Previous daf

1)

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah writes 'Konem she'Ani Yashein ... ', he cannot be speaking literally, because sleep is abstract. Neither can he be referring to someone who said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah' for an indefinite period, because of Rebbi Yochanan - who said that someone who makes a Shevu'ah not to sleep for three days, receives Malkos for making a Shevu'as Shav and is permitted to sleep immediately.

(b) Nor can the Tana be speaking ...

1. ... when the Noder said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah le'Machar im Ishan ha'Yom' - because we have already permitted such a person to sleep on the day of the condition, seeing as a person would not contravene his principle vow.
2. ... when he said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah ha'Yom' - because that would be obvious?

(c) The Tana must therefore be referring to a case - where the Noder said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah ha'Yom Im Ishan le'Machar' and he slept on the first day (otherwise how would he contravene 'Bal Yacheil' by sleeping on the second day), a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who forbids sleeping on the first day.

(d) We answer this Kashya on Rav Yehudah - by establishing the Mishnah when the Noder slept on the first day (not Lechatchilah, but) Bedieved.

(a) 'Harei Zeh be'Bal Yacheil', according to ...

1. ... the conclusion - means that one should take great care not to sleep on the first day (like Rav Yehudah), because if he does, he is prone to contravene 'Bal Yacheil' when he sleeps on the second.
2. ... the Kashya, when we thought that he is allowed to sleep on the first day - that he is permitted to enter into the Safek of 'Bal Yacheil' (like Rav Nachman), because we are not afraid that he will contravene his Neder.

(b) Even bearing in mind the latter explanation, when we asked above 'Why the Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder said 'Konem Eini be'Sheinah le'Machar im Ishan ha'Yom', we could not have answered by explaining 'Harei Zeh be'Bal Yacheil' in the same way - because there would be no point in telling us the Heter of eating on the first day (the day of the T'nai), which is obvious, before having told us that it is forbidden to do so when the first day is the day of the principle ha'Neder (which is not so obvious).

(c) Ravina interprets 'she'Ani Yashein' literally. According to him - 'Bal Yacheil' of our Mishnah means mi'de'Rabbanan, since the Chachamim decreed that a Neder on something that is abstract should be valid.

(d) And this explains the Tana's use of the term 'Harei Zeh be'Lo Yacheil Devaro' - which implies that it is not really Asur, but only a Rabbinical branch of 'Bal Yacheil'. Had the Isur been d'Oraysa, the Tana would have said 'Asur', like he does regarding the equivalent case in Shevu'os.

4)

(a) The Mishnah in ha'Noder min ha'Yerek states 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Pesach im Teilchi le'Veis Avich ad ha'Chag, Halchah Lifnei ha'Pesach Asurah be'Hana'aso ad ha'Pesach' - from which we can infer 'Lo Halchah, Muteres' (that she is permitted to benefit from her husband, even though she might still contravene the condition after Pesach), a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who forbids it.

(b) Rebbi Aba answers by explaining the Mishnah like this - 'Halchah Lifnei ha'Pesach, Asurah (ve'Lokah)', Ha Lo Halchah, Asurah be'Alma (ve'Einah Lokah)'.

(c) According to the Rambam, it is the husband who receives Malkos should he contravene the Neder by giving his wife Hana'ah - because "Lo Yacheil Devaro" implies that the La'av lies with the person who declared the Neder, rather than with the person who contravened its contents.

(d) Those who disagree with the Rambam say - that to the contrary, it is the person who contravenes the contents of the Neder who receives Malkos (and "Lo Yacheil Devaro" means that one should not contravene the wording of the Neder), and not the person who declared the Neder.

(a) When the Tana of the Mishnah continues 'Achar ha'Pesach, Harei Zeh be'Bal Yacheil Devaro' - he means that if she did benefit from her husband before Pesach, then, should she go to her father's house after Pesach, she will contravene the La'av of ' Bal Yacheil Devaro'.

(b) This does not prove that one is permitted to break the Neder before the condition (like Rav Nachman) - because the Tana speaks when she benefited Bedi'eved (and not Lechatchilah, like we thought).

(c) The Chidush of the Mishnah is then - that she should take care not to benefit from her husband before Pesach, in case she contravenes the Neder by going to her father's house after Pesach (like Rav Yehudah).

6)

(a) The Mishnah in ha'Noder min ha'Yerek then discusses a case of 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Chag im Teilchi le'Veis Avich ad ha'Pesach', forbidding her to derive any benefit from her husband after Pesach if she went to her father's house before Pesach. The Tana concludes 'u'Muteres Leilech Achar ha'Pesach'. We might otherwise have thought - that this would be forbidden, to remind her that she went before Pesach, and that she is therefore forbidden to derive any benefit from her husband.

(b) We infer from the Tana - that had she *not* gone before Pesach, she would have been permitted to benefit from him (even before Pesach), despite the fact that she might still go before Pesach, a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who forbids it.

(c) Rava reconciles Rav Yehudah with the Mishnah - by explaining the inference (in the same way as Rebbi Aba did on the previous Amud) 'Halchah, Asurah ve'Lokah; Lo Halchah, Asurah be'Alma.

