Category: Nedarim

Rabbi Ari Chechik: Daf Yomi-Nedarim Daf 30 (06/22/15)

Download Here

Nedarim 30

1- the Gemara continues its discussion from Daf 29
On the Topic of if Kedusha can be Pahka biChdey
When one makes an item Kodesh can he stipulate at the beginning that after a certain amount of time or after a certain event the Kedusha will just Go off by itself , without the need to Redeem (pay hekdesh money

2- the prior mishnah gave a case
If someone said “these planted items (tress) shall be Kodesh until they are cut down”.

Bar Pada says 2 things in explanation of this case.
A) until they are cut down, no matter how many times the Noder redeems them from Hekdesh the automatically become Holy again requiring a new redemption
B) Once they are cut down he needs to Redeem them once and then they are officially deconsecrated
Ula argues and says once you cut them down they are No Longer Kodesh as per your stipulation and No Redemption payment is needed at all.

3- yesterday’s Daf dealt with various proof’s and cases to prove if the Kedusha can just go off after the trees are cut despite there being no redemption payment.

4- today’s Daf picks up on the potential ramifications of the first statement of Bar Pada that the trees keep on getting new Kedusha every time he tries to redeem them.
5- the Gemara attempts to bring a proof from this statement to resolve a case where a man gives a woman 2 coins and says one is to be mikadesh you today the 2nd coin is to me Mikadesh you after I divorce you.
Perhaps just as the trees become reconsecrated so too the woman should be automatically remarried to him.
6- the Gemara rejects this proposal because Rav Yochanan explained that the “only time “the trees become Kodesh again and again is when the person who originally made the Neder buys them back from Hekdesh, but if a 3 party who didn’t make the Neder redeems (buys the ) trees from Hekdesh -They Belong to him and do Not become Hekdesh again-
7-based on this Rule the Gemara concludes that No Proof can be brought from our case to resolve the question of if a woman accepts 2 coins for Kiddushin the first for today the 2nd for after she is divorced -will the second Kiddushin be effective

8-The Ran quotes the Rashba that says the question IS resolved from a different Gemara Elsewhere the underlying reason is that despite there is an intervening time that the woman cannot be Mikudesh because she is married -Still because at the time of the moment of the initial Offer of Kiddushin it was in both parties power to contract-it is therefore effective despite the intervening marriage-

9- THE MOST FAMOUS RAN ON KIDDUSHIN -is found here in Nedarim.
The Ran ponders why in fact, is the question of 2 Kiddushin not resolved and comparable to our case of trees becoming Kodesh automatically again and again –
The cases on the surface seem identical
In the case of Hekdesh
1-A-the vower declares the trees with a reoccurring Hekdesh for AFTER the time they are redeemed.
B-in the intervening time the Trees belong to Hekdesh Not the vower –
C-Yet after they leave the possession of Hekdesh (are divorced from Hekdesh) they become Kodesh again because of the original deflation despite the intervening period.
Why Not say so too by Kiddushin
A-because the man declares and the woman accepts Kiddushin now and to reoccur later
B-despite the intervening period being that there is a divorce that opens up a new availability
C-she should be Mikudesh a 2nd time despite the intervening blocked period-
(Had he just said be Mikudesh to me in 30 days all agree it works)

10- The Ran explains that the cases are really Not comparable at all-
He Says the way Kiddushin in works is that it is Totally the Man doing the Transaction (the woman only acquiesces to let the man perform the transaction)
He says in essence the woman by agreeing to marry the person is as if she makes herself Hefker/-ownerless and the man acquires her from Hefker (her ownerless state) The man is the only one “doing” the transaction.

Consequently it is absolutely no comparison to the case of trees

There the Hekdesh is like the Man
Who acquires the trees (or wife) the man is actually doing the Donating of the trees – But in our case the woman is not doing any donating to her husband she is passive – Therefore the case is Totally not comparable

nedarim30a

nedarim30b

Rabbi Ari Chechik: Daf Yomi-Nedarim Dapim 25B-26A&B-27A (06/18/15)

Download Here

 Daf Yomi Nedarim 25B-26A&B-27A

Nedarim End of 25b all of 26 and first part of 27a
1-deals with the topic of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion
Neder SheHutar mikztaso Hutar Kulo
If part of a Neder was voided then the whole Neder is void.
2- dispute between Rabbah and Rava on which cases are covered by Rabbi Akiva (and Beis Hillel’s) opinion.
This Shiur is Not for the faint hearted its very complex

nedarim25b
nedarim26a
nedarim26b
nedarim27a

Rabbi Ari Chechik: Daf Yomi-Nedarim Daf 16 (06/09/15)

Download Here

 Daf Yomi Nedarim Daf 16

 

1-discussion of the Word Yaflee as opposed to the word Maflee
Targum in this weeks coming Parsha translates the words LiFalay Neder as LiFarsha Nidra
“To “Explain” a vow” perhaps the counter on the other end of the same spectrum is the exact opposite the “Pela “usually translated as a “wonder” but based on this Targum a more precise fit of the translation would fit nicely as “the UN-Explainable”
Thus giving rise to the connection between Yaflee -clearly explicitly explaining ones Neder and Maflee laSaos Hashem making us with simply Un explainable brilliant functions

2- Gemara discusses the sources for the Halacha that a Shevua cannot be made to not to a mitzvah while a Neder Can be made to Not do a Mitzvah (it didn’t I solve you from you obligation to do a mitzvah but if you make a Neder Not to sit in this Succah then if you fulfill the mitzvah of Succah you (which you must) you also get Malkus for violating your Neder forbidding this Succah-hut upon yourself.