12TH CYCLE DEDICATION
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)

(a)Rava resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah (whether we go after the Ikar Korban or the current Heter) from Nosar and Pigul in our Mishnah. How does he resolve it (from Nosar)?

(b)On what grounds do we erase the Kashya from Pigul?

1)

(a)Rava resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah (when a person says 'Zeh ka'Zeh' referring to a piece of Shelamim after the Zerikah) from Nosar (and Pigul) in our Mishnah - which is considered a Davar ha'Nadur, in spite of the fact that it before it became Nosar, it was permitted. So we see, that we go after the Ikar, not after the latest Heter.

(b)We erase the Kashya from Pigul - on the grounds that Pigul negates the validity of the Korban in spite of the Zerikas Damim, in which case, it has no Heter, and there is no Tzad in Rami bar Chama's She'eilah to declare the Neder invalid.

2)

(a)Rav Huna bar Nasan answers Rava's Kashya. He explains that our Mishnah is referring to Nosar of an Olah (which does not become permitted after the Shechitah). On what grounds does Rava query his answer?

(b)Rav Huna bar Nasan explained to Rava why the Tana mentions Nosar of Olah, and not just ki'Besar Olah. What did he say?

(c)What other reason might we have given to explain why the Tana mentions Nosar of Olah?

2)

(a)Rav Huna bar Nasan answers that our Mishnah is referring to Nosar of an Olah (which does not become permitted after the Shechitah). Rava queries this answer however - on the grounds that, if that is so, the Tana should simply have said 'ki'Besar Olah'. Why did he need to mention 'Nosar'?

(b)Rav Huna bar Nasan replied that the Tana mentions Nosar of Olah, and not just ki'Besar Olah - because the flesh of the Olah is obviously a Davar ha'Nadur and is less of a Chidush; with regard to Nosar however, which is basically a Davar he'Asur, and not a Davar ha'Nadur, the Tana needs to inform us that it is nevertheless subject to Hatfasah.

(c)We might also have explained that the Tana mentions Nosar of Olah - to teach us that Nosar (and Pigul) do not require the 'Kaf' of comparison, whereas had he said 'Harei Zeh Olah' the object would not be Asur unless he said 'k'Olah' (as we explained in our Mishnah).

3)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa, which gives four examples of the Isar that the Torah forbids; three of them when the Noder says 'Hareini she'Lo Ochal Basar ... k'Yom she'Mes Bo Aviv, k'Yom she'Mes Bo Rabo, k'Yom she'Neherag Bo Gedalyah ben Achikam'. What is the fourth one?

(b)What does Shmuel mean when he explains 'v'Hu she'Nadur b'Oso ha'Yom'?

(c)Then which Halachah is the Tana teaching us?

(d)How do we attempt to resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from Shmuel's explanation?

3)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa, which gives four examples of the Isar that the Torah forbids: When the Noder says 'Hareini she'Lo Ochal Basar ... k'Yom she'Mes Bo Aviv, k'Yom she'Mes Bo Rabo, k'Yom she'Neherag Bo Gedalyah ben Achikam' - and 'k'Yom she'Ra'isi Yerushalayim b'Churbanah'.

(b)When Shmuel says 'v'Hu she'Nadur b'Oso ha'Yom' he means that on the day in question, he undertook not to eat meat or drink wine.

(c)The Tana is teaching us is - that if he then undertook not to eat meat or drink wine on the same date that he undertook not to eat meat or drink wine that first time (without actually mentioning that occasion), that his Neder is valid, even though on the same date in subsequent years, he did eat meat and drink wine.

(d)We attempt to resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from Shmuel's explanation - since there, we go after the Ikar, which was Asur, and not after the current year, which is permitted.

4)

(a)How do we re-word Shmuel's statement in order to refute this proof?

(b)In that case, why is it not obvious that the Neder is valid? Which of the four cases might we not have known if not for the Beraisa?

(c)Why might we not even have known any of the four cases? Why are they not similar to Korban, which is the standard Davar ha'Nadur?

4)

(a)To refute this proof - we re-word Shmuel's statement to read 'that he undertook not to eat meat or drink wine from that day and onwards (each year)'.

(b)If that is so, the first three cases are obvious. The fourth case (of Gedalyah ben Achikam) however, is not, because there is already an Isur d'Rabanan to eat on that day. And the Tana is coming to teach us is - that the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah' only applies to an Isur d'Oraisa (Mushba v'Omed m'Har Sinai), but not to a Shevu'ah d'Rabanan.

(c)Alternatively, we would not have known that Hatfasah applies to any of the cases- inasmuch as all them are individual Isurim, (and we would have thought that Hatfasah only applies to something that one forbade on everyone, like a Korban).

12b----------------------------------------12b

5)

(a)We have already referred to the Mishnah in the second Perek 'ke'Chalas Aharon v'chi'Terumaso Mutar'. What do we initially infer from the term 'Terumas Aharon' (with regard to Terumas Lachmei Todah)?

(b)How could we then resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from there? Why do we presume that Terumas Lachmei Todah speaks after the Zerikas Damim of the Todah, and not beforehand?

5)

(a)We have already referred to the Mishnah in the second Perek 'k'Chalas Aharon v'chi'Terumaso, Mutar'. We initially infer from the term 'Terumas Aharon' - that 'ki'Terumas Lachmei Todah (which will be discussed shortly), is Asur'.

(b)We could then resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from there - because, assuming that Terumas Lachmei Todah speaks after the Zerikas Damim of the Todah (due to the fact that that is when the loaves were normally given to the Cohen), we see that we go after the initial Isur, and not after the current Heter.

6)

(a)We reject that inference in favor of 'Eima ki'Terumas ha'Lishkah Asur'. What is 'Terumas ha'Lishkah'?

(b)This explanation presumes that if someone is Matfis 'ki'Terumas Lachmei Todah', his Neder will not be valid (because we go after the current Heter). We ask why the Tana then says 've'chi'Terumaso' and not 'ki'Terumas Lachmei Todah'. Why would the latter be a bigger Chidush?

(c)How do we initially answer this Kashya?

(d)What alternative explanation do we give as to why the Tana omits Terumas Lachmei Todah?

6)

(a)We reject that inference in favor of 'Eima ki'Terumas ha'Lishkah Asur' - with reference to the three boxes-full of money that the Kohanim would scoop from the large collecting box in the Azarah, with which to purchase the public Korbanos.

(b)This explanation presumes that if someone is Matfis 'ki'Terumas Lachmei Todah', his Neder is not valid (because we go after the current Heter). We ask why the Tana then says 'v'chi'Terumaso' and not 'ki'Terumas Lachmei Todah' - which is a bigger Chidush because it is a Davar ha'Nadur, unlike Terumah Gedolah which is a Davar ha'Asur!

(c)Initially, we answer - that 'ki'Terumaso' incorporates the Lachmei Todah, because they too, are forbidden to Zarim.

(d)Alternatively, the Tana deliberately omits Lachmei Todah from the Mishnah, because it is possible to give it to the Kohen before they have even been baked, which is before the Zerikas Damim (in which case they would obviously be subject to Hatfasah, and there would be no Chidush).

7)

(a)What does 'de'Afreshinhu b'Lishaihu' mean?

(b)How could we have given virtually the same answer, but in a case where the loaves have already been baked?

(c)So why did we prefer to present the current version?

7)

(a)'d'Afreshinhu b'Lishaihu' means - that he separated the four 'loaves' whilst they were still dough (before they had been baked).

(b)Alternatively, we could have answered - but still before the Zerikas Dam of the Korban ...

(c)... and the reason that we preferred this version, is because it is closer to the case of Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel, on which our current explanation is based (and which we will discuss shortly).

8)

(a)How many Lachmei Todah did they normally bake?

(b)What does Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel say about Lachmei Todah that were baked as four Chalos? Why specifically four?

(c)Then why does the Torah mention forty?

8)

(a)They normally baked - forty Lachmei Todah.

(b)Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel says - that if the Lachmei Todah that were baked as four Chalos (one of each of the four kinds of loaves specified by the Torah), one has fulfilled the Mitzvah.

(c)The Torah mentions forty loaves - because l'Chatchilah, it is a Mitzvah to bring forty loaves.

9)

(a)What is the problem with then taking the Terumah in the form of ...

1. ... one of the four loaves?

2. ... a piece of each of the four loaves?

(b)Then how did they separate the Terumah from the four loaves?

(c)The Chalos Todah comprised one kind of Chametz-loaf and three, of Chametz. What did the three Matzah-loaves consist of?

9)

(a)The problem with taking the Terumah in the form of ...

1. ... one of the four loaves is - that the Torah writes "Echad mi'Kol Korban", obligating the Kohanim to take one from each of the four kinds.

2. ... a piece of each of the four loaves is - that we learn from "Echad" that they must separate an entire loaf, and not just a piece of one.

(b)They separated the Terumah from the four loaves - whilst they were still dough. What they would do is to knead ten doughs from each of the four kinds, take one from each for the Terumah, and then re-knead the nine loaves (of each kind) into one dough before baking it.

(c)The Chalos Todah comprised one kind of Chametz-loaf and three, of Matzah - the three kinds of Matzah-loaves consisted of regular bread, wafers (like our Matzos) and bread that was 'cooked' in boiling water.

10)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor, Rebbi Yakov Oser, v'Rebbi Yosi Matir'. What sort of person must the Noder be?

(b)According to our initial contention, what would be the Din if someone said 'Harei Zeh ki'Bechor ...

1. ... before the Zerikas Damim'?

2. ... after the Zerikas Damim'?

(c)Had he said (even after the Zerikas Damim) 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor' (Stam), the Neder would also have been valid according to all opinions. How do we know that?

(d)So why did we prefer to ask 'I Lifnei Zerikas Damim, Mai Ta'ama d'Ma'an d'Shari', rather than to ask the same Kashya from 'I d'Amar 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor (Stam)'?

10)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor, Rebbi Yakov Oser, v'Rebbi Yosi Matir'. The Noder must be a Kohen, because a Yisrael has no rights over a Bechor at all, and is forbidden to eat it at any time.

(b)According to our initial contention, if someone said 'Harei Zeh ki'Bechor ...

1. ... before the Zerikas Damim' - the Neder would be valid.

2. ... after the Zerikas Damim' - it would not be valid.

(c)Had he said (even after the Zerikas Damim) 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor' (Stam), the Neder would also have been valid according to all opinions - because whenever he mentions the name of the Korban Stam everyone agrees that he is Matfis on the main Isur, and not on the current Heter (as we will learn in the following Mishnah 'Chatas, Todah, Shelamim, Asur').

(d)We nevertheless prefer to ask 'I Lifnei Zerikas Damim, Mai Ta'ama d'Ma'an d'Shari', rather than to ask the same Kashya from 'I d'Amar 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor' (Stam) - because it balances with 'I l'Achar Zerikas Damim, Mai Ta'ama d'Ma'an d'Asar?'

11)

(a)Then over which case are Rebbi Yakov and Rebbi Yosi arguing?

(b)What have we now proved with this Beraisa?

11)

(a)Rebbi Yakov and Rebbi Yosi are arguing - when he had a piece of B'chor after the Zerikas Damim in front of him as well a piece of Chulin meat, and he declared 'Zeh ka'Zeh' (exactly like the case of Rami bar Chama).

(b)We have now proved - that Rami bar Chami's She'eilah is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF