Previous daf

1)

(a) We just cited two versions of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman explaining the Tana Kama: whether 'Lo Yachzir' is because of Kilkul or so that the B'nos Yisrael should not be lax in their morals and in Nedarim - both of which are substantiated by Beraisos.

(b) In the Beraisa that substantiates the first Lashon, Rebbi Meir describes the entire cause and effect of Kilkul. He is referring to - the case of someone who divorces his wife because of a bad name, though the Din will be exactly the same in the case of Nedarim.

(c) The author of the Beraisa which supports the second Lashon ('so that the B'nos Yisrael should not be lax in their morals and in Nedarim') - is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "ve'Lo Hikum B'nei Yisrael Ki Nishbe'u Lahem Nesi'ei ha'Eidah" - that a Neder she'Hudar le'Rabim cannot be annulled.

(b) The Rabbanan decline to learn like Rebbi Yehudah, however. In spite of the Pasuk, they maintain that a Neder she'Hudar be'Rabim can be annulled - because seeing as the oath that Yehoshua and the elders had made to the Giv'onim was extracted under false pretences, it was anyway ineffective and did not require nullification.

(c) Nevertheless, Yehoshua did not abrogate that oath - because of the Chilul Hashem that would ensue, when people who knew of the Neder but not of the circumstances, would accuse Yisrael of abrogating a Neder made in good faith.

(a) Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk "Yamim Rabim" (in connection with a Zavah) - that 'Rabim' means a minimum of three people (because in the context of a Zavah, "Yamim" implies two days, and "Rabim", three).

(b) Rebbi Yitzchak learns that 'Rabim' means ten people - because the Torah refers to the ten spies (excluding Yehoshua and Kalev) as "Eidah" (a community).

5)

(a) At the end of our Mishnah, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah cites the incident of the man from Tzidon who declared a Konem if he would not divorce his wife - which he subsequently did. The Chachamim permitted him to take her back.

(b) In spite of the fact that the previous Tana'im did not mention a case where the husband was the one to declare the Neder, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's statement fits into our Mishnah - because we amend the Mishnah, adding the words 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, ke'she'Nadrah Hi, Aval Nadar Hu, Yachzir', and that is what Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah comes to substantiate.

(c) When Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah said that the man declared '*Konem* Im Eini Megarshech' (since 'Konem' S'tam has connotations of Hekdesh) - he means that the man declared a Neder forbidding all fruit on himself unless he divorced his wife.

(d) The Chachamim permitted him to take her back - in spite of Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa, who said that someone who makes a Neder is as if he had built a Bamah, and that, if he subsequently fulfils it (instead of having it revoked), it is as if he actually sacrificed on it. On that basis, we might have thought that he deserves to be penalized, and forbidden him to remarry her.

6) According to Rav Sheishes, the concluding words of our Mishnah 'Mipnei Tikun ha'Olam' might pertain to the first half of the Mishnah ('ha'Motzi es Ishto Mishum Shem-Ra ... Lo Yachzir'). According to Ravina however, they pertain to the Din of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in the Seifa - meaning that in this case, Tikun ha'Olam does not apply.

7)

(a) In our Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah states that if a man divorces his wife because he discovers that she is an Aylonis, he may not take her back (even if it later turns out that she is not). The man must not have known that his wife was an Aylonis when he married her - because if he had, why would he later divorce her because she is?

(b) He is nevertheless required to give her a Get. It is not simply a Mekach Ta'us (an erroneous sale), which is automatically canceled - because a man does not like to turn his Bi'ah into a Be'ilas Z'nus (an 'immoral' act).

(c) She does not however, receive her Kesuvah.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah's reason is - because of 'Kilkul' (in case she remarries and has children, and her first husband then claims that had he known that she could have children, he would not have divorced her ... ).

(a) The Rabbanan in the previous case - are not concerned about 'Kilkul', in which case he is permitted to take her back.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah advises the above woman who, after becoming divorced, remarrying and having children, comes to claim her Kesuvah from her first husband - to be silent, to prevent him from retorting that had he known, he would never have divorced her in the first place (which is not a valid argument to counter the divorce, but is to counter her claiming the Kesuvah - see Tosfos Rid, beginning of 47b).

(c) Shmuel reconciles Rebbi Yehudah in this Mishnah (who *is concerned* about 'Kilkul') with Rebbi Yehudah in the previous Mishnah ('ha'Motzi es Ishto Mishum Neder ... ' [who is *not*]) - by switching the opinions in our Mishnah, so that it is the Rabbanan who are concerned about 'Kilkul' and not Rebbi Yehudah.

(d) The Kashya from the Seifa of our Mishnah ('Niseis le'Acher, ve'Hayu Lah Banim Mimenu ... '), where Rebbi Yehudah is worried about Kilkul too, Shmuel will answer in exactly the same way - by switching that to the Rabbanan.

(a) Abaye disagrees with Shmuel. In his opinion, Rebbi Yehudah *is* concerned about 'Kilkul', as is clear from our Mishnah. And the reason that he said in the previous Mishnah 'Kol Neder she'Yad'u Bo Rabim, Yachzir' (ignoring the issue of 'Kilkul') is - because with regard to a Neder that requires Beis-Din, he holds that a man does not wish his wife to be shamed in Beis-Din (like Rebbi Elazar), and with regard to a Neder that does not, he holds that there is no Kilkul since he could have annulled it himself (like Rebbi Meir).

(b) We have reconciled the two rulings of Rebbi Yehudah. Rava reconciles the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (who are not concerned about 'Kilkul') with the Rabbanan in the previous Mishnah (who are) by establishing this Mishnah like Rebbi Meir - who requires a T'nai Kaful (a condition that specifically mentions both the positive and the negative sides of the transaction and the T'nai), and our Mishnah, whose author is Rebbi Meir, speaks when the husband failed to mention a T'nai Kaful.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that someone who sells himself together with his children to Nochrim ...

1. ... cannot be redeemed.
2. ... though his children can, after his death.

(b) If the man fell on hard times, and was forced to sell himself but could not find a Jewish purchaser, he would indeed not be penalized. Therefore - Rav Asi establishes our Mishnah when he sold himself a number of times (turning his act from an O'nes into one of negligence).

(c) We do not redeem his children immediately - because as long as their father is alive, he will ensure that they are not led astray by their captors.

(a) Those people from Bei Michsi - borrowed money from Nochrim, and when they were unable to repay their loan, the creditors chose them (as servants to work for them until the debt had been paid).

(b) Rav Huna, citing our Mishnah - prohibited their redemption.

(c) When Rav Aba queried Rav Huna's ruling from Rav Asi - he replied that this had happened already a few times, and that they were therefore considered negligent and not A'nus.