Previous daf

1)

(a) We establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Ya'akov and Rebbi Yossi when the Noder said 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor Lifnei Zerikas Damim' (but in the case of 'Zeh ka'Zeh', both will agree that we go after the current time, when it is Mutar). Rebbi Yossi learns that it is Mutar from the Pasuk "Ish ki Yidor Neder ... " - implying 'be'Davar ha'Nadur, ve'Lo be'Davar ha'Mutar'.

(b) Rebbi Ya'akov learns from the continuation of the Pasuk " ... la'Hashem" - to include even something which is a Davar ha'Asur (i.e. a Bechor, as will soon be explained).

(c) Rebbi Yossi learns from "la'Hashem" - that whatever is for Hashem is included in Hatfasah, even a Chatas and an Asham.

(d) Rebbi Yossi prefers to include a Chatas ve'Asham from "la'Hashem" rather than a Bechor - because, even though both are basically obligatory, the right to pick whichever animal one wishes, renders a Chatas ve'Asham more a Davar ha'Nadur that Bechor, where he is obligated to declare that particular animal Kadosh.

(a) Although Rebbi Ya'akov concedes to the D'rashah "Ish ki Yidor Neder ... " (which precludes a Davar ha'Asur from Hatfasah), he nevertheless goes on to include a Bechor from "la'Hashem" (in spite of the apparent contradiction), because he holds like Rebbi - who learns from the Pasuk "ha'Zachar Takdish" - that it is a Mitzvah to declare a Bechor Kadosh (making it a Davar ha'Nadur).

(b) Rebbi Yossi counters - that that is only a Mitzvah, but, seeing that the animal will be Kadosh even if the owner fails to do so, it remains a Davar ha'Asur, and not a Davar ha'Nadur.

4)

(a) We establish the Beraisa which validates 'Imra, le'Imra and ke'Imra' (and the same with the other cases in our Mishnah, 'Dirim Eitzim, Ishim ... ') like Rebbi Meir - on the basis that Rebbi Meir is the one who does not require the 'Kaf' of comparison in these cases.

(b) The problem we then have with the Seifa, which concludes 've'Chulan, Lo Ochal Lach, Mutar' is - that it clashes with the following Mishnah 'le'Korban Lo Ochal Lach, Rebbi Meir Oser', which Rebbi Aba interprets to mean 'Na'aseh ke'Omer le'Korban Yehei, Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach'.

(c) We already solved this problem above on 11b. - where we differentiated between 'Lo Chulin (Imra, in our case) and la'Chulin' (see answer to question 7a. there).

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah validates 'Korban, Olah, Minchah ... she'Ani Ochal Lach'. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because the Noder did not add the 'Kaf' of comparison.

(b) The Chidush is - that we would otherwise have thought that a 'Kaf' is not necessary here, since all of these already express the Isur and should not therefore require it any more than Pigul and Nosar (as we explained above).

(c) 'ha'Korban, ke'Korban, Korban she'Ochal Lach, Asur' - because it implies that whatever he eats will be Asur like a Korban.

(d) If he were to conclude ' ... Ochal Lach' - his Neder would not be valid, because he is simply swearing by the life of the Korban.

(a) If he says 'le'Korban, Lo Ochal Lach', or 'le'Korban, she'Ochal Lach' - his Neder will be valid, because what he is saying is 'le'Korban Yehei, Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach' or 'le'Korban Yehei Mah she'Ochal Lach', respectively.

(b) The Beraisa states 'Modim Chachamim (i.e. Rebbi Meir) le'Rebbi Yehudah be'Omer Hei Korban ... she'Ochal Lach, she'Mutar' - she'Lo Nadar Ela be'Chayei Korban'.

(c) We reconcile this with our Mishnah 'ha'Korban she'Ochal Lach Asur' (which we established like Rebbi Meir) - by differentiating between 'Hei Korban' (implying 'by the life of the Korban') and 'ha'Korban' (implying that it should be a Korban).

