Previous daf

1)

(a) So we establish the case of 'Im Erchatz' as 'Konem Hana'as Rechitzah Alai Im Erchatz'. We have now changed our stance - to hold - that Rechitzah is considered Inuy Nefesh.

(b) The Tana says 'Im Erchatz' and not just 'Konem Rechitzah Alai' - to teach us that even though the first bathing is permitted, the husband is permitted to annul the Neder because long-term, she will become forbidden.

(c) Rebbi Yossi, who says 'Ein Eilu Nidrei Inuy Nefesh' argues with the Tana Kama - inasmuch as he holds that Rechitzah (even permanently) is not considered Inuy Nefesh.

(d) We refute this explanation however, on the grounds that Rebbi Yossi should have then said 'T'nai Zeh Ein Bo Inuy Nefesh'. By saying 'Ein Zeh Inuy Nefesh', explains Rabeinu Yonah, Rebbi Yossi implies that if the Neder would be Inuy Nefesh, the husband would be permitted to annul it at all costs - but that is not true, as we saw at the beginning of the Sugya where we asked 'Lo Tirchatz ve'Lo Litseran?' (even though the Neder constitutes Inuy Nefesh).

(a) Seeing as the Rabbanan permit the husband to annul the Neder 'Konem Hana'as Rechitzah Alai Im Erchatz', Rabeinu Yonah extrapolates, our Sugya clearly holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Nasan, who later in the Perek, permit the husband to annul his wife's Nedarim even before they have taken effect.

(b) Nevertheless, we ask at the beginning of the Sugya, 'Lo Tirchatz ve'Lo Litseran' (in order to avoid the husband having to annul the Neder) - because (unlike the case of Rebbi Nasan and the Rabbanan) it is easy there to avoid the Inuy Nefesh of not eating fruit, by not bathing (which we currently believed not to be a matter of Inuy Nefesh).

(c) Rebbi Akiva nevertheless permits a husband to annul his wife's Neder 'Hareini Nezirah le'che'she'Esgaresh' - because even though at this point in time, there is neither Inuy Nefesh, nor does the Neder involve Beino le'Veinah - nevertheless it does not lie within her power to prevent Inuy Nefesh (like it is not to bathe), should her husband divorce her.

(a) We finally establish our Mishnah when the woman said 'Hana'as Rechitzah Alai Le'olam Im Erchatz ha'Yom'. The Tana Kama, who says 'Yafer' - holds that not to bathe even for just one day is considered 'Nivul' (disgusting); whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that it is not.

(b) Not bathing for one day, we just concluded, is not considered Inuy Nefesh even according to Rebbi Yossi - neither does it fall under the category of 'Devarim she'Beino le'Veinah'.

(c) That is why Rebbi Yossi does not now say 'T'nai Zeh Ein Bo Inuy Nefesh' (like we asked earlier) - because this Lashon implies that there is no Inuy Nefesh, but that it is nevertheless Beino le'Veinah (as we shall see later), whereas not bathing for one day is neither.

(a) Based on the Lashon of Rebbi Yossi 'Ein Eilu Nidrei Inuy Nefesh', from which it appears that Rebbi Yossi argues with the Tana Kama even by permanent Rechitzah, Rebbi Eliezer (mi'Metz) explains, we say (in explaining Rebbi Yossi's opinion) 'Nivul *de'Chad Yoma* Lo Sh'mei Nivul' - not to preclude Rechitzah Le'olam, but as an example.

(b) According to Rabeinu Yonah, the reason that we say 'Nivul *de'Chad Yoma* ... ' (despite the fact that Rebbi Yossi argues by Rechitzah Le'olam as well), is - because it is not even considered Beino le'Veinah either (explaining why the husband is not permitted to annul it), whereas Rechitzah Le'olam may not be considered Inuy Nefesh according to Rebbi Yossi, but it does fall under the category of Beino le'Veinah.

(c) There is no reason to suppose that Rebbi Yossi might concede that Rechitzah Le'olam falls under the category of Inuy Nefesh - in fact, it is clear from the Sugya on Amud Beis, that he argues with the Tana Kama in all cases of Rechitzah.

