Previous daf

1)

(a)

1. Aba Shaul ben Botnis annulled Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi's Neder - by getting him to admit that he would not have declared it had he known that he would cause the Rabbanan (who were trying) to annul it such pain by their having to go backwards and forwards from the sun to the shade and from the shade to the sun trying (unsuccessfully) to find him a Pesach (see Agados Maharsha).
2. They annulled Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi's Neder - when that laundry-man, angry at seeing the Rabbanan who were frustrated at not being able to find a Pesach for his Neder, struck him with a laundry-tub. He (Rebbi Yishmael) would certainly not have declared the Neder he explained, had he known that he would be struck with a laundry-tub.

(b) Rav Acha mi'Difti queried this ruling, on the basis of the Mishnah in Rebbi Eliezer, where the Tana invalidates any Pesach which is 'Nolad' (which only occurred after the Neder was made, and which could have been anticipated).

(c) Ravina replied - that this was not Nolad, since there were many Apikorsim (like that laudry-man) who annoyed the Rabbanan (so it was to be expected that such an incident would occur).

(a) Abaye and his wife's dispute concerned - whether her daughter should marry his relation or hers.

(b) Abaye then forbade Hana'ah on his wife should she contravene his wishes - which she did by marrying off her daughter to her relative.

(c) Rav Yosef annulled Abaye's Neder - on the grounds that had Abaye known that his wife would indeed contravene his Neder, he would not have made it.

(d) We bring a precedent from Rebbi Yossi for such a strange Pesach. Rebbi Yossi annulled the Neder of a man who had been Madir his wife Hana'ah should she go to Yerushalayim on Yom-Tov, and she went - on the basis of the fact that, had her husband known that she would go, he would not have declared the Neder in the first place. It is strange to use the contravention of the Neder as a Pesach, when it is clear that that is precisely what the Noder wanted.

(a) In the previous case, we express surprised at Rav Yosef, because we believe that the Neder should not even be subject to nullification, despite the fact that in the case of Nidrei Ziruzin, the Neder does not even require Hatarah - because there, it is obvious that both parties agree on three Dinrim, and the Neder does not conform with their thoughts; whereas here, Abaye certainly meant what he said.

(b) This case also differs from the following Mishnah, where Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov considers someone who declares a Neder on his friend's property to try and induce him to eat by him, Nidrei Ziruzin, even though he really means what he says - because there, it is obvious that the Neder is not meant seriously, seeing as his friend's refusal to eat with him does not warrant forbidding himself from all of his friend's property; whereas in the case of Abaye and his wife, there is no reason to suggest that Abaye did not mean what he said.

(c) The Gaon (whose Chumros we cited at the end of the previous Amud) - adds all the current cases of Pesach to that list. He only permits the nullification of Nedarim by means of a regular Pesach.

(a) We have already learned that a Yachid Mumcheh is required to annul Nedarim, and that, where none is available, three ordinary people may do so. This is the opinion of the Rabbanan. Rebbi Yehudah requires in addition - that one of the three Hedyotos must be a Chacham (who is both 'Gamir' and 'Savir' - learned and who gets the point when others convey it to him) like Rav Nachman, who did not receive Semichah.

(b) The other two - must be at least 'Savir'.

(c) The Yachid Mumcheh, according to the Ramban, must be a Samuch - because if 'Gamir ve'Savir' was sufficient, then why would the Chacham in the Beis-Din of three require the other two to sit with him, seeing as he is already a Yachid Mumcheh.

(d) Hataras Nedarim, like Kidush ha'Chodesh (Mo'adei Hashem) - requires a Yachid Mumcheh (though by Kidush ha'Chodesh, it is all three Dayanim who must be on that level).

(a) The above is basically the opinion of the Ramban. The Rambam defines Yachid Mumcheh as 'Gamir ve'Savir'.

(b) The three Hedyotos need to be 'Savir' (according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah), but not 'Gamir'.

(c) A Beis-Din of three Hedyotos should not annul Nedarim when a Yachid Mumcheh is available - out of respect for the Yachid Mumcheh.

(d) If they did - the Neder is nevertheless annulled.

(a) According to the initial text, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov advises someone who wants to induce his friend to eat by him with a Neder (forbidding his food on him if he doesn't comply) - to declare the Neder that he is about to make void.

