1)

(a)On the assumption that "Al" has the same connotations as "Osah" and "Lo", we will explain the Pasuk concerning the Mitzvah of Keri'ah (renting one's garments over a deceased relative) "Al Shaul v'Al Yehonasan Beno" - that, when tearing Keri'ah, one knows for whom one is tearing. (Presumably, the Derashah is from the extra "Al" [since the Navi could have written "Al Shaul vi'Yehonasan Beno').

(b)We cannot learn from the Beraisa 'Amru Lo Mes Aviv v'Kara, v'Achar Kach Nimtza Beno, Yatza Yedei Keri'ah', that "Al" (and subsequently "Osah" and Lo" too) does not come to teach us the above Derashah - because when the Tana says 'Amru Lo Mes Aviv', he does not mean literally what he says, but that they told him that one of his relations died, only he thought that they had said that it was his father. The Derashah only teaches us that he is not Yotzei if he was told the wrong information, but not if he himself misunderstood what he was told.

(c)We know this answer to be correct - because it is borne out by another Beraisa, which explicitly makes this distinction.

(d)Consequently, if someone hears a woman make a Neder, and without knowing whether it was his wife or his daughter who made it, he annuls it, and then discovers that it was one of them - the Hafarah is valid.

2)

(a)Rav Ashi differentiates between Toch Kedei Dibur (the time it takes to greet one's Rebbi) and l'Achar Kedei Dibur. He says - that the Beraisa speaks when his father died within Toch Kedei Dibur of the Keri'ah. Otherwise, the Tana of the Beraisa will agree that he is not Yotzei with the Keri'ah.

(b)In spite of the fact that Rav Ashi is unlikely to disagree with a Beraisa, he offers a new answer - in order to avoid changing the literal meaning of the Beraisa (which the first answer was forced to do).

(c)The Beraisa rules that if someone tore Keri'ah because he believed his relative to have already died, but the relative only died afterwards - he must tear Keri'ah again.

(d)Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi comments - that that applies only if the relative died after 'Kedei Dibur', but not if he died 'Toch Kedei Dibur'.

3)

(a)There are only four exceptions to the rule 'Toch Kedei Dibur k'Dibur Dami': Megadef (cursing Hash-m, for which is sentenced to stoning), Oved Avodas Kochamim - Kidushin and Gerushin.

(b)When we say that by these four 'Toch Kedei Dibur Lav k'Dibur Dami' - we mean that if someone cursed Hash-m, worshipped idols, betrothed or divorced a woman and then retracted within the time it takes to say 'Shalom Aleichem Rebbi u'Mori', his original act or statement is invalid.

(c)In 'Yesh Nochlin', we only reckon two of them (Avodas Kochavim and Kidushin) - not because the Sugyos argue, but because Avodas Kochavim incorporates Megadef, and Kidushin incorporates Gerushin.

(d)These four cases are different than all other cases in this regard - because, whereas in other matters, people tend to allow themselves time to reconsider (which is the reason for saying 'Toch Kedei Dibur k'Dibur Dami'), these four matters are so serious, that they will only act after careful consideration, leaving no room for retraction.

4)

(a)The Ramban quoting Rabeinu Tam gives the source for 'Toch Kedei Dibur k'Dibur Dami' - as being a Takanas Chachamim, to enable someone who is making a purchase when his Rebbi walks past, to greet him (and on account of that case, they extended it to all other areas of Halachah except for the above-mentioned four).

(b)We disagree with him - on the grounds that by Nedarim, for example, this means that the Rabanan have revoked a Neder which min ha'Torah, would have taken effect, contravening the principle that the Rabanan are not empowered to positively uproot a Torah law.

5)

(a)If a woman forbids figs and grapes on herself, and her husband upholds just the Neder on figs - the entire Neder remains intact.

(b)Should he annul the Neder on figs only, the Neder is not annulled until he annuls the Neder on the grapes as well. This means - either that the entire Hafarah is not effective, but the part on the figs is, or that it is not effective at all, because one cannot annul only part of a Neder.

(c)The Tana says that if a woman says 'Konam Te'enah she'Ani To'emes, va'Anavah she'Ani To'emes' - it is considered to be two Nedarim.

(d)This does not mean that her husband cannot annul them simultaneously (because a husband can in fact, annul simultaneously, as many Nedarim as his wife makes,). What it means is - that if he annulled or upheld only one of the two, he will still be permitted to annul or to uphold the other one.

6)

(a)The author of our Mishnah (who says that the a woman's Neder is not annulled until her husband annuls the entire Neder) is Rebbi Yishmael, who argues in a Beraisa with Rebbi Akiva, who says - that since the Torah writes "Ishah Yekimenu v'Ishah Yeferenu", just as "Yekimenu" implies even a part of the Neder (permits the entire Neder), so too does "Yeferenu".

(b)They both agree that 'Ishah Yekimenu' implies even part of the Neder, whereas 'Ishah Yeferenu' implies only the entire Neder (because otherwise, the Torah should have written "Yafer Mimenu"). The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the Torah is comparing Hafarah to Hakamah (Rebbi Akiva) in this regard, or not (Rebbi Yishmael). Note: We saw already on the previous Amud that this Hekesh cannot be applied in all cases.

7)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba cites the Chachamim - who (reverse the Hekesh, and) say that the Torah compares Hakamah to Hafarah, permitting the husband to uphold part of the Neder, just like he can annul part of it.

(b)We can extrapolate from the Chachamim's words, that when the Tana in our Mishnah said 'Hafer la'Te'enim, Eino Mufar', he means that the entire Neder is not Mufar, but the part concerning figs, is (as opposed to saying that it is not annulled at all) - because that is inherent in the words 'Mah she'Hafer, Hafer' (or 'Hufar').

(c)We therefore change the text of the Chachamim quoted by Rebbi Yochanan to read 'Mah Hafarah, Mah she'Hafer, Lo Hafer (or 'Hufar')' - on the basis of the Tosefta, which states with regard to this very case 'Asurah Bein bi'Te'enim Bein ba'Anavim'.

8)

(a)The author of our Mishnah ('Konam Te'enah she'Ani To'emes, va'Anavah she'Ani To'emes, Harei Eilu Shnei Nedarim') must be Rebbi Shimon who says (regarding someone who says to five claimants 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lecha b'Yadi, v'Lo Lecha, v'Lo Lecha ... ' - that it is only considered one Shevu'ah, until he mentions 'Shevu'ah' by each claimant.

9)

(a)If a husband concedes that he knew about Nedarim, but that he had been unaware that he had the authority to annul them - he remains permitted to annul the Neder from the moment he discovers that he has, until nightfall.

(b)Should he concede that he was even aware of his authority to annul Nedarim, but not that the Neder that his wife had made was in the category of Nedarim that were subject to Hafarah, Rebbi Meir forbids him to annul it. This seems to mean that he cannot annul it at all, not ...

1. ... on that day - since it is not considered "Yom Sham'o".

2. ... on the day that he discovers his mistake - because partial knowledge is considered knowledge (that authorized him to annul the Neder on the day that he heard it).

(c)The Rabanan permit him to annul the Neder on that day, because they hold - that partial knowledge is considered full knowledge even with regard to "Yom Sham'o".

(d)According to others, what Rebbi Meir means is that he cannot annul the Neder on the following day, but on the day that he hears he can, And the reason of ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir now is - because he considers the partial knowledge that his wife's Nedarim can be annulled, and that she made Nedarim, complete knowledge - even regarding "Yom Sham'o'.

2. ... the Rabanan, who even permit him to annul the Neder on the following day is - because his partial knowledge of the previous day is not considered knowledge.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah, in a Beraisa, Darshens the Pasuk in Mas'ei (with regard to someone who killed b'Shogeg) "b'Lo Re'os" to preclude a blind man. We initially think that he interprets "b'Lo Re'os" to mean - that the 'murderer' did not see his victim, implying that normally, he is able to see, and it is only on that occasion that he did not.

(b)Rebbi Meir includes a blind man. Initially, we think that this because - seeing as the murderer did partially realize when the victim entered his vicinity, he is no different than a person who can see (because he considers a partial knowledge like complete knowledge).

(c)Assuming the first explanation in our Mishnah (that according to Rebbi Meir, the husband who has only partial knowledge, cannot annul his wife's Neder at all, whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, he can), the discrepancy that now appears between the opinion in our Mishnah and the opinion in the Beraisa ...

1. ... according to Rebbi Meir is - that whereas in our Mishnah he holds partial knowledge is not considered knowledge, in the Beraisa he holds that it is.

2. ... According to Rebbi Yehudah (assuming the Rabanan in our Mishnah to be Rebbi Yehudah) is - that whereas, in our Mishnah he holds that partial knowledge is considered knowledge, in the Beraisa he holds that it is not.

11)

(a)According to the second Lashon (that according to Rebbi Meir, the husband who has only partial knowledge, can nevertheless annul the Nedarim after he discovers that they are subject to Hafarah, up until nightfall), whereas according to the Rabanan [Rebbi Yehudah], he can even annul the Nedarim on the following day), there is no discrepancy between what the latter says in the Beraisa and what he says in our Mishnah - because, in both cases, he holds that partial knowledge is not considered to be full knowledge.

(b)The two rulings of Rebbi Meir however, appear to clash - because whereas in the Reisha of our Mishnah he does not consider a partial knowledge to be knowledge, which is why he agrees 'Yafer', in the Beraisa, he does. When, in the Seifa of our Mishnah, he says 'Lo Yafer', that is because he does not consider a case where the husband knows that he has the authority to annul Nedarim (even though he does not know which Nedarim) to be a partial knowledge, but full knowledge.

(c)Even though it initially appears that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah learn their respective opinions from their understanding of the words "b'Lo Re'os" (rendering it a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv), in which case there would be no contradiction between their respective opinions there and those in our Mishnah regarding Nedarim (which are based on Sevaros) - this is not really the case, since the Pasuk "b'Lo Re'os" is really ambiguous, and each Tana explains it according to his own logic, creating a contradiction between their two sets of opinions.

12)

(a)We answer 'Hacha m'Inyana di'Kera (v'Hacha m'Inyana di'Kera'). In fact, each one learns from a different word in the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Asher Yavo es Re'eihu ba'Ya'ar". Rebbi

1. ... Yehudah learns from "Ya'ar" that a blind person is automatically included in the Chiyuv Galus (explaining why he needs "b'Lo Re'os" to preclude him) - because "Ya'ar" implies anyone who enters it, even a blind person.

2. ... Meir learns from "bi'Vli Da'as" that he is automatically Patur - because a blind man can never kill someone with full knowledge, since he cannot see where the victim is.

(b)Rebbi Meir holds intrinsically - that a partial knowledge is not considered knowledge.

(c)The principle that enables us to learn that a blind person is Chayav Galus from the two Pesukim "bi'Vli Da'as" and "b'Lo Re'os" is - 'Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela Lerabos'.