5)

(a) Our Mishnah also mentions 'Im Lo Erchatz'. This cannot be referring to a case of 'Titsar Hana'as Rechitzah Alai Le'olam Im Lo Erchatz ha'Yom' - because then we would let her bathe today to permit her to bathe in the future. Consequently, her husband would not be permitted to annul the Neder.

(b) Rav Yehudah initially interprets 'Im Lo Erchatz' as - 'Hana'as Rechitzah Im Lo Erchatz be'Mei Mishreh'.

(c) We reject this however, because then we would have to explain 'Im Lo Eskashet' to mean 'Im Lo Eskashet be'Neft', a contradiction in terms, because paraffin cannot be called 'Kishut'.

(a) So Rav Yehudah establishes the Reisha of our Mishnah as before. The Seifa 'Im Lo Erchatz' and 'Im Lo Eskashet' - he establishes by 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Erchatz' and 've'Im Lo Eskashet'.

(b) The Chidush ...

1. ... in the Reisha (which speaks about a Neder with a condition) is - according to the Rabbanan, to teach us that even though the Neder has not yet taken effect (until the woman performs the condition), her husband can nevertheless annul her Neder.
2. ... in the Seifa (which speaks about a Shevu'ah without a condition) - to teach us that according to Rebbi Yossi, even though the Shevu'ah takes effect immediately, he cannot annul it.

(c) Some texts omit the word 'ha'Yom' from the Reisha 'Hana'as Rechitzah Le'olam Alai Im Erchatz ha'Yom' - because it is no longer necessary to do so. The previous answer inserted it because of the problem why Rebbi Yossi did not say 'T'nai Zeh Ein Bo Inuy Nefesh'. Inserting 'ha'Yom' circumvented this problem, because the Neder then implies that the Neder does fall under the category of 'Beino le'Veinah', which is incorrect by Rechitzah for one day (as we explained above). But now that the Seifa speaks without a T'nai, the Kashya is no longer pertinent.

(d) When Ravina asked Rav Ashi why the Tana then introduced the Mishnah with 've'Eilu Nedarim ... ', without mentioning Shevu'os, he gave one of two possible answers. One of them is 'T'ni Eilu Nedarim u'Shevu'os' - the other, that Nedarim incorporates Shevu'os, as we learned above in the first Perek.

(a) Based on the Pasuk "Kol ha'Nefesh Asher Lo Se'uneh ... ve'Ha'avadti es ha'Nefesh (Kareis)" - the Tana in Yoma includes only eating and drinking on Yom Kipur in the Chiyuv Kareis.

(b) According to the Chachamim, who hold that Rechitzah is considered Inuy Nefesh, it is not initially clear why Rechitzah is not included in the Isur Kareis. Rava resolves this problem by differentiating between the sources "Te'anu es Nafshoseichem" - which implies immediately recognizable infliction (not eating and drinking), and "Kol Neder ... Le'anos Nefesh" - implying even something which causes infliction only later (not bathing).

(c) We might also have answered - that Yom Kipur is different because the Torah expresses the Isur Kareis using the Lashon "ve'Ha'avadti es ha'Nefesh", implying Inuy that is destructive (which precludes bathing from Kareis).

(d) Rava gave a different answer - in order to accommodate those Tana'im who decline to Darshen "ve'Ha'avadti es ha'Nefesh" in that way.

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa says that when the source of a fountain is in a certain city - it is the local residents who have the first rights to drink its waters.

(b) We learn this from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Chei Achicha *Imach*", 'Chayecha Kodmin'.

(c) This Halachah - extends to watering animals (where human life is not involved), and to using the water for washing clothes (where there is no life-danger at all).

(a) According to the Tana Kama, the previous Halachah will not extend to a case where the people of other towns need to drink, but the local residents want to wash their clothes - because then, the potential life-danger of the non-locals will take precedence.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, the local residents have the first rights to wash their clothes. This seemingly contradicts his own opinion that not bathing is not considered Inuy Nefesh - because if unwashed clothes is considered Inuy Nefesh, then how much more so an unwashed body!

(c) We reconcile Rebbi Yossi's two statements - by conceding that unwashed clothes do indeed cause more problems than an un-bathed body, inasmuch as the accumulation of dirt and sweat leads to insanity.