Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Heter Nedarim Porchin be'Avir, ve'Ein Lahem al Mah she'Yismochu' - means that although there is a slight hint in the Torah for the releasing of vows, there is nothing tangible to rely on. Consequently, the source lies purely in the oral teachings.

(b) The Tana describes ...

1. ... Hilchos Shabbos, Chagigos and Me'ilos - as being like mountains that hang on a hair, because each one of them has only a slight reference in the written Torah, but many Halachos.
2. ... Dinin, Avodos, Taharos, Tum'os and Arayos - as being broadly hinted at in the Torah.

(c) The Tana'im find four sources for Heter Nedarim.

1. Rebbi Eliezer learns it from the two times that the Torah writes "Ki Yafli" (once in Bechukosai, with regard to Erchin, and once in Naso, with regard to a Nazir) - one of them expressing the Neder, the other, his remorse and reasons for wanting it released.
2. Rebbi Yehoshua learns it from "Asher Nishba'ti be'Api Im Yevo'un el Menuchasi" (Tehilim) - implying that Hashem swore forbidding Yisrael entry into Eretz Yisrael, but that, seeing as the oath was made in anger, when the anger abated the oath could be lifted.
3. Rebbi Yitzchak learns it from "Kol Nediv Libo" (va'Yakheil) - suggesting that the Neder remains valid only as long as person who declared it remains willing to do so, but that, should he change his mind, it can be released.
4. Rebbi Chananyah, Rebbi Yehoshua's nephew learns it from "Nishba'ti va'Akayeimah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha"- that the oath that one made is sacrosanct only as long as one is willing to uphold it ... .

(a) Rava refutes each of the above proofs, but accepts that of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who infers from the Pasuk "Lo Yacheil Devaro" - that *he* (the person who made the Neder) may not profane his vow, but that others may nullify it on his behalf.

(b) Rava refutes the proof of ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer - from Rebbi Yehudah Amar Rebbi Tarfon, who Darshens from "Ki Yafli" by Nazir - that Nezirus must be clearly expressed, and that if it is left in doubt (e.g. if one man declared that if the man who was currently walking past *was* a Nazir, he would also become a Nazir, and his friend said that he would become a Nazir if he was *not*, then neither of them becomes a Nazir - like Rebbi Yehudah Amar Rebbi Tarfon).
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua. *He* interprets "Asher Nishba'ti be'Api" to mean that - since Hashem had sworn in His anger, He will under no circumstances rescind the oath.
3. ... Rebbi Yitzchak, by explaining "Kol Nediv Libo" - that a Neder (of Kodshim) does not need to expressed (whereas other Nedarim do, as Shmuel has taught - see Tosfos DH 'la'Afukei').
4. ... Rebbi Chananyah Rebbi Yehoshua's nephew, from Rav Gidal Amar Rav, who learns from "Nishba'ti va'Akayeimah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha" - that it is a Mitzvah to swear to fulfill a Mitzvah.

(c) The fact that Shmuel's statement, out of all the statements of the Tana'im, is the only one that is foolproof - conforms with the folk-saying 'One sharp pepper is better than a basket-full of gourds'.

(a) To answer the Kashya that 'Shabbos *is* clearly specified in the Torah, so how can the Mishnah say 'Mikra Mu'at'?, we quote Rebbi Aba - who says that someone who digs a pit for the earth (but does not need the pit) is Patur on Shabbos (and that is the aspect of Shabbos to which the Tana is referring).

(b) This answer seems to follow the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who holds 'Melachah she'Einah Tz'richah le'Gufa, Patur'. Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'Chayav') nevertheless concedes that one is Patur - because if the hole is not needed, he is anyway Patur because of Mekalkel (spoiling something, which is destructive, and not constructive, which it needs to be before one is generally Chayav on Shabbos).

(c) 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' suggests that Rebbi Aba's case is hinted in the Torah. It is indeed hinted under the name of 'Meleches Machsheves' - concerning the Mishkan, from which we learn Shabbos (also with regard to the thirty-nine Melachos) by virtue of their juxtaposion in Parshas Vayakheil.

4)

(a) Chagigah too, appears to be specifically written in Parshas Emor "ve'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Hashem" - though this Pasuk could also be an invitation to celebrate Yom-Tov by eating and drinking.

(b) We try to prove that Chag means Chagigah from the Pasuk in Sh'mos "ve'Yachogu Li ba'Midbar ... va'Yomer Moshe, Gam Ata Titein be'Yadeinu Zevachim ve'Olos" - because of "Zevachim", which normally means Shelamim.

(c) We reject ...

1. ... that proof - on the grounds that "Zevachim" might also refer to Chulin animals that are Shechted (because the verb 'li'Z'bo'ach means to Shecht).
2. ... another proof from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi ad Boker" - because "Chagi" may well refer to the celebrations and not to the Chagigah, and Cheilev, to the fat of other Korbanos (such as Nedarim and Nedavos) that one brought on Yom-Tov.

(a) We cannot however, infer, that the Cheilev of other Korbanos ...

1. ... that are not brought on Yom-Tov may remain off the Mizbei'ach until the morning - because even if the La'av currently under discussion does *not* apply to them, there is an Asei in Tzav ("Kol ha'Laylah ad ha'Boker") which *does*.
2. ... is subject to an Asei, but not to a La'av - because of another La'av in Re'ei ("ve'Lo Yalin min ha'Basar ... ad Boker") that *does*.

(b) In spite of the fact that even the Cheilev of other Korbanos is subject to a La'av and an Asei, we could still interpret "ve'Lo Yalin *Cheilev* Chagi ad Boker" with regard to other Korbanos that are brought on Yom-Tov exclusively - to preclude other Korbanos from the *second* La'av.

(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Midbar" "Midbar" ("ve'Yachogu Li ba'Midbar" from "ha'Zevachim u'Minchah Higashtem Li ba'Midbar") - that "Zevachim" means Shelamim and not just animals that are Shechted, proving once and for all that "ve'Yachogu Li ba'Midbar means to bring the Chagigah, and not just to celebrate Yom-Tov (in which case Chagigah *is* mentioned specifically in the Torah).

(b) Despite the fact that we learn Chagigos from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (which is considered as if it was written specifically, as is evident from the whole Sugya), our Mishnah describes them as 'ke'Harerin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' - because the 'Gezeirah-Shavah is learned from a Pasuk in Amos, and we cannot effectively learn Divrei Torah from Divrei Ne'vi'im.

(a) Me'ilah is listed among the things that are 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'. Me'ilah itself is clearly written (in Parshas Vayikra). So we try to establish our Mishnah with the Mishnah in Me'ilah, regarding a Sh'liach to whom someone gave Hekdesh money to buy something on his behalf. The Ba'al ha'Bayis is Mo'el - when the Sh'li'ach carries out his Sh'lichus; and the Sh'liach is Mo'el - when he does not.

(b) What is irregular about this Din that prompts us to describe it as 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' - is the fact that the Shli'ach sins and the Ba'al ha'Bayis is Chayav, contravening the accepted principle 'Ein Sh'li'ach li'D'var Aveirah'.

(c) Rava rejects this however, on the grounds that Me'ilah is different, because we learn it from Terumah - by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet" "Chet"). Consequently, just as one can appoint a Sh'liach to take Terumah on one's behalf, so too, can one appoint a Sh'li'ach to be Mo'el on one's behalf.

(a) Rava establishes our Mishnah with the Beraisa of 'Nizkar Ba'al ha'Bayis ve'Lo Nizkar Sh'liach, Sh'liach Ma'al'. It is most strange, says Rava, that the Sh'li'ach, who is totally innocent, should be Chayav for a deed performed by the Ba'al ha'Bayis - and that is what warrants the description 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'.

(b) Rav Ashi rejects Rava's answer, because it is no different than anyone who spends Hekdesh money inadvertently, who is Mo'el even though he did not do so deliberately.

(c) Rav Ashi tries to establish our Mishnah with the Mishnah in Me'ilah. The Mishnah states that if someone took a stone or a beam of Hekdesh, he is *not* Mo'el - whereas if he then gave it to a friend, he *is*.

(d) The difference is incomprehensible - seeing as in the first case too, he took the stone out of Hekdesh's domain, so what makes him more Chayav when he hands it to his friend? That, explains Rav Ashi, is what helps to earn for it the description 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah'.

(a) We refute this suggestion too, on the basis of Shmuel's understanding of the Mishnah in Me'ilah - Shmuel establishes the Mishnah in a case when it was actually the treasurer of Hekdesh who took the stone or the beam from Hekdesh. The treasurer has charge of all Hekdesh articles, which are therefore considered to be in his domain, until he hands them to someone else.

(b) So we try and apply 'ke'Hararin ha'Teluyin bi'Se'arah' to the Seifa of that Mishnah: 'Ban'ah be'Soch Beiso, Harei Zeh Lo Ma'al Ad she'Yidor Tachteha be'Shaveh Perutah'. That too, is strange, based on the assumption that before building the stone or the beam into his house, he must have shaped and smoothened it first, in which case, he would have already been Chayav Me'ilah (by acquiring it with Shinuy - by changing it) - so why should he have to live underneath it in order to be Mo'el?

(c) We refute this proof with Rav's interpretation of the Mishnah. Rav explains - that the Mishnah speaks when he placed the stone or the beam on top of the skylight as it was, without shaping or smoothening it first.

Next daf