Resources for Nedarim 7
1. The גמרא discusses whether there is a יד לצדקה or not. The שיטה מקובצת asks a fundamental question: according to many ראשונים, צדקה is חל even with מחשבה alone as it says נדיב לב. (This is also how the רמ"א paskens in יו"ד סימן רע"ח סעיף י"ח). If so, how is it relevant whether there are ידות לצדקה? If the person was גמר בלבו to give צדקה then he doesn’t need to say anything! There are several answers given, many of which are simply finding נפקא מינהs. The אבני נזר in יו"ד סימן ש"ו אות ה says that the עונג יו"ט says that when someone is only גומר בלבו, he has a חיוב to give the item he intended to give, but it is only a דין in the גברא and nothing is חל on the חפצא. Therefore, if the man died before he gave it to charity his יורשים would not have to give it since they don’t need to fulfill their father’s נדרים. By contrast, had he said סלע זו לצדקה, then the יורשים would have had to give it after their father’s death. Therefore, there is a נפקא מינה whether his דיבור worked. Another answer is given by the קרן אורה back on דף ב in ד"ה וקשיא. He says that if, for example, a person thought one thing and said another, nothing is חל even by הקדש--not what he thought in his head nor what he said because you need פּיו ולבו שוין. Similarly, one could suggest that if a person says words that are not clear then it is a type of אין פּיו ולבו שוין and it would not be חל at all.
2. The גמרא asks whether there is a יד להפקר or not. The גמרא assumes in its question that הפקר is the same as צדקה. תוספות explains the reason for this is that the average case where someone is מפקיר something is so that poor people can take it. The מאירי explains that from the fact that our גמרא says that הפקר is like צדקה, it must be that הפקר is a נדר similar to צדקה. He says that this is the source for theרמב"ם in הלכות נדרים פּרק ב הל׳ י"ד who says that הפקר is like a נדר in the sense that you can't be חוזר. This is a fascinating concept. We are used to thinking that הפקר is a purely financial statement. According to the רמב"ם , it is a נדר, similar to when you say הרי זו צדקה. The ערוך השלחן in חו"מ סימן רע"ג explains the רמב"ם as follows: just because it is only a נדר doesn’t mean you have the option to renege on the נדר. If you say הרי זו חלה, it is considered a נדר but the food immediately becomes owned by the כהן. If you say הרי זו הקדש, it is a נדר but the animal immediately becomes owned by הקדש. Similarly, if you say הרי זו הפקר it is immediately הפקר. The נפקא מינה would be that if you hold like the רמב"ם then you should be able to be שואל on your נדר and make your property not הפקר anymore (as long as no one picked it up in the meantime), similar to how you can be שואל on הפרשת חלה and then eat it yourself if a כהן hasn’t taken it yet. The מנחת חינוך in מצוה י"א אות ה says exactly that and has a fascinating הערה: The גמרא in פּסחים מ"ו ע"ב says that you cant have חלה of הקדש in your possession on פּסח because “אי בעי מתשיל עליה”. If so, if you owned חמץ של הפקר on פּסח you would be עובר בל יראה because you could be שואל התרה on your הפקר! The ר"ן on דף פּ"ה ע"א ד"ה ואני says that there is no התרת נדרים on הפקר. The מנחת חינוך suggests that that ר"ן may not hold like the רמב"ם and would hold that הפקר is a full קנין ממוני. This would also fit לשיטתם because our גמרא does not have a מסקנא and the ר"ן says we should go לקולא since ספק ממונא לקולא לנתבע yet theרמב"ם holds it is הפקר which may be because of ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya