Proof: If you would not say so, why [did he permit himself specifically] when he entered his house?

Distinction: The Ra'avad wrote that his wife need not conduct laws of Niduy with him.

Explanation: This is because his wife is like himself.

Source: He derived this from the question in Mo'ed Katan (15b) whether or not a Menudeh may have relations;

If his wife were obligated to conduct laws of Niduy with him, what was the question? This is obvious! Even mere approaching (coming within four Amos of her) is forbidden! Rather, surely his wife is permitted.

Rejection: We can reject this proof. Even if you will say that his wife must conduct laws of Niduy with him, the question applies to one who was Menudeh to a different city;

He is not Menudeh to his city. Even so, he himself is Menudeh;

If a Menudeh is forbidden to have relations, he himself is forbidden, even though his wife is permitted.

Assertion: Presumably, initially we thought that Rav Gidal came to teach that a Shevu'ah takes effect on a Mitzvah, just like on a matter of Reshus;

This is proven from Nishbati va'Akayemah. Therefore, we ask that he is already obligated due to an oath!

We prove in Shevu'os (27a) that "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" is written regarding Reshus (an optional matter), and not regarding a Mitzvah.

Suggestion: Perhaps this is only regarding a Korban [for a false oath]! "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" is written regarding Korban, but "Bal Yachel" (the Isur to transgress an oath) applies even regarding a Mitzvah.

Rejection: If so, why did he bring Nishbati va'Akayemah? He should have said "granted, we exclude a Mitzvah from Korban, but it is not excluded from Bal Yachel";

This is like we find there in Shevu'os (25b) regarding a matter that cannot apply in the negative and positive, or [cannot apply to] the future, [R. Yishmael] excludes it from a Korban from Lehara Oh Leheitiv, but does not exclude it from lashes.

And for this [to teach that"Bal Yachel" applies even to Shevu'os about Mitzvos] we do not need the verse (there is no source to exclude it)!

Rejection: If so, why did he say 'for it says Nishbati va'Akayemah'?

Explanation: The Gemara answers that he teaches that one may make himself zealous. I.e. surely we do not need this verse to teach that it takes effect regarding Bal Yachel!

Rather, he says "what is the source that it is proper to swear to fulfill the Mitzvah, and even Kosher people who refrain from swearing, they swear [about Mitzvos]?"

[He answers] it says Nishbati va'Akayemah. I.e. David used to do so.

Explanation: Surely, even though you said "a great Neder", you meant a Shevu'ah. He explicitly said "with a Shevu'ah, [I accept that] I will learn this Perek."

Proof: A Neder, since it forbids an object to himself, it never applies to "I will do";

Rather, surely you meant a Shevu'ah, like we find in many places that a Shevu'ah is called a Neder;

E.g. in the Mishnah below (9a) k'Nidrei Resha'im Alai - he vowed Nezirus, a Korban or a Shevu'ah.

We say also below (22b) a woman came in front of Rav Asi. He asked "with what [name of Hash-m] did you vow?" [She answered] "with Elokei Yisrael" (i.e. it was a Shevu'ah).

Question: Therefore, it is difficult for you, for a Shevu'ah does not take effect on a Shevu'ah regarding [one who transgressed, to be liable] a Korban;

Since you said "a great Neder", this implies for all laws of Shevu'ah;

Suggestion: Perhaps the Chidush is [only] that one may [swear to] make himself zealous, and therefore he said "a great Neder", to teach that it is praiseworthy and proper to do so!

Rejection: If so, this is the first teaching of Rav Gidal.

Explanation: Presumably, this is not precise that this exempts him, for everyone must learn constantly, day and night according to his ability!

We say in Kidushin (30a) "v'Shinantam" - Divrei Torah should be sharp in your mouth, that if someone asks you, you will not stammer. Rather, you will answer...

Keri'as Shema in the morning and evening does not suffice for this!

Explanation (cont.): Rather, this is a proof for what I wrote in Shevu'os (23b), that anything learned from a Drashah, even though it is mid'Oraisa, since it is not explicit in the Torah, a Shevu'ah takes effect on it.

Here we say that since if he wanted he could exempt himself from what is explicit in the Torah, i.e. b'Shachbecha uv'Kumecha, through Keri'as Shema in the morning and evening, therefore a Shevu'ah takes effect on it totally, even for a Korban.

This is why he said "a great Neder", i.e. for all its laws, like a matter of Reshus. I already wrote this there with absolute proofs, with Hash-m's help.

