12TH CYCLE DEDICATION
NEDARIM 2-5 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. 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)

(a)Some define 'Kinuyim' as expressions used by the Nochrim. How do others define it?

(b)According to the latter interpretation, Yados are more obvious than Kinuyim. Seeing as it is the way of the Tana to open with the more obvious case, how will we then explain the fact that our Tana seems to open with Kinuyim rather with Yados ?

1)

(a)Some define 'Kinuyim' as expressions used by the Nochrim - others, as expressions invented by the Chachamim to avoid saying the Name of Hash-m to make a Neder (because the Torah writes "Korban la'Hashem". Consequently, afraid that a person may just think of the Pasuk and say 'la'Hashem' on its own) - they invented alternative expressions.

(b)According to the latter interpretation, Yados are more obvious than Kinuyim. Our Tana seems to open with Kinuyim rather with Yados (in spite of what we just explained, that it is the way of the Tana to open with the more obvious), only because we amended the Mishnah and added 'v'Chol Yados, ki'Nedarim' after 'Kol Kinuyei Nedarim ki'Nedarim'. But according to those who explain Kinuyim as being Leshanos which the Chachamim invented, there is nothing to stop us from putting Yados before Kinuyim.

2)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish ki Yafli Lindor Neder Nazir Lehazir la'Hashem"?

(b)How do we learn Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim from the same Pasuk?

(c)We also learn from this Hekesh that the Lavin of bal Yachel and bal Te'acher apply to Nezirus like they apply to Neder. To which kind of Neder does ...

1. ... 'bal Yachel' apply?

2. ... 'bal Te'acher' apply?

(d)What is the Din with regard to a father annulling the Neder Nezirus of his daughter, and a husband, that of his wife?

2)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Ish ki Yafli Lindor Neder Nazir Lehazir la'Hashem" - that 'Yados Nezirus ki'Nezirus'.

(b)We learn Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim from the same Pasuk - by virtue of the Torah's Hekesh (comparison) of Neder to Nezirus.

(c)We also learn from this Hekesh that the Lavin of bal Yachel and bal Te'acher apply to Nezirus like they apply to Neder.

1. ... 'bal Yachel' applies - to Nidrei Isur.

2. ... 'bal Te'acher' applies - to Nidrei Hekdesh.

(d)A father may annul the Neder Nezirus of his daughter, and a husband, the Nezirus of his wife - just like he can annul their Nedarim on the day that he hears them, because we learn this from the same Hekesh.

3)

(a)Why do we need a Hekesh to teach us 'Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim'? Why can we not learn it from the fact that the Torah uses a double expression by Neder "Lindor Neder" (just like it uses a double expression by Nezirus, from which we learn 'Yados Nezirus ki'Nezirus')?

(b)Then why does the Torah use the double expression "Lindor Neder"?

(c)Does this opinion hold 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Bnei Adam' even when there is an alternative way of explaining the Pasuk?

(d)Those who maintain that, when there is an alternative way of explaining the Pasuk, the Torah does not speak like human beings, will learn the Hekesh from Neder to Nazir (and not vice-versa, as we learned earlier). Then what will they learn from "Nazir Lehazir"?

3)

(a)We need a Hekesh to teach us 'Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim'. We cannot learn it from the fact that the Torah uses a double expression by Neder "Lindor Neder" (just like it uses a double expression by Nezirus, from which we learn 'Yados Nezirus ki'Nezirus') - because "Lindor Neder" (where the verb is written first) is not irregular, as is "Nazir Lehazir" (where the verb is mentioned last).

(b)The Torah uses the double expression "Lindor Neder" - because of the principle 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Bnei Adam' (the Torah often tends to speaks in human terms).

(c)This opinion holds 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Bnei Adam' - even when there is an alternative way of explaining the Pasuk (because otherwise, everyone will agree with the principle).

(d)Those who maintain that when there is an alternative way of explaining the Pasuk, the Torah does not speak in human terms, will learn the Hekesh from Neder to Nazir (but not vice-versa, as we learned earlier). From "Nazir Lehazir" - they will then learn that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' (that one Nezirus will take effect on top of another Nezirus), as we shall see shortly.

