Previous daf

1)

(a) Shmuel teaches us that unwashed clothes lead to insanity. The result of ...

1. ... uncombed hair - is blindness.
2. ... an unwashed body - is boils and scabs.

(b) What makes insanity worse than the other two is - the fact that, unlike them, it is incurable.

(c) They sent from Eretz Yisrael that one should beware of the above, and that one should study Torah in a group. Based on the Pasuk "Yizal Mayim mi'Dalyav" - they also issued a warning that one should take care to teach Torah to the poor.

(d) One can expect more success teaching a poor person Torah that a rich one - because a. they have no business concerns to distract them from their learning, and b. they are humble.

(a) According to Rav Yosef, it is common for the sons of Talmidei-Chachamim not to follow in their fathers' footsteps, so that people should not believe that Torah is an inheritance; according to Rav Shisha Brei de'Rav Idi, it is to prevent them from possibly becoming conceited. Mar Zutra explains - that is not to prevent them from the possibility of becoming conceited, but because they would definitely do so.

(b) Rav Ashi attributed it to the fact that the Talmidei-Chachamim used to call others donkeys. Ravina finally attributed it to - their failure to recite a B'rachah over the Torah.

(c) Ravina bases his explanation on a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar Rav. Based on the Pasuk "Mi ha'Ish he'Chacham Veyaven es Zos", neither the sages nor the prophets nor even the angels were able to explain - what it was that caused the destruction of the Beis-Hamikdash.

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav extrapolated the solution to the problem from the Pasuk "Vayomer, Al Azvam es Torasi ... ". "ve'Lo Halchu Bah" comes to add to "Lo Sham'u be'Koli" - that they did not recite a B'rachah before studying Torah.

(a) We cannot explain the Pasuk "Al Azvam es Torasi" literally - because then, why would nobody but Hashem be able to explain why the destruction took place?

(b) The significance of the fact that Yisrael did not recite a B'rachah before studying Torah, that an ordinary Asei should have the power to cause their downfall - is because it was a reflection of their not having learned Torah le'Shem Shamayim. It was a sign that they did not consider Torah sufficiently important to recite a B'rachah over it (Rabeinu Yonah).

(a) Isi bar Yehudah did not attend Rebbi Yossi's Shiurim for three days - because he could not understand his ruling (giving precedence to using their water to wash their own clothes before permitting others to drink it).

(b) Vardimus, Rebbi Yossi's son, cited a source from a Pasuk for his father's ruling. With regard to the cities of the Levi'im, the Pasuk in Masei writes "u'Migresheihem Yihyu li'Vehemtam ... u'le'Chol Chayasam". "u'le'Chol Chayasam" cannot refer to ...

1. ... undomesticated animals - because of the principle 'Chayah bi'Chelal Beheimah'.
2. ... regular livelihood - because that would be obvious and would not require a Pasuk.

(c) It therefore refers - to washing clothes.

(d) This now bears out Rebbi Yossi - because the Lashon "le'Chol Chayasam" implies that the Pasuk refers to washing clothes as something that is life-preserving.

(a) The Rambam rules like Rebbi Yossi, due a statement by Rav Huna - that all the Mishnahs in this Perek follow the opinion of Rav Huna.

(b) We prefer to rule like the Chachamim however - that Rechitzah and Kishut constitute Inuy Nefesh and not just Beino le'Veinah.

(c) We rule this way for one of two reasons. One of them is because of the principle 'Halachah ke'Rabim' - the other, because Shmuel mi'Shmei de'Levi holds like them.

(a) 'Amar Rebbi Yossi, Ein Eilu Nidrei Inuy Nefesh'. What leads us to believe that Rebbi Yossi concedes that Rechitzah and Kishut are considered Beino le'Veinah - is the fact that he used such a Lashon (with its implication), when he could simply have said 'Lo Yafer'.

(b) We explain Rebbi Yossi, even assuming that they do not constitute Beino le'Veinah - by explaining that he is speaking to the Rabbanan on their terms 'According to me', he is saying, 'these Nedarim are not even Beino le'Veinah either. But won't you at least agree that it is only because of Beino le'Veinah that he can annul them, and not because they are Inuy Nefesh.

(c) According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, Rebbi Yossi does indeed concede that Rechitzah and Kishut constitute Beino le'Veinah. Rav Huna disagrees - because 'We have yet to find a fox dying as a result of the conditions of his lair'. Here too, says Rav Huna, not taking a bath will not lead to any harm, because her husband, who soon becomes used to her not bathing, will ride the situation.

7)

(a) We have learned in a Beraisa that a husband can annul Nidrei Inuy Nefesh irrespective of whether they are Beino le'Veinah, or Beinah le'Vein Acheirim. 'Konem Peiros Alai' is an example of Nidrei Inuy Nefesh which is not Beino le'Veinah. An example of Nedarim which are not Inuy Nefesh, and which are ...

