The Ran says that if one were to make a neder on top of a shavua, whether they had a shavua to eat a piece of meat or a shavua not to eat it, a neder would be binding since the shavua is just an issur gavra and leaves space for an issur cheftzah of neder to be chal on it. The Ran proves his point from the fact that one can make a neder on a d'var mitzvah. The Ran clearly understands that just as a mitzvas aseh is an obligation on the gavra, an issur la'av is also a prohibition on the gavra, so that one can make a neder to assur a piece of matzah (on pesach) and also to assur a piece of pork (like the ramban that i mentioned yesterday). Based on this the Ran very logically concludes that one can make a binding neder on a piece that he is pre-sworn on, whether he is pre-sworn to eat it or not to eat it.
Regarding making a shavua on top of a neder, the Ran is mechadesh that a shavua cannot be chal on a neder (Presumably since the shavua is not chal, it is tantamount to a shavua l'vatel or l'kayem a mitzvah that is not chal and therefore automatically a shavuas shav). He explains that when one makes a neder he is creating an issur cheftza on the object, and also an issur gavra on himself because the ba'al yachel is an issur gavra just as every lo ta'aseh in the Torah is an issur gavra. Therefore an neder includes both an issur cheftza and an issur gavra, so it does not leave any space for a shavua to be chal on it.
What would be if Reuven makes a neder to assur a piece of meat on shimon, can shimon make a shavua not to eat that piece of meat? According to the Ran 15a that there is an issur ba'al yachel on Shimon which is an issur gavra, then certainly Shimon's shavua won't be binding. But, according to the Rambam that the issur ba'al yachel is on Reuven, then maybe Shimon's shavua would be binding? But based on my assumption a few days ago that there would at least be an issur of lifnei iver in Shimon, that should also consitute an issur gavra and prevent the shavua from being binding.
2 comments:
The Ra'N has a line in the middle that "The Issur Cheftza of Neder is Chal to be Mevatel with Shaiv V'al Ta'aseh"
Is the Ra"N just telling us that being that the Neder and the Sh'vuah are both effective one should observe the Neder because of Shaiv V'al Ta'aseh, or does he mean that this is why the neder is effective on a Sh'vuah.
The difference would be if you made a Neder in the positive-to do something (if possible)and a Sh'vuah on a negative. Would the Shvu'ah take precedence?
H Grumet
a few points:
1. i understood the Ran as the previous comment pointed out that this is why one should keep the neder and violate the shavua, since we would always do the shev v'al ta'aseh - as the ran said earlier even if the neder was d'rabonon it would be better to violate the torah b'shev v'al ta'aseh.
2. the point of a shavua on a neder being a shavuas shav, is really dependent on whether one will be sho'el on the neder afterward which would allow the pending shavua to be binding as rava said. therefore, some rishonim learn that there can't be malkus for this type of shavuas shav since it will always be hasra'as safek whether he will be sho'el on the pre-existing neder.
3. the suggestion of the ran that neder has in it both cheftza and gavra must be understood that when one makes a neder he is creating an issur cheftza, but it results in an issur gavra so that if the neder is there first there is no room for a shavua to be chal. The Ran cannot be saying that cheftza and gavra are both integral aspects of neder, since if that were the case a neder should not be chal on a shavua either, since the gavra aspect can't be chal - v'dok.
Post a Comment