(d) Rebbi Meir validates 'le'Korban Lo Ochal Lach', despite the fact that he holds 'mi'Chelal La'av *I* Ata Shomei'a Hein' - like Rebbi Aba, who explains that what he means to say is 'le'Korban Yehei, Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach'.

7)

(a) 'Konem Pi Medaber Imach'; 'Yadi Osah Imach' and 'Ragli Mehaleches Imach' - are listed in our Mishnah as being valid Nedarim.

(b) The ramifications of 'Konem Pi Medaber Imach' are - that the Noder is not permitted to speak to the Mudar, 'Yadi Osah Imach' - to do any work for him, and 'Ragli Mehaleches Imach' - to walk with him.

(c) The Mishnah later states that Shevu'os are more stringent than Nedarim - inasmuch as they take effect even on abstract things, whereas Nedarim are confined to tangible objects. And the proof for this - lies in the Tana's use of the word 'Pi', 'Yadi' and 'Ragli' in the Mishnah.

(d) We reconcile the Tana of our Mishnah, which validates a Neder concerning speech (which is abstract) with that Tana - by establishing it when he said 'Ye'aser Pi le'Diburi' 'Yadi le'Oseihen' and 'Ragli le'Hiluchan' (placing the prohibition on his mouth, hand and foot, which are tangible objects).

8)

(a) The Tana in our Mishnah lists a variety of cases where the Neder is not valid. Having mentioned ...

1. ... 'ke'Basar Chazir', he nevertheless sees fit to mention 'ka'Avodas Kochavim' - which is also Asur be'Hana'ah (and is therefore a bigger Chidush).
2. ... 'ke'Avodas Kochavim', he sees fit to mention 'ke'Oros Levuvin (they would cut a hole through the skin of the animal whilst it was still alive and remove its heart, to sacrifice to their gods) - because, like all objects that were sacrificed to idolatry, it was not subject to Bitul (making it a bigger Chidush still).

(b) And having mentioned 'Neveilos u'Tereifos' (which are forbidden to eat and Tamei [presumably, the Tana mentions T'reifos, which are not Tamei, because of Neveilos, since they often appear together]), the Tana needs to mention 'ki'Shekatzim u'Remasim' - which are Tamei even hen they are only the size of a lentil (and not just a k'Zayis, like Neveilos).

(c) What all the cases in the Mishnah have in common is - the fact that they are all in the category of Davar ha'Asur and not Davar ha'Nadur, which explains why the Neder is invalid.

(d) The Tana inserts 'ke'Chalas Aharon ve'chi'Terumaso' in the list - because, the Isur comes into effect, not through his separation, but through the Torah's Isur. This is because the produce and the dough are already forbidden before the owner separates them, and when he does separate them, his intention is to permit the remainder - see Meforshei ha'Mishnah).

(a) If someone says to his wife 'Harei At Alai ke'Eima, Poschin Lo Pesach mi'Makom Acher' - because, even though his mother is a Davar ha'Asur, we are afraid that an Am-ha'Aretz (about whom the Tana is speaking), will go on to presume that a Neder that he is Matfis be'Davar ha'Nadur is not valid, either.

(b) This Halachah is not confined to 'ke'Eima', but to all cases of Davar ha'Asur. The Tana picked a case of Isurei Hana'ah - and might well have given any such example, such as Avodas-Kochavim, Orlah or K'lai ha'Kerem

(c) When the Tana says 'mi'Makom Acher' - he means that one cannot use Kavod Aviv ve'Imo (i.e. when the Chacham says to the Noder 'Had you known that it is disrespectful to use your parents in this way, would you have made the Neder') as a means to annul the Neder. We know this already with regard to a Neder d'Oraysa, and the Tana is teaching us here that the same applies to a Neder de'Rabbanan.

(d) This Halachah will not apply to most other Nedarim that an Am ha'Aretz makes through a Davar ha'Asur (i.e. his Neder will not require Hatarah) - and it is only in cases such as this one (where a man forbids his wife through a Neder), which are common, that Chazal were stringent, and required Hatarah.