Previous daf

1)

(a) We just proved from the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer in the Reisha of the Beraisa that the Neder of a woman which her husband annulled in advance does not come into effect. In the Seifa, the Rabbanan asked Rebbi Eliezer from Tevilah ('Im Matbilin K'li Tamei Litaher, Yatbilu K'li Tahor le'che'Yitamei'?) - meaning that, if we were to abide by Rebbi Eliezer's 'Kal va'Chomer', then seeing as one can Tovel a Tamei vessel to remove the Tum'ah, one should certainly be able to Tovel one to prevent it from becoming Tamei.

(b) The Seifa counters our previous proof from the Reisha - inasmuch as it now appears that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, we learn from the 'Kal va'Chomer' that the Tum'ah does not take effect at all, in which case, the same will apply to the wife's Neder that her husband annulled in advance.

(c) The reason the Reisha of the Beraisa assumes that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, the woman's Nedarim do not come into effect, and the Seifa of the same Beraisa holds the opposite is - because the Rabbanan themselves were unsure what Rebbi Eliezer really held, so they brought proofs covering both possibilities.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk " ... Al Kol Zera Zeru'a Asher Yizarei'a" - that if one plants Tamei seeds, they become Tahor.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer makes a 'Kal va'Chomer' - if Tamei seeds that one sowed in the ground become Tahor, then certainly seeds that are sowed already, cannot become Tamei.

(c) He is trying to prove with this 'Kal va'Chomer' - that the Rabbanan (who certainly agree with this Halachah), will have to agree with his 'Kal va'Chomer' regarding Nedarim, too.

(d) What we finally prove from here is - that according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Nedarim will not take effect at all (like the seeds that one planted, which do not become Tamei).

(a) We know that a girl of twelve cannot be sold as an Amah ha'Ivriyah' (a Jewish maidservant) - from a Kal va'Chomer, because if she goes out when she turns twelve, she can certainly not be sold.

(b) This poses on the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer - who argue with Rebbi Eliezer's 'Kal va'Chomer'. Yet they agree with this Halachah, and, if not for the 'Kal va'Chomer', from where will they learn it?

(c) We might prefer to ask on them from here rather than from the previous case of Tamei seeds (as Rebbi Eliezer does) because we are not so sure that the Rabbanan do not argue with Rebbi Eliezer there, whereas here, we know the Din of selling a Jewish maidservant to be unanimous. Alternatively, we might answer that the Rabbanan's source is not from the 'Kal va'Chomer' at all, but because it is incorporated in the Pasuk "Al Kol Zera Zeiru'a Asher Yizarei'a".

(a) We ultimately reconcile the Rabbanan in our Mishnah, with the two other cases where they agree with Rebbi Eliezer's 'Kal va'Chomer' - by changing from what we learned until now. In fact, we now explain, they agree with this 'Kal va'Chomer' on principle, only the Pasuk "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah Yeferenu" overrides it.

(b) In that case, when the Rabbanan above ask on Rebbi Eliezer from Mikveh (or from Taharah Belu'ah), they mean to ask (not on the 'Kal va'Chomer itself, but) - that the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nogei'a be'Nivlasam Yitma" overrides it.

5)

(a) A husband (or father) can annul the Nedarim of his wife (or daughter) - until nightfall.

(b) When the Tana adds 'Yesh be'Davar Lahakel u'Lehachmir' - he means to say, that sometimes they have a long time to annul it, and sometimes, only a very short time (as opposed to a period of twenty-four hours, which is always fixed).

(c) The Tana demonstrates the case of 'Lehakel' with the example of 'Leilei Shabbos u've'Yom ha'Shabbos ... ', when the same applies to a weekday - to teach us that Hafaras Nedarim can be performed even on Shabbos (even when it is not for the needs of Shabbos, as we shall see later).

(d) In the Seifa, despite the fact that the Tana is demonstrating the case of 'Lehachmir', he says 'Meifer ad she'Lo Techshach' rather than 'Eino Meifer Ela ad she'Techshach' (which appears to be more appropriate - to stress the fact that even though the Neder is obviously not for the needs of Shabbos, the husband or the father can still annul it.

(a) The author of our Mishnah is the Tana Kama of a Beraisa. According to Rebbi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon - the husband and the father have 'me'Es le'Es (twenty-four hours) in which to make Hafaras Nedarim.

(b) The Tana Kama derives his opinion from the Pasuk "be'Yom Sham'o" - Rebbi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon derive theirs from "mi'Yom el Yom".

(c) According to the Tana Kama, the Torah needs to write "mi'Yom el Yom" - because from "be'Yom Sham'o" alone - we would have thought that Hafaras Nedarim must be performed by day.

(d) And according to Rebbi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon, the Torah needs to write "be'Yom Sham'o", because had it only written "mi'Yom el Yom" - we would have thought that they have a whole week in which to annul it, from day to day.

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled 'not like that pair'.
When Levi wanted to make Hafaras Nedarim after nightfall - Rav informed him that his uncle (Rebbi Chiya) ruled 'not like that pair.

(b) Chiya bar Ashi would shoot arrows as he performed Hataras Nedarim, and Rabah bar Rav Huna would sit or stand, as he pleased - which comes to teach us that both of them performed Hataras Nedarim casually (the latter would otherwise have sat down, in order to concentrate better). From this we learn that they hold 'Poschin ba'Charatah' (which does not require the same concentration as a proper Pesach does).