Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Huna learns from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah says ' ... Harei Zeh Yafer', after having already said earlier 'Rebbi Yossi Omer, Ein Eilu Nidrei Inuy Nefesh' - that Rebbi Yossi is the author of all the Mishnahs from now until the end of the Perek.

(b) Shmuel quoting Levi says that ...

1. ... all Nedarim except for Hana'asi al P'loni' - can be annulled by the husband.
2. ... 'Hana'as P'loni Alai' - can be annulled by him, too.

(c) Shmu'el is referring to - Nedarim that constitute Inuy Nefesh.

(a) Our Mishnah states 'Konem Peiros Medinah Zu Alai, Yavi Lah mi'Medinah Acheres' (implying that she is not permitted to eat the fruit of that Medinah [even by means of Hafarah], in which case, he would certainly should not be able to annul the Neder in the case of 'Hana'as P'loni Alai'). To resolve the Kashya on Shmuel, Rav Yosef initially establishes the Mishnah - when she said 'Peiros Medinah Zu Alai Im Tevi'em Atah', leaving an opening for the fruit to be brought by someone else.

(b) The Mishnah does not say that someone else should bring fruit from another country, rather than that her husband should bring her fruit from that one - because if there was not a way for her husband to bring her fruit, he would be allowed to annul her Neder. This is evident from the Reisha, which permits him to annul 'Konem Peiros P'loni Alai', even though it too, must speak when she said 'Tevi'em Atah, leaving the possibility for others to bring her fruit, and yet the Tana says there 'Yafer'.

(c) The problem from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Peiros Chenvani Zeh Alai, Ein Yachol Lehafer' is - from the final statement 'Lo Haysah Parnasaso Ela Mimenu, Harei Zeh Yafer', which must also speak when she said 'she'Tavi Atah'. Seeing as it is possible to benefit from the fruit should someone else bring it, and in addition, for her husband to bring her other fruit, on what grounds would he then be permitted to annul the Neder?

(a) Having retracted from the suggestion that our Mishnah speaks when she said 'she'Tavi Atah' (and speaks even when she brings the fruit herself) Shmuel accounts for the Reisha 'Peiros Chenvani Zeh Alai, Ein Yachol Lehafer' - by citing Rav Huna, who establishes all the remaining Mishnah's in the Perek like Rebbi Yossi, who holds that this is not considered Inuy Nefesh (though the husband can annul it because of Beino le'Veinah), whereas *he* holds like the Rabbanan, who say that it is Inuy Nefesh.

(b) We need to cite Rav Huna here, despite the fact that the Tana himself quotes the case in Rebbi Yossi's name - in anticipation of a Kashya from the following Mishnah 'Konem she'Ani Neheneh la'B'ri'os, Eino Yachol Lehafer' (see answer to 4.).

(c) In order to answer Shmuel, it is necessary to add that although the husband cannot annul the Neder because of Inuy Nefesh, he can annul it because of Beino le'Veinah - because whenever the Rabbanan consider a case Inuy Nefesh, Rebbi Yossi concedes that it is at least Beino le'Veinah. If it is not Beino le'Veinah according to Rebbi Yossi, then it will not be Inuy Nefesh according to the Rabbanan.

(d) We prove from Shmuel, who rules like the Rabbanan, that the Halachah is like the Rabbanan, and not like Rebbi Yossi, even though the author of all the Mishnah's in the Perek from now on is Rebbi Yossi. They are not considered S'tam Mishnahs - because they are all based on 'Divrei Rebbi Yossi' in our Mishnah, which, as we explained earlier, is superfluous. Consequently, it is as if was mentioned specifically by each Mishnah.

5)

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that if a woman declares a Neder on two loaves, one, a loaf of white bread (which causes her Inuy), the other, one of black bread (which does not), her husband can even annul the Neder on the black loaf - because the Torah writes "Iyshah Yeferenu", which refers to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and from which we will later learn that the husband is obligated to annul the entire Neder, and not just half. According to Shmuel, our case is considered one Neder, and if the husband was not able to annul the second half, he would not be able to annul the first half either.

(b) If he were to annul only the half of the Neder pertaining to the white loaf, according to Shmuel - the Neder would not be annulled at all.

(c) Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that he cannot annul the Neder on the black loaf.

(d) He disagrees with Shmuel on the grounds that the Neder on the black loaf is not subject to Hafarah, and is therefore considered like a separate Neder. The D'rashah from "Iyshah Yeferenu", he maintains, is confined to the parts of a Neder that the husband is able to annul, but not those that he is not.

(a) According to others, Rav Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan in the form of a She'eilah what the Din would be in the case of the two loaves - to which he gave the identical reply as his ruling in the first Lashon.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan speaks even when the husband or the father annulled the loaf of black-bread specifically.

(c) Despite Shmuel's interpretation of "Iyshah Yeferenu", the Mishnah rules 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim, Yafer Chelko ... ' - because that D'rashah is confined to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and does not pertain to Nedarim shel Beino le'Veinah.

(d) The logic behind the distinction between Nidrei Inuy Nefesh and Nedarim she'Beino le'Veinah is - that the Torah's permission for a husband to annul the former stems from his wife's sensitiveness, and permitting him to annul only half her Neder will make her even more irritable; whereas the latter stems from *his* sensitiveness, and if he wishes to annul half her Neder, there is no reason why he should not do so.