ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Heter Nedarim Porchin b'Avir, v'Ein Lahem al Mah she'Yismochu', he means - that although there is a slight hint in the Torah for the releasing of vows, there is nothing tangible to rely on. Consequently, the source basically lies in the oral teachings.
(b) The Tana describes ...
1. ... Hilchos Shabbos, Chagigos and Me'ilos - as being like mountains that hang on a hair, because each one of them has only a slight reference in the written Torah, but many Halachos.
2. ... Dinin, Avodos, Taharos, Tum'os and Arayos - as being broadly hinted at in the Torah.
(c) The Mishnah concludes with the words 'Hein Hein Gufei Torah'.
(d) In a Beraisa, the Tana'im present four sources for Heter Nedarim. Rebbi ...
1. ... Eliezer learns it from the two times that the Torah writes "Ki Yafli" (once in Bechukosai, with regard to Erchin, and once in Naso, with regard to a Nazir) - one of them expressing the Neder, the other, his remorse and reasons for wanting it released.
2. ... Yehoshua learns it from "Asher Nishba'ti b'Api Im Yevo'un el Menuchasi" (Tehilim) - implying that since Hash-m's oath forbidding Yisrael entry into Eretz Yisrael was made in anger, when the anger abated the oath could be lifted.
3. ... Yitzchak learns it from "Kol Nediv Libo" (Vayakhel) - suggesting that the Neder remains valid only as long as the person who declared it remains willing to do so, but that, should he change his mind, it can be released.
4. ... Chananya, Rebbi Yehoshua's nephew learns it from "Nishba'ti va'Akayeimah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha"- that the oath that one made is valid only as long as one is willing to uphold it ... .
(a) Rava refutes each of the above proofs, but accepts that of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who extrapolates from the Pasuk "Lo Yachel Devaro" - that he (the person who made the Neder) may not profane his vow, but that others may nullify it on his behalf.
(b) Rava refutes the proof of ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer - from Rebbi Yehudah Amar Rebbi Tarfon, who learns from "Ki Yafli" by Nazir - that Nezirus must be clearly expressed, and is not valid if it is left in doubt (e.g. if Reuven declares that if the man who was currently walking past is a Nazir, he will become a Nazir too, whilst his friend undertakes to become a Nazir if he is not, then neither of them is a Nazir - like Rebbi Yehudah Amar Rebbi Tarfon).
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua. He interprets "Asher Nishbati b'Api" to mean that - since Hash-m had sworn in His anger, He will under no circumstances rescind the oath.
3. ... Rebbi Yitzchak, by explaining "Kol Nediv Libo" to mean - that a Neder (of Kodshim) does not need to be verbalized (whereas other Nedarim do, as Shmuel has taught - see Tosfos DH 'la'Afukei').
4. ... Rebbi Chananya Rebbi Yehoshua's nephew, from Rav Gidal Amar Rav, who learns from "Nishbati va'Akayemah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha" - that it is a Mitzvah to swear to fulfill a Mitzvah.
(c) The fact that Shmuel's statement, out of all the statements of the Tana'im, is the only one that is foolproof - conforms with the mantra that 'One sharp pepper is better than a basket-full of gourds'.
(a) To answer the Kashya how the Mishnah can say in connection with Shabbos 'Mikra Mu'at', when it Shabbos is clearly specified in the Torah, we cite Rebbi Aba, who rules - that someone who digs a pit for the earth (but does not need the pit) is Patur on Shabbos (and that is the aspect of Shabbos to which the Tana is referring).
(b) This answer seems to follow the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who holds 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufa, Patur'. In truth however, Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'Chayav') concedes that one is Patur - because if the hole is not needed, he is anyway Patur because it is 'Mekalkel' (destructive, and one is only Chayav on Shabbos for a Melachah that is constructive).
(c) 'k'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' suggests that Rebbi Aba's case is hinted somewhere in the Torah. It is indeed hinted in the words "Meleches Machsheves" in Vayakhel, which suggest that a Melachah is only considered such if people normally want it (i.e. it is constructive).
(d) Although that is written in connection with the Mishkan - we learn (not only the thirty-nine Melachos themselves, but also) the definition of Melachos on Shabbos, from Mishkan by virtue of their juxtaposition in Parshas Vayakhel.
(a) Chagigah too, appears to be specifically written in Parshas Emor "v'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Hashem". Alternatively - it might be an invitation to celebrate Yom Tov by eating and drinking, as Rav Papa suggested to Abaye.
(b) Rav Papa refuted the counter-suggestion that Chag means Chagigah, from the Pasuk in Shemos "v'Yachogu Li ba'Midbar ... va'Yomer Moshe, Gam Ata Titen b'Yadeinu Zevachim v'Olos" - because "Zevachim" normally refers to Shelamim.
(c) Abaye rejected ...
1. ... this proof - in that it might also refer to Chulin animals that are Shechted (because the verb 'li'Zebo'ach means to Shecht).
2. ... another proof from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "v'Lo Yalin Chelev Chagi ad Boker" - because "Chagi" may well refer to the celebrations and not to the Chagigah, and Chelev, to the fat of other Korbanos (such as Nedarim and Nedavos) that one brings on Yom Tov.
