REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 17
(a) Our Mishnah states 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'.
What about 'Shevu'ah
(b) The Tana gives as an example of the former 'Hareini Nazir im Ochal,
Hareini Nazir im Ochal'. Seeing as the same would have applied had he said
'Hareini Nazir, Hareini Nazir', why did the Tana not state the more simple
(c) What are the ramifications of the statement 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'?
(d) What does the phrase mean?
(a) Might 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' also imply that if someone declares two
Nedarim on a certain food which he subsequently eats, he receives two sets
(b) What is the reason for the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah'?
(c) Then why do we say 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'?
(a) According to some texts, we pose two Kashyos (on the case of Neder
be'Soch Neder 'Hareini Nazir im Ochal, Hareini Nazir im Ochal'): One of them
is why the Tana needs to connect Nezirus to Achilah (which we already
discussed in our Mishnah).
What is the second Kashya?
(b) Why would he only receive two Malkos if there was a warning between the
(a) According to Rav Huna, 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' only pertains to a
case where he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'.
(b) Why should we not say that, seeing as it is only the last day of his
second Nezirus that is due to take effect, the Nezirus is Bateil?
(c) What does Shmuel say?
(a) According to Rav Huna, instead of continuing 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch
Shevu'ah', the Tana of our Mishnah could just as well have said 'Ein Neder
be'Soch Neder' (with reference to where he accepted both periods of Nezirus
to run concurrently).
Answers to questions
How does Rav Huna explain the fact that the Tana
moved from Neder to Shevu'ah (unnecessarily)?
(b) How might we ask the same Kashya on Shmuel?
(c) Then why do we not do so? Why is the Kashya restricted to Rav Huna?
(a) 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' and 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah' must of
course speak in equivalent cases.
Assuming that 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom,
Hareini Nazir le'Machar' is equivalent to 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim,
Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Anavim', what do we initially believe to be the
equivalent of 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom'?
(b) Why does this pose a Kashya on Rav Huna?
(c) How will Rav Huna resolve this? How will he establish the case of 'Ein
Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah'?
(d) What is the basic difference between our initial interpretation of 'Ein
Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', and the interpretation of Rav Huna?
(a) What does Rabah say about someone who swears first that he will not eat
figs, then that he will not eat figs and grapes, should he eat figs,
separate a Korban for having contravened the first Shevu'ah, and then eat
(b) What can we infer from there?
(c) What does Rav Huna say?
(a) The problem with the previous explanation in Rav Huna is that just as in
the case of 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', the second Shevu'ah cannot take
effect, due to the fact that he has already sworn on figs, so too, should
the second Nezirus not take effect, since he has already accepted them in
his first Nezirus?
How do we resolve this problem?
(b) What does Rabah now hold?
(c) On what grounds does Rav Huna disagree with Rabah?
(d) In fact, in the equivalent case ('Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir
le'Machar'), the Tana rules 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'.
Why, if not for
the time factor, would we say there too 'Ein Neder be'Soch Neder'? What
makes the two cases similar?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who, after declaring two sets of
Nezirus, counted the first one, separated his Korban and then had the first
(b) Why do we think that the Tana must be speaking when he undertook to keep
the two sets of Nezirus concurrently?
(c) Why does this Beraisa pose a problem on Rav Huna, in view of Rava, who
will teach us later that, despite the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al
Shevu'ah', the moment he has the first Shevu'ah annulled, the second one
takes effect immediately?
(a) In answer to the previous Kashya on Rav Huna, we establish the Beraisa
when he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'.
Answers to questions
How will Rav
Huna then explain the statement 'Alsah Lo Sh'niyah ba'Rishonah' (like we
(b) Alternatively, the Tana speaks when he said neither 'Hareini Nazir
ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar' nor 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir
Then what *is* the case? What *did* he say?
(c) In this last case, why will both sets of Nezirus take effect