Resources for Nedarim 16

1.     The גמרא says that if a person makes a נדר to not do a מצוה the נדר is חל and the person cannot do the מצוה. The רשב"א asks why we don’t say that the עשה of the סוכה  for example should be דוחה the ל"ת of בל יחל? The רשב"א answers that נדרים are really an עשה as well since it says “כל היוצא מפּיו יעשה”. If so, we would apply the principle of אין עשה דוחה ל"ת ועשה. The רשב"א was asked in a תשובה (חלק ג סימן שמ"ג) that the גמרא in יבמות on דף ה ע"א says that a מצורע has a מצוה of תגלחת (to cut all his hair) and he should do so even if he is a נזיר. The גמרא says that even though נזיר is a לא תעשה ועשה¸it is still נדחה because the איסור נזירות is איתא בשאלה (you can be מתיר נדר and make yourself not a נזיר). The person asked the רשב"א that in our case as well, his נדר is איתא בשאלה so the מצוה of סוכה for example should be דוחה the ל"ת ועשה of בל יחל! The רשב"א answered that the גמרא in יבמות just said that as a דיחויא בעלמא but in reality עשה is not דוחה ל"ת ועשה even if it is איתא בשאלה. The קובץ הערות in סימן י"ח אות ב has an amazing answer. He says that there is a fundamental difference between נזיר and נדרים. By a נזיר, the תורה creates real איסורים when one accepts נזירות. Those איסורים go away when you are שואל on your נדר. That makes נזיר a weaker איסור. However, when a person makes a נדר not to eat an apple for example, there is no direct איסור created to not eat the apple. Rather, the איסור is to not be מחלל your words. That happens to be accomplished by not eating the apple. Therefore, when one is שואל on his נדר, he is not removing the איסור to eat the apple. Rather, he is just no longer being מחלל his words because its as if he never said the words, but the איסור itself of not being מחלל דיבורו is never removed like the איסור to drink wine is. Therefore, the איסור לא יחל דברו remains at all times with its full strength. By contrast, a נזיר’s prohibition to drink wine vanishes when he is שואל על נזירותו.

2.     The גמרא says in the name of רבא that if one says קונם ישיבת סוכה עלי they are not allowed to sit in the סוכה. The ר"ן asks why don’t we apply the principle of מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו and say that one is therefore allowed to sit in the סוכה? He answers in the name of תוספות that since he explicitly said that the סוכה should be אסור on himself, it doesn’t matter that there is no הנאה from it. The ר"ן says that this means that if someone says קונם זריקת צרור לים עלי then they can’t throw the stone in the river. The חידוש of this is profound. The concept of a נדר is that you are making yourself אסור on something like it’s a קרבן or הקדש. But even if this סוכה or rock was הקדש you would still be allowed to use it for this purpose since there is no הנאה to you. So how could a saying “קרבן ישיבת סוכה זו עלי” make it אסור for you to sit in it when if it had been a קרבן it would be מותר? I believe this concept of תוספות work better with the ר"ן לשיטתו who says back on דף ב that נדרים really don’t need התפסה בקרבן at all and נדרים are חל without any התפסה. In that case it makes sense that you could אסור your חפץ on someone in a way where no “מעילה בהקדש” would occur since נדרים aren’t completely tied to קרבן. Interestingly, the מאירי disagrees with the ר"ן and says there is a difference between a סוכה and a rock. By a מצוה one gets some benefit from it, even if it isn’t officially considered a הנאה. However, by throwing a rock, one gains literally nothing and one cannot make that אסור. 

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