Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in 'Konem Yayin' states that, if the Noder stipulated that, unless his friend accepts a Kur of wheat and two barrels of wine on behalf of his son, he (the Noder) will not accept any benefit from him, the Neder does not require Hatarah.
Why not?

(b) What can we infer from this Mishnah?

(c) How do we try to prove from there that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov? What makes us believe that the author cannot be Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov?

(a) We conclude that the author could just as well be Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. Why might he be inclined to agree that this is not a case of Nidrei Ziruzin?

(b) Some say that we cannot apply the same S'vara in our Mishnah in the case of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov ('Af ha'Rotzeh Lehadir es Chaveiro she'Yochal Etzlo ... ') because there the Neder comes to forbid Hana'ah on the *Mudar*, and not on the *Madir* (as it does in this case).
What do others say?

(a) Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan argue in another Beraisa in the reverse case to the previous one (when the Madir forbids the Mudar to have Hana'ah from him unless he gives *his* son a Kur of wheat and two barrels of wine. Like before, the Chachamim do not require Hatarah in this case.
Why is that?

(b) Why, in spite of the inference, indicating that this is not a case of Nidrei Ziruzin, could the author of this Beraisa too, be Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov? What makes this case different than the case in our Mishnah ('Af ha'Rotzeh Lehadir es Chaveiro she'Yochal Etzlo ... ')?

(a) What does Rebbi Meir say in the last Beraisa?

(b) Does he argue in the previous Beraisa too?

(c) What will be the Din in that case if ...

1. ... the Mudar claims that the Madir made the Neder with his honor in mind, and the Madir says that quite to the contrary, it was his own honor that he had in mind?
2. ... the Madir agrees with the Mudar that he made the Neder with the honor of the Mudar in mind?

(d) Then in which case does Rebbi Meir argue with the Rabbanan?

(a) In which way will the Din differ if the sons (on whose behalf the wheat and wine are being given) are grown-up and no longer living with their father?

(b) What distinction does the Rashba make between the case under discussion and a similar case where the Noder forbids Hana'ah on his friend, in the event that he visits a certain place?

(c) Is the Rashba's opinion unanimous?

(a) How does Mar Keshisha Brei de'Rav Chisda infers from the Mishnah later, which presents 'Nidrei Onsin' as when someone forbids his property on his friend unless he eats by him, and he or his son falls ill (preventing him from fulfilling the condition)?

(b) How does he attempt to prove from there that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov?

(c) We reconcile the Mishnah with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov by establishing the case 'de'Zamina Adrei li'Mezamna'.
What is the case?

(d) Why is this not then a case of 'Nidrei Ziruzin'?

(a) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov considers Nidrei Ziruzin a case of someone who forbids on himself any Hana'ah from his friend, unless his friend comes to eat by him fresh bread and a hot drink, and his friend flatly refuses.
Why does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov use the Lashon 'Yeser al Kein'?

(b) What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) How do we now resolve at least one of the two She'eilos that we originally asked?

(d) And how do we know that they argue even in the original case of Nidrei Ziruzin, even when the S'vara 'La'av Kalba Ana' does not apply?

8)

(a) Rav Huna rules like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. This pertains even to the first case (our Mishnah) maybe because of a tradition that the Amora'im had. What other reason is there to say that Rav Huna was referring to our Mishnah (and not to the Beraisa exclusively)?

(b) Why, on the other hand, might it make no difference whether Rav Huna's ruling pertains to the Beraisa or to our Mishnah.

(c) We just concluded that, at the end of the day, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov classifies a Neder as Nidrei Ziruzin even against the S'vara of 'La'av Kalba Ana ... '.
What will he say in the case of such a Neder against the S'vara 'La'av Malka Ana ... '?

(a) We just made a distinction between Nidrei Ziruzin against the S'vara of 'La'av Kalba Ana ... ' (where Nidrei Ziruzin overrides the S'vara) on the one hand, and against the S'vara of 'La'av Malka Ana ... ' (where it is the S'vara which overrides Nidrei Ziruzin) on the other. This is the case if the reason for 'La'av Kalba Ana ... ' is because a person simply does not like receiving without giving. What will be the Din if we ascribe it to the size of the Matanah (a Kur of wheat and two barrels of wine - as we explained above)?

(b) This latter opinion is that of the Ramban.
How do we corroborate his opinion from the Mishnah in 'Konem Yayin' ('Konem she'Eini Neheneh Lach im I Ata Notel le'Bincha Kur she Chitin ... Harei Zeh Yachol Lehatir es Nidro ... ' that we quoted above)?

(a) Our Mishnah states 'Nidrei Hava'i: Amar Im Lo Ra'isi be'Derech ha'Zeh ke'Olei Mitzrayim, Im Lo Ra'isi Nachash ke'Koras Beis ha'Bad'. Consequently, the fruit that he forbade if he did not witness these spectacles is permitted.
Why does the Tana find it necessary to insert *two* cases in our Mishnah? What is the difference between them?

(b) What is the Chidush of the second statement? Why would we not have known it from the first one?

(c) The Beraisa states that although Nidrei Hava'i are void, Shevu'os Hava'i are not (according to our version of the Beraisa). He cannot be referring to when someone says 'Shevu'ah Im Lo Ra'isi be'Derech ha'Zeh Mida'am'.
Why not?

(d) How does Abaye then establish the Beraisa?

(a) On what grounds are Shevu'os Hava'i more stringent than Nidrei Hava'i and therefore valid (according to some texts, they are invalid, just like Nidrei Hava'i, only we would have at least thought that they are valid more than Nedarim are)?

(b) Why does the Tana of our Mishnah not include the case of ' ... Im Lo Ra'isi Gamal ha'Porei'ach be'Avir' (which it does mention in Shevu'os)?

(a) Rava disagrees with Abaye's explanation on two scores: firstly because it would then be obvious that the Shevu'ah would be valid (according to the text in the Beraisa that *compares* Shevu'os Hava'i to Nidrei Hava'i). What is his second bone of contention with Abaye?

(b) So how does Rava establish the Beraisa?

(a) According to the alternative version, the fruit (which he connected to his Shevu'ah) is actually permitted.
Does that mean that he will not receive Malkos at all?

(b) What Chidush is the Tana then coming to teach us? Why might we have thought that Shevu'os Hava'i should be valid?

(c) According to either text, why should the Shevu'ah ' ... Im Lo Ra'isi ke'Olei Mitzrayim' be considered a valid Shevu'ah? Why do we not assume that he is referring to a nest of ants that he came across?

Next daf