(a) When someone says 'Kikar Zu Alai ha'Yom, Im Eilech le'Makom P'loni le'Machar', the Tana of a Beraisa rules 'Achal, Harei Zeh be'Lo Yeilech'. There is no Kashya from this Tana (who seems to permit eating the loaf on the first day) on Rav Yehudah, who forbids it - because that is why he said 'Achal', and not 'Ochel'.

(b) We were led to believe that he was permitted to eat the loaf Lechatchilah - by the fact that the Tana, listing all the cases which are subject to 'Bal Yeilech' or 'Bal Yacheil', seems to have omitted *this* one?

(c) We have now dispensed with the Kashya - by pointing out that, even though the Tana did not teach us this Isur explicitly, he specifically used the word 'Achal', to teach us, by implication, that here too, there is an Isur.

(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa states '*Halach*, Harei Zeh be'Bal Yacheil Devaro' - inferring 'Halach' ve'Lo Mehalech, insinuating that he must have eaten the loaf on the first day, posing a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who forbids it.

(b) We answer that although the Tana could have written 'Mehalech', he preferred to write 'Halach', to balance with the Reisha where the Tana had no choice but to write 'Achal' (as we explained earlier).

(c) In fact, it would have been possible for the Tana to have written 'Mehalech', even with reference to 'Achal', in the Reisha. In that case - we would have established the Reisha, which places the Isur of Bal Yeilech on the Noder if he were to go, when he remembered that the Isur of going was dependent on his eating the loaf, and he nevertheless went; and the Seifa, which permits him to go, when he forgot, making him a Shogeg, in which case Bal Yacheil does hot apply, because one only contravenes a Neder or a Shevu'ah when one is aware that he doing so.

(d) The Tana nevertheless prefers not to write 'Mehalech' - because our Sugya is not concerned with that particular area of Neder.

(a) Based on the Pasuk "She'eirah, K'susah ve'Onasah Lo Yigra", the problem with our Mishnah, which validates the Neder of a man who says to his wife 'Konem she'Ani Mashamshech' is - how can the Tana validate such a Neder, seeing as he is Meshubad to her.

(b) Rava says - that Konamos have Kedushas ha'Guf, and therefore override someone else's Shibud.

(c) There is nevertheless a problem with our Mishnah. We cannot say there too, that the Konem removes the woman's Shibud - because just as we know that the Chachamim reinforced the Shibud of the husband, so too, did they reinforce that of the wife (protecting it against Konamos).

(d) Our answer to the Kashya is based on Rav Kahana - who makes a distinction between a woman who says to her husband 'Tashmishi Alecha', which she has no right to do, and one who says 'Hana'as Tashmishcha Alai' - which forbids him to her, and we do not feed a person something that is forbidden to him. Similarly here, when the husband said 'Hana'as Tashmishech Alai', she becomes forbidden to him, and his Neder is valid (even though it would not be if he were to say 'Tashmishi Alayich').

(a) What makes 'Konem she'Ani Mashamshech' a Neder mi'de'Rabbanan is - the fact that it is on something abstract (and a Neder d'Oraysa can only take effect on a tangible object).

(b) The Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder said 'Konem Gufech Alai mi'Tashmish' (which would make it a Neder d'Oraysa) - because it must be similar to the other cases in the Mishnah ('she'Ani Yashein', 'she'Ani Medaber' ... ), which Ravina established earlier as being Nedarim de'Rabbanan.

(c) It is possible for a Neder de'Rabbanan to negate the Chiyuv Onah which is d'Oraysa - because the Neder is valid automatically, and once it is, we apply the principle which empowers the Chachamim to override Torah institutions in a negative way.

(d) The Neder is effective anyway, in spite of the principle 'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu' (the objective of Mitzvos is not the physical benefit that one derives) - which only applies to the pleasure that one derives from the actual Mitzvah, but not to any physical pleasure that accompanies the Mitzvah (such as Bi'ah in this case, or Toveling in cold water on a hot day), which is incidental to the Mitzvah, and which is not covered by the principle.

(a) What ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Eini Yashein' ... she'Eini Medaber' ... she'Eini Mehalech' have in common is - the fact that they are all listed in our Mishnah as being valid Shevu'os (because a Shevu'ah is effective even on something that is abstract).
2. ... 'Korban ... Lo Ochal Lach' ... she'Ochal Lach'; 'Hei Korban, she'Ochal Lach'; 'la'Korban, Lo Ochal Lach' have in common is - the fact that they are all listed in our Mishnah as being Nedarim that are invalid, as we shall now see.

(b) The two possible meanings of 'Korban ... Lo Ochal Lach' are - 1. 'By the life of the Korban, I will not eat from you', which is meaningless; 2. 'Whatever I do not eat of yours will be Asur like a Korban', in which case, he has only forbidden what he will not eat, but not what he will.

(c) 'Hei Korban', meaning 'By the life of the Korban' is not a valid Neder either - because it too, has no meaning.

(d) Nor can the correct text be 'ha'Korban Ochal Lach' - because we will shortly establish this Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, and we already learned in the first Perek that, according to Rebbi Meir 'ha'Korban Ochal Lach' is a valid Neder.

Next daf