Previous daf

1)

(a) The author of our Mishnah, which begins the list of those Nedarim that are not valid with 'Chulin she'Ochal Lach', inferring 'La'Chulin she'Ochal Lach', *are* - must be Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'mi'Chelal La'av Ata Shomei'a Hein'.

(b) The Tana needs to repeat it here, even though he already taught us this case in the first Perek - merely because it belongs in the list of other cases in our Mishnah.

(c) There would have been no problem had we been able to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, to teach us that this is not a case of 'mi'Chelal La'av ... '. It is not possible however, to do so - because, as we already explained, it is clear from the Mishnah on 10b., that Rebbi Meir considers this case too, to fall into the category of 'mi'Chelal La'av ... '.

(d) We reject Ravina's contention (that the Tana mentions 'Chulin' to teach us that the entire Reisha does not need Hatarah at all (just like Chulin, where there is no case of Davar ha'Nadur, which might cause us to decree on account of it) - because we already know this from the Seifa ('ha'Omer le'Ishto ... ').

(a) The source for 'be'Davar ha'Nadur, ve'Lo be'Davar ha'Asur' is the Pasuk "Ish ki Yidor Neder ... ". The Pasuk is not needed for itself (to forbid a Davar ha'Nadur) - because if a Neder is effective without Hatfasah, why should we need a Pasuk to teach us that Hatfasah be'Davar ha'Nadur is effective, too? Why on earth should it not be?

(b) When we ask - 'I Hachi, be'Davar ha'Asur Nami, di'Chesiv "Le'esor Isar al Nafsho" - we mean that, now that we have *two* Pesukim, we will have to go back on our original assumption, that Hatfasah does not need a Pasuk, and say that one of the Pesukim comes to include Hatfasah be'Davar ha'Nadur, and the other, 'Hatfasah be'Davar ha'Asur?

(c) We resolve the two Pesukim - by remaining with the first D'rashah (to learn Davar ha'Nadur from "Ish ki Yidor Neder"), but use the second D'rashah (from "Le'esor Isar") to teach us that Hatfasah helps by Isarim (private Isurim).

(d) We reject the previous contention (that one Pasuk comes for Hatfasah be'Davar ha'Nadur, and the other, for Davar ha'Asur) - on the grounds that it is illogical to validate Hatfasah from a Davar ha'Asur, seeing as the Davar ha'Asur is automatically forbidden by the Torah. What sense would it then make to say 'Zeh ka'Zeh' (seeing as the first object was not Nadur)?

(a) We have already learned that of the four cases presented in the Mishnah of Isarim ('Hareini she'Lo Ochal Basar ... Yom she'Yom she'Meis bo Aviv', Yom she'Meis Bo Rabo ... '), the only Chidush is that of 'Yom she'Neherag bo Gedalyah ben Achikam', since it is already Asur mi'de'Rabbanan to eat at all on that day. We initially explain the Chidush in the other three cases to be - the fact that the Neder is effective, despite the fact that he would not have eaten meat or drunk wine anyway on those days.

(b) We reconcile our Sugya, which learns the Chidush of Isar (a personal Isur) from "Le'esor Isar" with the Sugya in Shevu'os, which learns it from "Ish Ki Yidor Neder la'Hashem" - by substantiating our Sugya, and pointing out that the Sugya there is not yet fully aware of all the Derashos.

(c) Hatfasah is not effective on a Shevu'ah - because there is no object for it to take effect.

(d) This is the opinion of the Ran. Others say - that Hatfasah on a Shevu'ah is effective (mi'de'Rabbanan), only there is no Korban and no Malkos for subsequently contravening it.

(a) Abaye resolves our Mishnah, which validates the Neder of 'Harei At Alai ke'Eima', with the Beraisa which says 'Lo Amar K'lum', by explaining the latter to mean 'Lo Amar K'lum' mi'd'Oraysa, and our Mishnah to mean 'mi'de'Rabbanan. Rava disagrees with Abaye's explanation - on the grounds that 'Lo Amar K'lum' implies that it does not require Hatarah at all.