(b) (According to the text in our Mishnah) however, the T'nai will only take effect - if he remembers when declaring the Neder, that he made it.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov's advice as it stands is impractical - because since the Nadur knows about the T'nai, how can the Noder expect him to take the Neder seriously?

(d) We cannot simply answer that the Noder made the declaration silently - because a. the word *'Af* ha'Rotzeh ... ' suggests that this is an extension of Nidrei Ziruzin (which does not require Hatarah at all), and b. because unless we amend the statement, the words 'on condition that he remembers the T'nai at the time of the Neder' with which the Tana concludes are meaningless (seeing as he declares the Neder immediately after the T'nai.

8)

(a) The wording in our Mishnah 'u'Vilvad she'Yehei Zachur be'Sha'as ha'Neder makes no sense - because if the Noder remembers the T'nai at the time of the Neder, then, by declaring the Neder, he automatically overrides the T'nai.

(b) When we learned at the end of the previous Amud, that a T'nai that precedes a Neder overrides the Neder (and not the reverse) - that is when the Neder is declared immediately after the T'nai, where the Noder is in effect saying, that the Neder is to take effect with the T'nai in mind; whereas we are currently speaking when the Noder declared the Neder long after the T'nai (in which case, it is the Neder that overrides the T'nai). And besides, here we are speaking about a personal Neder, which he obviously intends to take effect, whereas above we were speaking about a Neder concerning his friend, where the Sevara of Nidrei Ziruzin allows us to say that he wants the T'nai and not the Neder.

(c) The Rashba resolves the discrepancy - by establishing our Sugya by an Am ha'Aretz, who may have negated his T'nai when declaring the Neder, though strictly speaking, one intends the T'nai to stand (which is certainly the case by a Talmid-Chacham), explaining the Kashya at the foot of the previous Amud.

(a) So Abaye amends it to read - 'u'Vilvad she*'Lo* Yehei Zachur be'Sha'as ha'Neder', in which case the T'nai overrides the Neder.

(b) Rava leaves the original text intact. According to him, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov speaks when the Noder made a T'nai at the beginning of the year (as we learned earlier), only he forgot what the T'nai was. Should he remain silent (even if he remembers the T'nai whilst declaring the Neder, he obviously intends his Neder to override the T'nai. But in the event that he mentions the T'nai ('she'Yehei Zachur' - verbally), then his T'nai overrides the Neder.

(c) If he forgot the T'nai when declaring the Neder (Abaye's case) - Rava concedes to Abaye that the T'nai overrides the Neder. The reason that he prefers to leave the original text intact is not because he disagrees with Abaye's explanation, but because he does not want to alter the text so dramatically (from 'Zachur' to 'Eino Zachur').

(a) 'Kol Nidrei' that we say on Yom Kipur night appears to be based on this Sugya. The problem with the text 'mi'Yom ha'Kipurim she'Avar ad Yom ha'Kipurim ha'Ba ... ' (see Tosfos DH 'Rava') - is that it refers to Nedarim that one made during the past year, whereas our Sugya refers to Nedarim that one will declare in the forthcoming year.

(b) Rabeinu Ya'akov (better known as Rabeinu Tam) amended the text of 'Kol Nidrei' to the future tense.

(c) It may not be such a good idea however, to follow his text - since this creates an attitude of lightheadedness regarding Nedarim, which the Tana of our Mishnah is clearly trying to avoid (by presenting this Heter in an indirect and cryptic manner).

(a) We have just learned that a T'nai that precedes a Neder can override it when it is declared. Whether or not, such a T'nai can also override a Shevu'ah - is a Machlokes Rishonim.

(b) A T'nai preceding a Neder or a Shevu'ah that one declares forbidding someone else to derive benefit from oneself, will not override the subsequent Neder or Shevu'ah - because the Noder declares such a Neder not on his own mind, but on the Nadur's, in which case, he intends it to override his own T'nai completely.

(a) We ask two She'eilos. One of them: whether the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov or not - the other, whether, assuming that they do, the Halachah is like him or not.

(b) This does not mean that the Rabbanan might also argue with the concept of Nidrei Ziruzin altogether - only in this case, where it may well be that the Noder really wants the Neder to be effective, but not in the initial case of the minimum Sela fixed by the seller and the maximum Shekel fixed by the buyer, where it is logical to say that both parties really agree on three Dinrim, and their Neder is only to induce the other party to agree with their initial terms.