband is
not included in 'people'. The Seifa - which permits her to eat from Leket
... , speaks, he says, when the husband is a poor man.
(b) According to Rava, a husband is included in 'people' - and the Seifa,
which says 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos be'Leket ... , is explaining why it is
that her husband cannot annul her Neder.
(c) In the case in the previous Mishnah: 'Peiros Chenvani she'Ein Parnasaso
Ela Mimenu', the reason that the Tana permits her husband to annul her
Nedarim, and does not forbid it (on the grounds that she is able to collect
Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah, like we do here) is - because the Tana is
speaking in the winter, when there is no Leket ... to collect.
(a) Rav Nachman learns like Ula with regard to the She'eilah whether a
husband is included in 'people'. He explains the Seifa, which ascribes the
reason why, to her option to eat from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah - to after
he has divorced her.
(b) According to him, if her husband would be included in 'people', despite
the fact that she would be able to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah - the
Neder would be considered Inuy Nefesh, and he would be permitted to annul
(c) The Chidush in the Seifa - is that, once he divorces her, her husband
becomes included in 'people' and she is permitted to eat from Leket ... .
(a) Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Yerushalmi in a case of
'Nadar mi'Yordei ha'Yam' ve'Na'aseh mi'Yoshvei Yabashah'. According to Rebbi
Akiva, a sailor at the time of the Neder, who left the navy is included in
the prohibition - because we go after the time when the Neder is declared
(as opposed to after the time that it takes effect).
(b) According to him, in the reverse case, someone who joined the navy after
the Neder was declared - will not be included in the Neder.
(c) We will have a problem if, as we just explained, the husband becomes
part of 'the people' after he has divorced her - because that is not in
keeping with the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, like whom the Halachah is.
(d) We might try and resolve this problem by establishing our Mishnah like
Rebbi Yishmael - who holds that we go, not after the time that the Neder was
declared, but after the time that it takes effect.
(a) We refute the suggestion (establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael)
however, on the basis of a Mishnah later 'Amrah Hareini Nezirah le'Achar
Sheloshim Yom, Af-al-Pi she'Nis'es be'Toch Sheloshim Yom, Ein Yachol
Lehafer', because, at the time when the Neder was declared, she was not yet
his wife - like Rebbi Akiva (who will also then be the author of *our*
According to the way we just explained our Gemara, the Ramban, who cites the
Yerushalmi, in spite of the fact the Bavli disagrees - probably only does so
to add the case of someone who was initially included in the Neder, but
changed their status by the time the Neder came into effect, which the Bavli
does not discuss.
(b) We now proved from Rav Nachman, who interprets our Mishnah 'Nisgarshah,
Yecholah Lehanos' (because she is forbidden to benefit from her husband
since he became part of 'people') - that, according to the Bavli, even Rebbi
Akiva agrees that we do not go after the time of the Neder with regard to
people who were not initially included and became included afterwards.
(c) Consequently, we cannot rely on the Yerushalmi in this matter. The
Halachah therefore is - that whether someone was not included in the Neder
initially and became included only later, or vice-versa - he is in fact,
(d) Rebbi Akiva holds of both opinions, even though they seem to contradict
each other - because, according to the Bavli, he holds that we go after
Lashon B'nei Adam (as opposed to the Yerushalmi, which bases the Machlokes
on Pesukim) and Lashon B'nei Adam incorporates both in the Neder.