Explanation: Presumably, he means that since he said "we will rise early", he accepted that he will arouse the matter, just like now he arouses.

He teaches two matters. Firstly, a mere acceptance for a Mitzvah helps, for here we did not mention Neder or Shevu'ah, and even so, with mere speech it suffices;

This is like what we say that a mere acceptance for Tzedakah helps, like it says "b'Ficha" - this refers to Tzedakah. The same applies to all Mitzvos.

He teaches also that he must rise early, like Hash-m did.

Gemara: If one was excommunicated in a dream, he needs 10 people to permit him.

Explanation: It is possible that he was excommunicated via a Shali'ach from Hash-m. Therefore he needs 10 to permit him, for the Shechinah is among them.

Gemara: They must teach Halachos.

Explanation: I.e. they teach others.

Gemara: However, if they learn.

Explanation: If only [they learn, but they do not teach], no, for they are not so esteemed.

Alternative text: Some texts say 'd'Tanu Hilchesa', i.e. [they learn] Gemara, but Masnu, i.e. they learn only Mishnah, no.

Gemara: He gives Shalom to 10 people.

Explanation: And since they return Shalom to him, this protects him from afflictions, until 10 come to him...

Gemara: If he knows who excommunicated him [in the dream], can that person permit him?

Explanation: For whoever excommunicates, he can permit, like it says in Mo'ed Katan (17a) 'go to him, that he will permit you.'

Gemara: To excommunicate him, he was made a Shali'ach.

Explanation: From Shamayim.

Source: This is like it says in Yirmeyah (23:28) "Asher Ito Chalom... Mah la'Teven Es ha'Bar..."

Question: This requires investigation, whether one who was excommunicated in a dream must conduct with all laws of a Menudeh.

Opinion #1: Presumably, even though we say here that one who was excommunicated in a dream must permit it, we may not learn from here that one who vowed in a dream must permit it;

Here, the reason is because we can say that they excommunicated him from Shamayim. This does not apply to a vow.

Opinion #2: However, I saw that the Rashba, in a Teshuvah (668), obligated a Heter in a case that occurred.

Opinion #1: The Rambam, in Hilchos Shevu'os (6:4), holds that we ask only about the husband, for a husband is like his wife;

However, obviously another man cannot be a Shali'ach, for the Noder (the one who vowed) must be in front of those who permit.

Proof - Citation (Yerushalmi 10:8) Question: May one permit [vows] through a translator?

Citation (cont.) Answer: R. Aba bar Zutra served as a translator for R. Yochanan with a woman who could not understand Suriston. (The Rashash says that this is Lashon Sursi; Rashi in Sotah 49b says that this is the language of the Yerushalmi; it is close to Arame'ic.)

Inference: Since we asked whether or not one may permit through a translator, this implies that obviously, one may not permit through a Shali'ach;

And even according to the conclusion that through a translator is permitted, this is only through a translator, for the involved party (the one who vowed) is there, but not through a Shali'ach.

Consequence: Therefore, here we ask only about the husband, and we concluded that even through the husband, it is permitted only if he finds (three) people already gathered, but not if they are not gathered;

Even though his wife is like himself, we were lenient for a husband only if he finds people gathered, but not to gather l'Chatchilah;

This is because it is proper for the Noder to be there. This is the Rambam's opinion.

Opinion #2 (Tosfos): Tosfos explains oppositely. Just the contrary, regarding a Stam person, obviously he can be a Shali'ach;

We ask only about the husband. We are concerned that since his wife's vows are difficult for him, on his own he will add to her regret (give reasons to regret it that she did not say).

We conclude that it is permitted only if he finds people already gathered. This is because if they are [already] gathered, and he does not toil, we are not concerned lest he add to her regret;

However, if they were not gathered, since there are two [reasons for concern] - her vows are difficult for him, and he needed to toil - we are concerned.

However, a different person, since he does not care whether or not [the vows] are permitted, we are not concerned.

Ruling: R. Shimshon says that one may send regret of his vow, in writing, to Beis Din, and they permit him.

Explanation: He holds that a Chacham can permit even without knowledge of the Noder, since he knows that the Noder regrets. Heter of a Chacham is like Hafarah of a husband;

Citation (Kidushin 81b - Beraisa): "Ishah Haferam va'Shem Yislach Lah" - what does the verse discuss? A woman vowed to be a Nazir, and her husband heard and annulled for her, and she did not know...