1. ... Beinah le'Vein Acheirim (and which he cannot annul) is - 'Konem she'Eini Osah Lefi Aba, Lefi Achicha ... '.
2. ... Beino le'Veinah (and which he can annul) is - 'Konem she'Lo Ekachel, ve'she'Lo Efarches'.

(b) The Tana switched the order to first explain Nedarim Beinah le'Vein Acheirim, and then those which are Beino le'Veinah - because the former are straightforward, whereas the latter are subdivided into two categories, as we shall soon see.

(c) 'she'Lo Eten Teven Lifnei Behemtecha ... ' is not considered Beino le'Veinah - because a wife is not obligated to feed her husband's animals (even though from the Sugya in Kesuvos one initially gets the impression that she is).

(a) In the list of Devarim she'Beino le'Veinah, the Tana lists three things which require Hafarah; two of them are 'she'Lo Ekachel, ve'she'Lo Efarches' - the third is 'she'Lo Ashamesh Mitasi'.

(b) A Neder not to make her husband's bed, not to pour out his wine, and not to wash his hands, face and feet are different than the previous Nedarim - inasmuch as they do not even require Hafarah, since she is Meshubad to him (why the previous three do require Hafarah will be explained later in the Sugya).

(c) Raban Gamliel Omer, Yafer. she'Ne'emar "Lo Yachel Devaro" - mi'de'Rabbanan, to discourage her from treating Nedarim lightly and by then going on to contravene "Lo Yachel Devaro".

(d) Alternatively, Raban Gamliel Darshens from "Lo Yachel Devaro" that a Chacham cannot annul his own Nedarim. Despite the fact that Raban Gamliel (in the previous D'rashah) did not specifically learn anything from "Lo Yachel Devaro", we use the term 'alternatively' ('Davar Acher') - because it seems that his Din is not mi'de'Rabbanan at all, but derives from the word "Lo Yachel *Devaro*", implying 'any word', even if though technically, it may not be a Neder.

10)

(a) We learned in the Beraisa 've'she'Lo Ashamesh Mitasi, Yafer Mishum Devarim she'Beino le'Veinah'. This cannot speak when she said 'Hana'as Tashmishi Alecha' - because such a Neder would not require Hafarah, since she is Meshubad to him.

(b) So it must be speaking when she said 'Hana'as Tashmishcha Alai', and it requires Hafarah, like Rav Kahana - who says that we do not feed someone something that is forbidden to him.

(c) The author of the Beraisa which prohibits permitting a prohibition to people who have undertaken it, because of "Lo Yachel Devaro", even though they did undertake it in the form of a Neder - is Raban Gamliel.

(d) On the assumption that the Halachah is like Raban Gamliel, This means that if someone undertakes not to eat meat or drink wine during a certain time-period each year, and then one year, he is invited to a Simchah where meat and wine are served - he will have to have his undertaking revoked (even though he did make it in the form of a Neder).

(a) The Tana Kama of a Mishnah in Nega'im says ...

1. ... 'Kol ha'Nega'im Adam Ro'eh Chutz mi'Nidrei Atzmo'. Rebbi Yehudah says - 'Af Lo Nig'ei K'rovav'.
2. ... 'Kol ha'Nedarim Adam Matir Chutz mi'Nidrei Atzmo'. Rebbi Yehudah says - 'Af Lo Nidrei Ishto she'Beino le'Vein Acheirim'.

(b) The Ramban rules like Rebbi Yehudah in the latter case - because in Rebbi Chiya quotes Rebbi Yehudah's opinion in the name of the Chachamim.

(c) The Yerushalmi rules that if someone forbids the residents of a certain town to have benefit from him, the Neder cannot be revoked by a Chacham who resides in that town - though it could be if he were to forbade benefit from the residents upon himself (seeing as the Chacham would not be personally involved and therefore biased, like in he would the first case).

(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman whether Tashmish, according to the Rabbanan, falls under the category of Inuy Nefesh - in which case, her husband could annul the Neder concerning others too (i.e. to continue to be effective after his death or after he divorces her) or Beino le'Veinah - and he would then be confined to annulling it only vis-a-vis himself, as long as they were married.

(b) We reject the proof from the Mishnah later which says (regarding the Neder of a woman 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim'), Yafer Chelko u'Meshamsaso', that it must be Inuy Nefesh - because the author of all the Mishnahs in this Perek is Rebbi Yossi (whose opinion we already know), whereas our She'eilah concerned the opinion of the Rabbanan.

(c) The She'eilah whether Tashmish is considered Inuy Nefesh or Devarim she'Beino le'Veinah remains unresolved - The Halachah is (le'Chumra) that it is considered Devarim she'Beino le'Veinah (in which case the husband is only permitted to annul the Neder inasmuch as effects him, but not in any other regard).

(d) We cannot resolve the She'eilah from Shmuel, who says a little later 'Aval Hana'as P'loni Alai, Meifer' - because Shmuel is referring to Nedarim that constitute Inuy Nefesh (and there is nothing in his words that will prove that Tashmish belongs in that category).