(b) So *he* resolves the apparent discrepancy - by establishing our Mishnah by an Am ha'Aretz, and the Beraisa by a Talmid-Chacham, whose Hatfasah on a Davar ha'Asur is not valid at all, and requires no Hatarah.

(c) We prove Rava's explanation from the Beraisa 'ha'Noder ba'Torah (which will be explained shortly) Lo Amar K'lum' (even though the comparison is not absolute, see Rosh). Rebbi Yochanan concludes 've'Tzarich She'eilah le'Chacham'. Rav Nachman adds - ve'Talmid-Chacham Eino Tzarich She'eilah'.

5)

(a) The Neder of someone who swears by the Torah is invalid - because he is referring to the parchment, in which case, he has not sworn by the Name of Hashem.

(b) If someone swears by what is written in the Torah on the other hand - his Neder is valid, because he is referring to the Names of Hashem that it contains.

(a) According to the Ra'avad, the Beraisa is talking literally about a Neder (and not a Shevu'ah, as we previously explained). The case will then be - if he said 'Kikar Zeh Alai ba'Torah' or 'Kikar Zeh Alai ba'meh she'Kasuv Bah'.

(b) The difference between 'Bah' and 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Alav' is then that 'Bah' refers to the parchment, which is *not a Davar ha'Nadur*, whereas 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Alav', which refers to the writing, *is*.

(c) What makes the writing a Davar ha'Nadur is - writing the letters on to the parchment and preparing them for Kedushah.

(d) 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah' - might also refer to the contents of the Seifer-Torah, including the Korbanos, and that is what he is Matfis on.

(a) Rav Nachman explains that the Reisha of the Beraisa (the two cases that we just discussed) speaks when the person was holding the Torah in his arms. The Seifa, which states 'Bah u've'Meh she'Kasuv Bah, Devarav Kayamin', speaks - when the Torah is lying on the ground.

(b) The Din will differ in the Seifa from the Reisha - if he says 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah', in which case he really means the parchment, which is not the case if he is holding it in his arms, as we just explained.

(a) In the Iba'is Eima, the entire Beraisa speaks when the Seifer-Torah is lying on the ground - and still, if he says 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah', he is referring to the writing in the Torah, and not just to the parchment, as we explained in the previous answer.

(b) The Seifa ('Bah u've'Meh she'Kasuv Bah, Devarav Kayamin') is nevertheless not redundant - because it is the Seifa which teaches us that the Beraisa is speaking when the Torah is lying on the ground.

(c) In the third answer, we establishes the Reisha when the Torah is lying on the ground - in which case, we differentiate between whether he says 'Bah' (which refers to the parchment) or ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah' (referring to the writing).

(d) The Seifa now speaks when he is holding it in his arms, and 'Bah u'va'Meh she'Kasuv Bah' means that if he said 'Bah', it is as if he said 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah', because when he is holding the Torah, then even 'Bah' implies the writing, and not just the parchment.

(a) What the following have in common 'Konem she'Ani Yashein'; Konem she'Ani Medaber'; 'ha'Omer le'Ishto, Konem she'Ani Meshamshech' is - that they are all subject to 'bal Yacheil Devaro'.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah uses the expression 'she'Ani Yashein ... ' - because he is speaking about a Neder, which requires a tangible object (and 'she'Ani' refers to the Noder's eyes); whereas the Tana of the Mishnah in Shevu'os - who is speaking about not sleeping (which is abstract), says 'she'Eini Yashein ... '.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, if someone says 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah ha'Yom Im Ishan le'Machar', he is forbidden to sleep today, in case he sleeps tomorrow. Rav Nachman says - that he may, because we are not afraid that a person will contravene his Neder.

(b) Rav Yehudah concedes to Rav Nachman that if he said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah le'Machar Im Ishen ha'Yom' he is permitted to sleep today - because we are only afraid that a person will contravene the condition (once the main Neder has passed), but not the main Neder itself (after the condition has passed).