The only distinction we find between a husband's Hafarah and a Chacham's Heter is the expression [used to permit].

Note: Also Piskei ha'Rosh (1:7) says so. There are many differences! A Chachamim uproots retroactively; he permits only via a Pesach or regret, and not due to Nolad; he can permit no matter when she vowed, or when he heard; he can permit all vows; and his Heter is also for others. A husband cuts off the vow from now and onwards; he does not need a Pesach or regret; he permits only what she vowed while married to him (except for an Arus, but he can permits only together with the father), and only on the day that he heard; he annuls only vows of Inuy Nefesh, or between him and her; and he permits the latter only for himself, but not for future husbands! This requires investigation. (PF)

Explanation: "Lo Ya'ali" means that it is not nice. If not, Ravina himself would have permitted his wife's vow.

Question: How could he do so? A Mishnah (Nega'im 2:5) says that one may see [and rule on] all Nega'im, except for his own. R. Meir says, he may not even see Nega'im of his relatives;

Citation (cont.): One may permit all vows, except for his own. R. Yehudah says, he may not even permit vows of his wife between her and others.

It is proven from the Yerushalmi that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah!

Answer: Even so, together with others [her husband] can permit, if not for the honor of his Rebbi.

Source (Bechoros 31a - Mishnah): One may see [and rule on blemishes of] all Bechoros, except for his own;

Even so, we say there that he joins with two commoners, like we infer in Bechoros (31a).

Citation (31a): You cannot say that he permits alone, for he is not believed! Rather, he is among three. Are [three] suspected?!

Inference: With others, it is permitted.

Implied question: Perhaps here is different, because his wife is like himself, so he cannot even join with others, for it is like his own vow! (If so, how can we learn that it is forbidden in front of one's Rebbi?)

Answer: Even so, if not for the honor of his Rebbi, Ravina would have told his Talmidim to permit it;

Since he did not do so, this shows that it is not proper to permit a vow in his Rebbi's locale.

Explanation: These are not learned from this episode. Rather, since we taught that it is not proper to permit a vow in his Rebbi's locale, we say that regarding Niduy, it is permitted;

Opinion #1: A lone expert [judge] may permit Niduy only if he received Semichah.

Rebuttal (and Opinion #2): As long as he is an outstanding Chacham, and is fluent in laws of Nedarim, even if he did not receive Semichah, he may permit vows and Niduy;

Regarding permitting vows, it does not say "Elohim" in the Parshah, which would connote that they have Semichah. It says only Roshei ha'Matos."

Support #1: In the Yerushalmi, Rabanan said to Rav Yeisa "Rav Huna permits vows alone!" He said to them "Rav Huna is the head of Roshei ha'Matos."

Rav Huna did not have Semichah (he was not called "Rebbi"), and even so he permitted vows alone!

Support #2: In Bechoros (36b), it says that three permit a vow where there is no Chacham;

We asked what kind of Chacham can permit, and Rav Nachman said "someone like me."

Inference: Rav Nachman did not have Semichah. This shows that any outstanding Chacham can permits vows.

Support: Also the Rambam wrote so in Hilchos Shevu'os (6:5). I will write more about this below (23a, 78b) with Hash-m's help.

Opinion #3: Some say that just like three permit a vow where there is no expert, similarly they permit Niduy where there is no expert, for also Niduy is a vow.

Source: We say in Sanhedrin (68a) in the episode with R. Eliezer (who was put in Niduy) "the vow was permitted!" We infer that Also Niduy is called a vow. (The episode does not directly show that three can permit Niduy. There, R. Yehoshua permitted it alone! - PF)

Support:. Also the Rambam holds like this in Hilchos Talmud Torah (7:7).

Gemara: Dust of the day, it heals.

Explanation: Dust that can be seen in the sun, when [the dust - Chashukei Chemed Kil'ayim 9:5] enters via a window, is called Chigra.

Explanation: This does not refer to after death. Surely there is Gehinom for Resha'im!

Rather, this refers to l'Asid Lavo after Techiyas ha'Mesim. Those Resha'im will be eternally shamed, like it says in Daniel (12:2);

They will not be judged in Gehinom, rather, only in this judgment, that Hash-m removes the sun from its case, so these will be pained, and Tzadikim will be healed via it.

Support: It is proven in Avodah Zarah (3a) that it discusses after Techiyas ha'Mesim. (Nimrod, Lavan, Nevuchadnetzar... will testify that Yisre'elim observed the Torah.)