4)

(a)Why, when we thought that "Lindor Neder" was eligible for a Derashah like "Nazir Lehazir", did we ask 'Hekeisha Lamah Li', and not 'Lindor Neder Lamah Li' (like we ask after we discover that it is not)?

(b)Does the principle 'Milsa d'Asya ... Tarach v'Kasav Lah K'ra' also extend to a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

4)

(a)When we thought that "Lindor Neder" was eligible for a Derashah like "Nazir Lehazir", we asked 'Hekeisha Lamah Li', and not 'Lindor Neder Lamah Li' (like we do after we discover that it is not) - because of the principle 'Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer Tarach v'Kasav Lah K'ra' (i.e. the Torah is not averse to writing something explicitly, even when one can learn it from a Kal-va'Chomer [or from a Heksesh].

(b)The principle 'Milsa d'Asya ... Tarach v'Kasav Lah K'ra' - also extends to a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (see Hagahos ha'Rav Renshberg).

3b----------------------------------------3b

5)

(a)We just mentioned that from "Nazir Lehazir", some learn that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus'. What is the case?

(b)What must he then do?

(c)We suggest that those who hold 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Bnei Adam', and who also learn Yados Nezirus from "Nazir Lehazir', will hold 'Ein Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus'. How will we reconcile this with the Sugya in the second Perek, which assumes that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' is unanimous?

(d)If on the other hand, we take the Gemara in the second Perek literally (that it really is unanimous), bearing in mind that this opinion already uses "Nazir Lehazir" for Yados, from where will they learn 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus'?

5)

(a)We just mentioned that from "Nazir Lehazir", some learn that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus'. The case is - when someone accepts one Nezirus today and one Nezirus tomorrow (or any time within thirty days), in which case ...

(b)... he must observe two consecutive periods of Nezirus, each comprising thirty days.

(c)We suggest that those who hold 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Bnei Adam', and who also learn Yados Nezirus from "Nazir Lehazir', will hold 'Ein Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus. We reconcile this with the Sugya in the second Perek, which assumes that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' is unanimous - by establishing that Sugya like those who hold 'Lo Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Bnei Adam'.

(d)If on the other hand, we take the Gemara in the second Perek literally (that it really is unanimous), then, seeing as this opinion already uses "Nazir Lehazir" for Yados - they will learn 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' from the word "Lehazir", when the Torah should have rather written "Lizor", leaving us with two Derashos from the one word.

6)

(a)In Eretz Yisrael, they also cited two possible sources for Yados Nedarim, "Lindor Neder" and "k'Chol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv Ya'aseh" (depending on whether 'Dibrah Torah ... ' or 'Lo Dibrah ... '). Why do they discard the source from "Nazir Lehazir"?

(b)What do those who do learn Yados from "Nazir Lehazir" learn from "k'Chol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv Ya'aseh"?

6)

(a)In Eretz Yisrael, they also cited two possible sources for Yados Nedarim, "Lindor Neder" and "k'Chol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv Ya'aseh" (depending on whether 'Dibrah Torah ... ' or 'Lo Dibrah ... '). They discard the source from "Nazir Lehazir" - because they do not like the idea of learning two Derashos from "Lehazir".

(b)Those who do learn Yados from "Nazir Lehazir" - learn from "k'Chol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv Ya'aseh" that 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar Kulo' (i.e. if part of a Neder is released, then the whole Neder is released; there is no such thing as having to fulfill half the Neder that he made).

7)

(a)The Beraisa learned earlier that 'Bal Yachel' pertains to Nezirus, too. What problem do we have with that?

(b)Why do we initially decline to explain that one transgresses both 'bal Yochal' as well as 'bal Yachel' or 'bal Yishteh'?

(c)Why can we not establish 'bal Yachel' when the person says 'Harei Alai Lih'yos Nazir' (like 'bal Yachel' of Korbanos)?

(d)How does Rava solve the problem?

7)

(a)The Beraisa learned earlier that 'Bal Yachel' pertains to Nezirus, too. The problem with that is - that the moment he utters the Neder of Nezirus, he is subject to the Lav of 'bal Yochal' or 'bal Yishteh', so how can the Lav of 'bal Yachel' take effect, too?

(b)We initially decline to explain that one transgresses 'bal Yachel' in addition to 'bal Yochal' or 'bal Yishteh' - because we think that, just as bal Yachel of a Neder takes effect on its own, so too, does that of Nezirus.

(c)Nor can we establish 'bal Yachel' when the person says 'Harei Alai Liheyos Nazir' (like 'bal Yachel' of Korbanos) - because, unlike the latter case, which are still missing the Ma'aseh of sanctification, Nezirus is not. Consequently, as soon as one undertakes to be a Nazir, there is nothing to prevent the Nezirus from taking effect immediately.

(d)Rava solves the problem - by establishing the Lav of 'bal Yachel' by Nezirus only together with 'bal Yochal' and 'bal Yishteh'.

8)

(a)What problem do we now have with regard to 'bal Te'acher' by Nazir?

(b)Rava suggests that 'bal Yachel' will apply when he says 'le'che'she'Ertzeh Ehei Nazir'. On what grounds do we this suggestion?

(c)So how does Rava establish the case?

(d)How is this different than someone who says 'Harei Alai Lih'yos Nazir', where 'bal Yachel' does not apply, as we just explained?

8)

(a)The problem with regard to 'bal Te'acher' by Nazir is - that the moment he declares that he is a Nazir, he is subject to 'bal Tochal'!

(b)Rava suggests that 'bal Yachel' will apply when he says 'le'che'she'Ertzeh Ehei Nazir'. We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that, in that case, until such time as he wants to become a Nazir, he will not transgress anything.

(c)So Rava establishes the case - when he promises not to leave this world before he has undertaken to be a Nazir, which in itself, does not constitute immediate Nezirus, but does force him to declare his Nezirus immediately.

(d)This is different than someone who says 'Harei Alai Liheyos Nazir', where 'bal Te'acher' does not apply, as we just explained - because whereas there, his Nezirus takes immediate effect, here, what takes immediate effect is the obligation to declare himself a Nazir, but not the Nezirus itself

9)

(a)This case is, in fact, similar to a man who says to his wife 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Misasi'. What is the Din there?

(b)What is nevertheless the difference between that case and ours?

9)

(a)This case is, in fact, similar to a man who says to his wife 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Misasi' - in which case, (assuming that she is a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen) she is forbidden to eat Terumah immediately, for lack of knowledge when that moment arrives.

(b)The difference between that case and ours however, is that - whereas here, he transgresses 'bal Te'acher' immediately, should he fail to declare himself a Nazir (to ensure that he manages to complete his Nezirus before his death), there she will only have transgressed if her husband actually died before she ate.

10)

(a)Seeing as we learn 'bal Te'acher' by Nezirus from 'bal Te'acher' by Neder, how do we account for the fact that by Neder one transgresses only after three Regalim, whereas by Nezirus, one transgresses immediately?

(b)How else might Rava have established the case by Nezirus to conform exactly with the case of Korbanos?

(c)Then why did he not do so?

10)

(a)Despite the fact that we learn 'bal Te'acher' by Nezirus from 'bal Te'acher' by Neder, (where one transgresses only after three Regalim) by Nezirus, one transgresses immediately - because, even though in both cases, the Neder takes effect immediately, whereas by Neder, there is nothing to suggest that he brings the Korban immediately, the Neder of Nezirus implies that its implementation is immediate.

(b)Rava might have established the case by Nezirus when he undertakes to begin his Nezirus within two years, in which case he would transgress 'bal Te'acher' after three Regalim from the last possible moment (just like he would be if he undertook to bring a Korban then).

(c)He did not do so however - because he was looking to establish the case by 'Harei Alai' (in the present) and not by 'Ehei' (in the future).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF