Previous daf

1)

(a) On what grounds did ...

1. ... Aba Shaul ben Botnis annul Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi's Neder? What 'pain' had he caused the Rabbanan?
2. ... they annul Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi's Neder?

(b) Rav Acha mi'Difti queried that ruling, on the basis of the Mishnah in Rebbi Eliezer regarding 'Nolad'.
What does the Mishnah say there? What is Nolad?

(c) What was Ravina's reply? Why was this case not a question of Nolad?

(a) What dispute did Abaye and his wife have over marrying off her daughter?

(b) Abaye then forbade Hana'ah on his wife, should she contravene his wishes.
What happened next?

(c) On what grounds did Rav Yosef annul Abaye's Neder?

(d) What precedent do we bring from Rebbi Yossi for such a strange Pesach?

What makes it strange?

(a) In the previous case, we express surprise at Rav Yosef, because we believe that the Neder should not even be subject to nullification. Why is this case any different than Nidrei Ziruzin, which do not even require Hatarah?

(b) And in which way does this case differ 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?

(c) What does the Gaon (whose Chumros we cited at the end of the previous Amud) say about all the current cases of Pesach?

(a) We have already learned that a Yachid Mumcheh is required to annul Nedarim, and that, where none is available, three Hedyotos (ordinary people) may do so. This is the opinion of the Rabbanan.
What additional requirement does Rebbi Yehudah demand with regard to one of the three Hedyotos?

(b) What about the other two?

(c) The Yachid Mumcheh, according to the Ramban, must be a Samuch.
How do we know this?

(d) What does Hataras Nedarim have in common in this regard, with Kidush ha'Chodesh (Mo'adei Hashem) irrespective of how one interprets 'Yachid Mumcheh'?

(a) The above is basically, the opinion of the Ramban.
How does the Rambam define 'Yachid Mumcheh'?

(b) What qualifications do the three Hedyotos require?

(c) Why should a Beis-Din of three Hedyotos not annul Nedarim when a Yachid Mumcheh is available?

(d) If they did, is the Neder annulled?

(a) What (according to the initial text) does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov advise someone to do, if he wants to induce his friend to eat by him with a Neder (forbidding his food on him if he doesn't comply)?

(b) On what condition will the T'nai then take effect?

(c) Why is Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov's advice as it stands, impractical?

(d) Why can we not simply answer that the Noder made the declaration silently?

8)

(a) Why does the wording in our Mishnah 'u'Vilvad she'Yehei Zachur be'Sha'as ha'Neder' make no sense?

(b) But did we not learn at the end of the previous Amud, that when a Neder follows a T'nai, it is the T'nai that overrides the Neder (and not vice-versa)?

(c) How does the Rashba resolve this discrepancy?

(a) So how does Abaye amend it?

(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), but he forgot what the T'nai was.
What is the Tana now saying? What does 'u'Vilvad she'Yehei *Zachur* be'Sha'as ha'Neder' now mean?

(c) What will Rava hold in a case where he forgot the T'nai when declaring the Neder (Abaye's case)?

(a) 'Kol Nidrei' that we say on Yom Kipur night appears to be based on this Sugya.
What is the problem with the text 'mi'Yom ha'Kipurim she'Avar ad Yom ha'Kipurim ha'Ba ... ' (see Tosfos DH 'Rava')?

(b) How did Rabeinu Ya'akov (better known as Rabeinu Tam) amend the text of 'Kol Nidrei'?

(c) Why might it not be such a good idea to follow his text?

(a) We have just learned that a T'nai that precedes a Neder can override it when it is declared.
Can such a T'nai also override a Shevu'ah?

(b) Why will a T'nai preceding a Neder or a Shevu'ah that one declares forbidding someone else to derive benefit from oneself, not override a subsequent Neder or Shevu'ah?

(a) We ask two She'eilos. One of them: whether the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov or not.
What is the other?

(b) Does this mean that the Rabbanan might also argue with the concept of Nidrei Ziruzin altogether?

Next daf