POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi N. Slifkin
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf
Nedarim 5
|
NEDARIM 2,3,4,5 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in honor of Rav
Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.
|
1) SHMUEL ON YADOS OF NEDARIM (Cont.)
(a) Shmuel is the same as R. Yosi b. R. Chanina's ruling that if he
only said "I am Mudar from you," they are mutually prohibited.
1. Question: A Mishnah states that if someone says "I am Cherem
to you," the prohibition is only one way (even without the
qualifying phrase)!?
2. Answer: It refers to a case where he specified that the
other is not prohibited from him.
3. Question: It states that if someone says "You are Cherem on
me," the prohibition is only one way (even without the
qualifying phrase)!?
4. Answer: It refers to a case where he specified that he
himself is not prohibited from the other.
5. Question: This indicates that without any specifications,
they are mutually prohibited, but the latter part of the
Mishnah states that only if he said that they are both
prohibited is that the case!?
6. Answer: Emend R. Yosi b. R. Chanina's ruling to read if he
said "I am Mudar to you" then they are mutually prohibited,
but if he said "I am Mudar from you," then only he is
prohibited.
7. Question: But the Mishnah used the phrase "from you" and yet
Shmuel said that if he didn't qualify it with the latter
phrases, they are mutually prohibited!?
(b) New answer: Shmuel meant that if he qualified it with the latter
phrases then he is only prohibited from eating his food,
otherwise he is prohibited from deriving any benefit.
1. Question: If so, let Shmuel say that the qualifying phrases
are a leniency, not imply that they are required for a
stringency!?
2. Answer: Shmuel means that only if he qualified it with the
latter phrases is there any prohibition. Otherwise, these
terms might not imply any formal prohibition.
5b---------------------------------------5b
(c) Question: Does this mean that Shmuel holds that inconclusive
Yados are ineffective?
(d) Answer: Yes, he establishes the Mishnah as following R. Yehudah
of the following Mishnah:
1. (Rabbanan) A Get need only say that she is permitted.
2. (R. Yehudah) It must also be written that this is the
divorce document.
(e) Question: Why does Shmuel establish the Mishnah according to the
minority opinion?
(f) Answer: Shmuel deduced from the Mishnah that inconclusive Yados
are ineffective, as he can't just say "on my eating" but must add
"of yours."
2) THE BERAISA OF INCONCLUSIVE YADAYIM
(a) Abayey: Inconclusive Yadayim are effective as Yadayim.
(b) Rava: They are not effective.
1. Reason: The Torah compares Yados of Nezirus to Nezirus such
that they must also be clear.
(c) Suggestion: Let us relate this dispute to that of the Rabbanan
and R. Yehudah:
1. (Rabbanan) A Get need only say that she is permitted.
2. (R. Yehudah) It must also be written that this is the
divorce document.
3. Abayey follows the Rabbanan, and Rava follows R. Yehudah!
(d) Rejection: Abayey can even hold like R. Yehudah; Get requires a
formal severance.
(e) Rava can even hold like the Rabbanan; Get is less inconclusive,
as one can't divorce another's wife.
Next daf
|