Previous daf

1)

(a) As we learned earlier, "*Ish* Ki Yafli" (by Erchin) teaches us that even though a Nochri cannot be Ma'arich, he can be Ne'erach. This D'rashah is superfluous - seeing as we have already learned from "Ish Ish" by Korbanos that Nochrim can declare Nedarim (and due to the Hekesh "Lindor Neder Nazir" we compare Nezirus to Nedarim as closely as possible [see Rosh]).

(b) What we really learn from it is - that a Mufla Samuch le'Ish (a twelve-year old boy who understands what Nedarim and Erchin are all about) is included in the Parshah of Nedarim and Erchin.

(c) According to those who hold that a Mufla Samuch le'Ish is only de'Rabbanan - we include a Nochri who is Mufla Samuch le'Ish.

(d) The logic to say that a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish by a Jew is only de'Rabbanan, whereas by a Nochri it is d'Oraysa, is based on the Pasuk "Lo Yachel Devaro", from which a Katan (including a Mufla Samuch le'Ish) is automatically precluded (like he is from every La'av). Consequently - whoever is precluded from 'Bal Yachel' is also precluded from 'Hafla'ah'; a Nochri, who has no connection with 'Bal Yachel', is not precluded from 'Hafla'ah' (Tosfos).

(a) The D'rashah of Mufla Samuch le'Ish works well according to those who preclude a Nochri from being Ne'erach (from "B'nei Yisrael") and include him in Ma'arich. It will not however, work according to those who learn the reverse (that he can be Ne'erach but not Ma'arich) - because anyone above the age of one month has an Erech.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah finally Darshens "Ish Ki Yafli" (of Erchin) - to preclude a Nochri who is a Gadol but who does not understand what Nedarim and Erchin are all about from the Parshah of Nedarim (whereas the Neder of a Jew under the same circumstances, would be valid).

(c) We reconcile this ...

1. ... with what we said above that this "Ish" comes to teach us that a Nochri can be Ne'erach - by establishing that D'rashah as an Asmachta (a support for that Halachah, but not a genuine D'rashah) Tosfos.
2. ... with the fact that even a Nochri Gadol who knows how to make a Neder cannot be Ma'arich - by establishing this D'rashah by Nedarim exclusively (and not by Erchin) Tosfos.

(a) We cannot learn the same thing from "Ish Ki Yafli" (written by Nezirus) as we just learned from "Ish Ki Yafli" by Erchin - because it is not necessary, since, seeing as Nezirus is compared to Nedarim, we know it already.

(b) Initially, we use this Pasuk to preclude Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos (because 'La'asuyei' means to include the preclusion of) - e.g. if a Nazir is passing and someone says 'Ehei', he is not a Nazir (according to this opinion) because 'Ehei' implies 'Ehei be'Ta'anis' just as much as it does 'Ehei Nazir'.

(c) We reject this explanation - on the grounds that it is the opinion of Rava, but what will Abaye, who holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Havyan Yadayim' learn from it?

(a) Some texts reverse the opinions of Abaye and Rava) so that Abaye holds 'Lo Havyan Yadayim', and Rava, 'Havyan Yadayim'. We nevertheless continue 'Hanicha le'Rava' (despite the fact that we have just precluded Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos) - by explaining 'La'asuyei' to mean that we include Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, like the plain meaning of the word (Tosfos).

(b) Despite the fact that "Ki Yafli" implies an exclusion, we use it to include - because the phrase appears twice, and we apply the principle 'Ein Mi'ut Ahcar Mi'ut Ela Lerabos'.

(c) So we attempt to use "Ki Yafli" by Nezirus to learn like (Rebbi Yehudah Omer) Rebbi Tarfon - who requires Nezirus to be clearly expressed (and not be'Safek) in order to take effect.

(d) We reject this answer too - on the grounds that this D'rashah will then be confined to Rebbi Tarfon, and will not go like the Rabbanan.

(a) We finally learn the two "Ki Yafli" (one in connection with Nedarim and the other, in connection with Nezirus), like Rebbi Eliezer (though it is unclear why do not ask again 'Hanicha le'Rebbi Eliezer, Ela le'Rabbanan Mai Ika Lemeimar'?). One "Ki Yafli" is written - in connection with Nedarim and the other, with Nezirus.

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer - one "Ki Yafli" teaches us that, without Charatah, the Neder stands (and cannot be annulled), and the other, that with Charatah, it can.

(c) The Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer say - that the Heter of Hataras Nedarim has no real source ('Heter Nedarim Porchin be'Avir').

