POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
NEDARIM 12-14 - Two weeks of Dafyomi study material have been dedicated by Ms. Estanne Abraham-Fawer to honor the eighth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
1) "HATFASAH" IN A "BECHOR" (cont.)
(a) Rejection: They discuss a Bechor before Zerikah.
(b) Question: Why does R. Yehudah permit?
(c) Answer: "Ki Yidor Neder" - Hatfasah must be in Davar
ha'Nadur (something forbidden due to a vow), not in Davar
ha'Asur (something that the Torah forbade).
1. R. Yakov forbids, because he expounds "la'Shem" to
include Davar ha'Asur.
2. Question: What does R. Yehudah learn from "la'Shem"?
3. Answer: This includes Hatfasah in Chatas and Asham.
(Even though one was obligated to bring them, he
needed to be Makdish them.)
4. Question: Why does he include Chatas and Asham, but
exclude Bechor? (Perhaps we should say the
5. Answer: Chatas and Asham became Kodesh through a
Neder. Bechor is Hekdesh from birth.
6. R. Yakov holds that Hatfasah in Bechor forbids, for
also it becomes Kodesh through a Neder:
i. (Beraisa - Rebbi): When a Bechor if born, it is
a Mitzvah to declare it Hekdesh - "ha'Zachar
7. R. Yehudah permits, for a Bechor becomes Hekdesh
even if he was not Makdish it. (Therefore, it is not
2) "HATFASAH" IN "HEKDESH"
(a) (Mishnah): If one said 'like Imra (lambs)' or 'like pens'
(b) (Beraisa): If one said 'Imra', 'for Imra', or 'like Imra'
and finished 'that I will eat from you', he is forbidden;
1. The same applies if he began with 'pens', 'wood',
'(things that go on the) fires', 'Mizbe'ach',
'Heichal', 'Yerushalayim', or if he prefaced any of
these with 'for' or 'like';
(c) Question: Who is this Tana, who does not distinguish
between 'Imra', 'for Imra', or 'like Imra'?
2. If he began with any of these and concluded 'that I
will not eat from you', he is permitted.
(d) Answer: It is R. Meir.
(e) Question (Seifa): If he began with any of these and
concluded 'that I will not eat from you', he is
1. This is unlike R. Meir!
(f) Answer: When he says "Lo Imra (some texts - l'Chulin"),
this means 'not Kodesh', therefore he is permitted (R.
Meir does not deduce the positive from the negative.)
When he says "l'Imra", this means 'Kodesh', therefore he
is forbidden, like R. Aba taught.
2. (Mishnah - R. Meir): If one says "l'Korban (is) what
I will not eat of yours," he is forbidden.
3. (R. Aba): He means "what I eat from you is like a
Korban, therefore I will not eat from you."
(g) (Mishnah): If one said "Korban", "Olah", "Minchah",
"Chatas" or "Shelamim", and concluded "that I eat of
yours," he is forbidden.
(h) R. Yehudah permits.
(i) If he said "ha'Korban", "like a Korban" or "Korban", and
concluded "that I eat of yours", he is forbidden;
(j) R. Meir forbids one who said "l'Korban (is) what I will
not eat of yours".
(k) (Gemara): The penultimate clause forbids "ha'Korban",
"k'Korban" or "Korban that I eat of yours", he is
forbidden. This is like R. Meir (above), who does not
distinguish between "Imra" and "l'Imra". (The following
question does not depend on the authorship of our
(l) Contradiction (Beraisa): Chachamim (forbid without saying
'like'. They) agree with R. Yehudah that if one said "Ha
(this) Korban", "Ha Olah", "Ha Minchah", "Ha Chatas" or
"Ha Shelamim", and concluded "that I eat of yours," he is
permitted, for he vowed by the life of the Korban (which
(m) Answer: All permit when he said "Ha Korban", for he vowed
by the life of the Korban. R. Meir is stringent when he
(n) (Mishnah - R. Meir): If one said "l'Korban (is) what I
will not eat of yours", he is forbidden.
(o) Question: R. Meir holds that we do not deduce the
positive from the negative!
(p) Answer (R. Aba): He means "what I eat from you is like a
Korban, therefore I will not eat from you."
3) OATHS ABOUT INTANGIBLE MATTERS
(a) (Mishnah): If Levi said to David 'Konam is my mouth from
speaking with you, or my hands from working with him, or
my feet from walking with you', he is forbidden.
(b) (Gemara) Contradiction (Beraisa): There is a stringency
of oaths over vows, and a stringency of vows over oaths:
1. The stringency of Nedarim is that they can take
effect on a Mitzvah, just like on Reshus (something
optional). This does not apply to Shevuos;
(c) Answer (Rav Yehudah): In the Mishnah he forbade his mouth
to speak (with Levi), his hands to work with him, and his
legs to walk with him.
2. The stringency of Shevuos is that they can take
effect on tangible and intangible matters, but
Nedarim do not (they apply only to tangible matters.
Talking, working, and walking are intangible!)
(d) Support (Mishnah): 'Konam is my mouth...'
1. He did not say 'that I will speak...'
4) "NEDARIM" THAT ARE PERMITTED
*****PEREK V'ELU MUTARIN*****
(a) (Mishnah): The following Nedarim are permitted:
1. He said "Chulin (is) what I will eat of yours", or
(what I will eat) is like pork, idolatry, hides
pierced to allow removal of the heart (for
idolatry), Neveilos, Tereifos, vermin, insects, or
the Chalah of Aharon and his Terumah.
(b) If one told his wife "you are forbidden to me like my
mother," we permit it through a different Pesach (than
his mother's honor), so he will not take the matter
(c) (Gemara) Inference: He is permitted because he said
"Chulin (is) what I will eat of yours." Had he said
"l'Chulin" it would mean that it is not Chulin, rather
Korban (and he is forbidden).
Index to Outlines for Maseches Nedarim