(a) We cannot however, infer, that the Chelev of other Korbanos ...
1. ... that are not brought on Yom Tov may remain off the Mizbe'ach until the morning - because even if the Lav currently under discussion does not apply to them, there is an Aseh in Tzav ("Kol ha'Laylah ad ha'Boker") which does.
2. ... is subject to an Aseh, but not to a Lav - because of another Pasuk in Re'eh ("v'Lo Yalin min ha'Basar ... ad Boker") that refers to them.
(b) In spite of the fact that even the Chelev of other Korbanos is subject to a Lav and an Aseh, we could still interpret "v'Lo Yalin Chelev Chagi ad Boker" with regard to other Korbanos that are brought on Yom Tov exclusively - to preclude other Korbanos from a second Lav.
(a) We finally learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Midbar" "Midbar" ("v'Yachogu Li ba'Midbar" from "ha'Zevachim u'Minchah Higashtem Li ba'Midbar") - that "Zevachim" means Shelamim and not just animals that are Shechted, proving once and for all that "v'Yachogu Li ba'Midbar" means to bring the Chagigah, and not just to celebrate Yom Tov (in which case Chagigah is mentioned specifically in the Torah).
(b) Despite the fact that we learn Chagigos from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (which is considered as if it was written specifically, as is evident from the whole Sugya), our Mishnah describes them as 'k'Harerin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' - because the 'Gezeirah-Shavah is learned from a Pasuk in Amos, and we cannot effectively learn Divrei Torah from Divrei Ne'vi'im.
(a) Me'ilah is listed among the things that are 'k'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'. Me'ilah itself is clearly written (in Parshas Vayikra). So we try to establish our Mishnah with the Mishnah in Me'ilah, regarding a Shali'ach to whom someone gave Hekdesh money to buy something on his behalf. The Ba'al ha'Bayis is Mo'el - when the Shali'ach carries out his Shelichus; and the Shali'ach is Mo'el - when he does not.
(b) What is irregular about this Din that prompts us to describe it as 'k'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' - is the fact that the Shali'ach sins and the Ba'al ha'Bayis is Chayav, contravening the accepted principle 'Ein Sheli'ach li'Devar Aveirah'.
(c) Rava rejects this however, on the grounds that Me'ilah is different, because we learn it from Terumah - by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet" "Chet"). Consequently, just as one can appoint a Shali'ach to take Terumah on one's behalf, so too, can one appoint a Shali'ach to be Mo'el on one's behalf (in which case it can no longer be termed 'k'Hararin ha'Teluyin b'Sa'arah'.
(a) Rava establishes our Mishnah with the Beraisa of 'Nizkar Ba'al ha'Bayis v'Lo Nizkar Shali'ach, Shaliach Ma'al'. It is strange, says Rava, that the Shali'ach, who is totally innocent, should be Chayav for a deed performed by the Ba'al ha'Bayis - and that is what warrants the description 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'.
(b) Rav Ashi rejects Rava's answer - because it is no different than anyone who spends Hekdesh money inadvertently, who is Mo'el even though he did not do so deliberately.
(c) Rav Ashi tries to establish our Mishnah with the Mishnah in Me'ilah which states that if someone took a stone or a beam of Hekdesh, he is not Mo'el - whereas if he then gave it to a friend, he is.
(d) This case is highly irregular - in that the difference is incomprehensible, seeing as in the first case too, he took the stone out of Hekdesh's domain, so what makes him more Chayav when he hands it to his friend? That, explains Rav Ashi, is what helps to earn for it the description 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'.
(a) We refute this suggestion too, on the basis of Shmuel - Shmuel establishes the Mishnah in a Me'ilah where it was actually the treasurer of Hekdesh who took the stone or the beam from Hekdesh.
(b) That dispenses with the difficulty (and with it, the title of 'k'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah') - inasmuch as the treasurer has charge of all Hekdesh articles, which are therefore considered to be in his domain, until he hands them to someone else.
(c) So we try and apply 'k'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' to the Seifa of that Mishnah: 'Ban'ah b'Soch Beiso, Harei Zeh Lo Ma'al Ad she'Yidor Tachteha b'Shaveh Perutah'. That too, is strange, based on the assumption that before building the stone or the beam into his house, he must have shaped and smoothened it first, in which case, he would have already been Chayav Me'ilah (by acquiring it with Shinuy, by changing it) - so why should he have to live underneath it before he is Mo'el?
(d) We refute this proof with Rav, who establishes the Mishnah - when he the stone or the beam was placed on top of the skylight as it was, without shaping or smoothening it first.
(a) We finally revert to Rava, who established our Mishnah with the Beraisa of 'Nizkar Ba'al ha'Bayis v'Lo Nizkar Shaliach, Shaliach Ma'al', dismissing Rav Ashi's claim that it is similar to anyone who spends Hekdesh money inadvertently. They are simply not comparable - because whereas the latter at least knew that it was Hekdesh money (in which case, he should have been more careful), the former was totally unaware that the money belonged to Hekdesh and should therefore be Patur because he was an O'nes. That is why Me'ilah earned itself the description 'k'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'.