(d) We do not Darshen the word *"Ish* Ki Yafli" that is written by Nedarim - because, it seems, it is only written together with "Ki Yafli" and not to teach us anything (Tosfos).

6)

(a) We learned in the previous Mishnah that a man can stop his Eved from practicing Nezirus, but not his wife. The Chumra that his Eved have over his wife ...

1. ... as long as he is still serving him is - that whereas once he annuls his wife's Nedarim, they are permanently annulled (and he can no longer uphold them), he can uphold his Eved's Nedarim even after having objected to his practicing them.
2. ... after he has gone free is - that whereas his wife's Nedarim are permanently revoked, the Eved's will then come into effect.

(b) We have already learned that the source for the master's right to object is "le'Esor Isar al *Nafsho*" (and an Eved is not his own master, as we learned earlier)". The objection that we raise to Rav Sheishes, who establishes the case by an Eved who forbade one cluster of grapes on himself, leaving himself with the possibility of eating another cluster; whereas were he to declare Nezirus, he would be forbidden to eat all grapes (which in turn, would result in his becoming weak) - is based on the likelihood that in the case of Neder too, there may well be no other bunch available either (in which case, there too it will result in him becoming weak).

(c) Abaye then tries to establish the case of Neder when grape-pits are lying in front of him and he forbids *them* with a Neder. He considered that grape-pits had an advantage over grapes in this regard - inasmuch as abstention from eating grape-pits (which are not generally edible) is less likely to make a person weak than abstention from grapes (Tosfos).

(d) We discount this answer too - on the grounds that sometimes, a person can be strengthened by eating grape-pits too, in which case the master should not need to annul the Eved's Neder either (Tosfos).

(a) Rava concludes that the reason that the master cannot object in the case of Nedarim is based on the Pasuk "le'Hara O le'Heitiv" (written in connection with Shevu'os, to which Nedarim are compared) - from which we compare a Neder to do good (e.g. to eat) to a Neder to do bad (to abstain from food). Consequently - just like doing good is 'optional', so too, is doing bad, precluding the abstention of an Eved from any food which weakens him, causing his master a loss, which does not therefore take effect.

(b) Consequently, the reason that the master cannot force his Eved to break his Neder is - because the Neder is not effective in the first place, and not because he cannot do so (though it is unclear why the Tana refers to this as a Chumra).

(c) We learn Nedarim from Shevu'os in this regard, but not Nezirus from Nedarim (to which it is compared in other regards) - because, as we learned in the first Perek, Nezirus is effective even on wine which he is already obligated to drink, whereas Nedarim are not (so the Eved's Nezirus will take effect here even without the master's objection, whereas his Nedarim will not).

(d) The master's objection will help however - on the basis of the Pasuk "Le'esor Isar al *Nafsho*" as we learned a little earlier.

(a) The Tana in the Beraisa said 'Lamah Rabo Kofo li'Nezirus, Aval Lo li'Nedarim ve'Lo le'Erchin' (see Mesores ha'Shas). According to what we just learned, the major distinction that can one draw between Nedarim and Erchin is - that whereas by Nedarim (which do not take effect), the master does not *need* to annul the Eved's Nedarim, by Erchin (which do) he is not *able* to annul them.

(b) The reason for this distinction is - that, whereas his Eved's Nezirus will cause him a financial loss, his Erech will not, since he will anyway only be obligated to pay once he is set free, or if someone gives him money over which his master is to have no jurisdiction..

(a) Should the Eved has left his master's presence (i.e. run away), Rebbi Meir forbids him to drink wine, Rebbi Yossi permits it. Running away causes the Eved to become free - because the owner we presume, despairs of retrieving him (giving him a Din of Hefker).

(b) We attempt to establish Rebbi Meir like Shmuel - who says 'ha'Mafkir Avdo Yeitzei le'Cheirus, ve'Ein Tzarich Get Shichrur'. Whereas Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Shmuel's Din.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes will then be that - according to Rebbi Meir, the Eved is considered free and his Neder comes into effect in spite of his master's objection; whereas, according to Rebbi Yossi, he is not free until he receives a Get Shichrur, so his master's objection permits him to drink wine.

(a) We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold like Shmuel - only now, the Tana'im speak when the master did not despair, in which case he is not really free according to either of them.

(b) Rebbi Yossi's reason is now so that the Eved should not return to his master in a weakened state. The reason that Rebbi Meir forbids him to drink is - a penalty to induce him to return.