Previous daf

1)

(a) We just queried Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's explanation (that our Mishnah speaks when the woman declared her hands forbidden after her husband divorced her), on the grounds that, seeing as she was unable to do so immediately, why is it not still considered a 'Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam? Rav Ila now attempts to compare the case to someone who declares the field that he is about to sell to his friend Hekdesh for when he has bought it back (which he takes for granted, takes effect). He consider our case comparable to his, despite the fact that, in our case, the woman cannot forbid her work immediately - because it is better than the next stage, where he declares a field that he has already sold Hekdesh (since there, nothing is in his hands, whereas in our case, at least the woman is in her own possession), which would obviously not take effect.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah refutes Rav Ila's explanation - on the grounds that, whereas in that case, the seller could declare the field Hekdesh immediately, in our case, the woman could not.

(c) So he compares our case to the very case that Rav Ila declined to compare it to (where the 'owner' declares a field that he has already sold Hekdesh). Rav Papa however, rejects this on the same grounds as Rav Ila did. He in turn, compares it to someone who declares the field that he gave as collateral against a loan, for after he has redeemed it. The field only becomes Hekdesh after the borrower has redeemed it - because it is only by Kedushas ha'Guf that Hekdesh overrides a Shibud, not by Kedushas Damim (which a Hekdesh field is).

(d) Nevertheless, we ask in Erchin how it is possible for the renter to live in his rented house once the owner has declared it Hekdesh (even though the Kedushah of a house is only Kedushas Damim) - because there it speaks when he rented him a house S'tam (not specifically *that* one), in which case the Shibud is not particularly on *that* house, but on a house. Consequently, the Hekdesh takes effect, and the owner must supply him with another house).

(a) Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi rejects the proof from the previous case that the woman too, should be able to declare her hands Hekdesh after her divorce - on the grounds that, whereas there, the owner has the authority to redeem the house immediately, in our case, it does not lie in the woman hands to get divorced.

(b) It is not in the hands of the woman to make her Neder effective immediately by saying 'Eini Nizones ve'Eini Osah', like Rav Huna - because Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri (who says 'Yafer, Shema Yigreshenah ... ', and whose opinion we are discussing) is not speaking when the woman declared a Neder on the amount that Chazal obligated her to produce (which is subject to 'Eini Nizones ve'Eini Osah'), but when she forbade on him *all Hana'ah* (which is not).

(c) So Rav Shisha tries to prove that she can declare her hands Hekdesh for after she becomes divorced - by comparing it to a case where someone declared Hekdesh a field that he gave the creditor as collateral for ten years, and where the Hekdesh is effective.

(d) But Rav Ashi rejects his explanation - on the grounds that there, at least there is a fixed date for the field to be returned, whereas in our case, the woman may never get divorced.

3)

(a) Rav Ashi finally offers a new line of approach, to explain the difference between Hekdesh and Konamos. Really, Shmuel holds 'Ein Adam Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' - but Konamos are different - because they are considered 'Kedushas ha'Guf. Consequently, when the woman declared the work of her hands Hekdesh, the Isur took effect immediately, despite the Shibud.

(b) Rav Ashi derives this from the fact - that Konamos, like Kedushas Mizbei'ach, cannot be redeemed, whereas Kedushas Damim can.

(c) Rava holds that Hekdesh, Chametz and Shichrur remove the Shibud. When he says ...

1. ... Hekdesh, he means - that if someone gave his animal as collateral, and then declared it a Korban, the Hekdesh is effective.
2. ... Chametz, he means - that if a Jew designates a cellar-full of whisky as collateral against a loan from a Nochri, and Erev Pesach arrives, he is obligated to destroy it together with the rest of his Chametz.
3. ... Shichrur, he means - that if a Jew designates his Eved Kena'ani collateral, and then sets him free, the Eved goes free, and the creditor must claim his loan from another source (as is the case by Hekdesh and Chametz).

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says 'Shema Yigreshenah' (the Neder not take effect immediately - because, strictly speaking, according to Rav Ashi's explanation, the Neder takes in fact, do just that, as we just explained. The reason that the Tana added 'Shema Yigreshenah' is because the Rabbanan strengthened the husband's rights (to override Hekdesh and Konamos). Consequently, it is only after the divorce that the Konem can actually take effect.

(b) We resolve our original problem of 'Adam Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' (where Shmuel appears to contradict himself) - by adding that, since min ha'Torah, Hekdesh overrides the husband's Shibud, when Chazal strengthened the Shibud, they did so only until such time as he divorces his wife. The moment he does, the Hekdesh takes effect retroactively.

(a) If a man annuls a Neder thinking it was his wife who declared it, and it turned out to be his daughter or vice-versa - his Hafarah is invalid, and he must annul it again before nightfall.

(b) The same applies if he annuls her Neder of Nezirus thinking she declared an ordinary Neder, or vice-versa, or if he annulled her Neder thinking that she forbade figs, when really it was grapes, or vice-versa. And the same will apply if he upholds her Neder under the same circumstances (he will still be able to annul the Neder up until nightfall).

(c) The reason for this Halachah is - because a Hafarah or a Hakamah made in error is not valid.

(a) We learn this principle from the word "Yani *Osah*" - implying that he knows exactly who declared the Neder (and by the same token, its contents).

(b) But this Pasuk is written by Hafarah. The source of the same principle by Hakamah - lies in the word "Ki Hecherish *Lah", which has the same connotations as "Osah".

(c) In view of the Hekesh "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah Yeferenu", we can learn from the Beraisa in Na'arah ha'Me'urasah 'Chomer be'Hekem mi'be'Hafer, Kiyem be'Libo, Kiyam ... ' - the the Hekesh is not absolute, that it is confined to issues mentioned in the Pasuk itself.

(d) We can also learn from the word "Ki Hecherish *Lah*" - that a husband is not able to uphold the Nedarim of his two wives simultaneously.