1)

(a)The Tana in a Mishnah in Gitin states that whatever Pe'utos buy or sell is valid. 'Pe'utos' - are children who are eight or nine years old.

(b)This Halachah is confined to Metaltelin - any transaction involving Karka is invalid.

(c)Rafram restricts this Halachah to where there is no Apotropos - (an administrator).

(d)Rafram proves his point from our Mishnah - which, in the case when a father placed his property into the hands of a third person, concludes 'Ein Ma'aseh Ketanah Klum'. If that ruling would be confined to the Din of a third person, who is given specific instructions what to do with the property, but not to an administrator (who is not) - then the Tana should have said 'Aval bi'Ketanah, Ya'aseh ha'Shelish Mah she'Hushlash b'Yado', and not 'Ein Ma'aseh Ketanah Klum' (implying that their transaction is invalid, irrespective of who is in charge of the money).

2)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, if a man makes a Neder forbidding his wife to derive any benefit from him for longer than thirty days, he must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah. Should the Neder be for less than thirty days - he may appoint a trustee to sustain her.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah gives the time period as one month for a Yisrael - two, for a Kohen (because, once a Kohen divorces his wife, he can never take her back).

(c)The Tana also speaks about a man who made such a Neder forbidding his wife to eat a certain type of fruit even for one day - which can only speak when the woman made the Neder, and her husband upheld it.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah gives the time limit as one day for a Yisrael, two, for a Kohen.

3)

(a)The third case of Neder dealt with by the Tana is - if she makes a Neder forbidding one particular type of make-up on herself, and her husband upheld it.

(b)According to Rebbi Yosi ...

1. ... in the case of a poor woman, assuming no time limit was specified - he must divorce her immediately and pay her Kesubah. If a time-limit was specified, then he may wait until it expires.

2. ... in the case of a rich woman - he waits thirty days before divorcing her and paying her Kesubah.

4)

(a)The Mishnah in Nedarim states that if a woman forbids the work of her hands on her husband - her Neder does not even require nullification.

(b)That poses a problem on the Reisha of our Mishnah - because if she cannot make a Neder to nullify her obligations towards her husband, on what grounds can her husband make a similar Neder nullifying his obligations towards her?

(c)In order to resolve this problem - we try to explain our Mishnah on the basis that he could say to her 'Tzei'i Ma'aseh Yadayich bi'Mezonosayich', so we consider it as if he had actually said it.

5)

(a)We refute this contention because of a statement of Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said - that a woman can say to her husband 'Eini Nizones v'Eini Osah', giving her the upper hand.

(b)So we finally establish our Mishnah when he actually said to her 'Tzei'i Ma'aseh Yadayich bi'Mezonosayich' (which he is authorized to do in spite of her having the upper hand).

(c)Nevertheless, she needs a trustee to sustain her - because the Mishnah speaks when she doesn't quite manage to feed herself ...

(d)... which Rav Ashi explains to mean that she manages to produce enough for her basic requirements, but not for the small extras that a person needs to supplement his diet, which explains why he needs to appoint a trustee to sustain her.

6)

(a)The previous case cannot be speaking when she is ...

1. ... accustomed to having the small extras - because then his Neder would not be effective in the first place.

2. ... not used to having them - because then, it would be unnecessary to ask a trustee to sustain her.

(b)The case must therefore be - when she was used to these small extras before she got married, but got used to being without them after she got married. And she now claims that she only got used to living without them on her own volition, but not now that he had forbidden them on her with a Neder (similar to the Sevara 'Eino Domeh Mi she'Yesh Lo Pas b'Salo l'Mi she'Ein Lo Pas b'Salo').

(c)The Tana of our Mishnah gives a time limit of thirty days, after which he is obligated to divorce her and pay her Kesuvah - because after thirty days, people get to hear about the Neder, causing her embarrassment.

7)

(a)Alternatively, we answer our initial Kashya (how the Neder should be valid in the first place) by establishing the Mishnah when he made the Neder whilst they were still betrothed, and the reason that he is obligated to feed her is - because the Tana is speaking after the time of marriage arrived, at which point an Arus becomes obligated to feed his Arusah.

(b)The Neder is nevertheless valid - because the obligation for an Arus to feed his Arusah before the Chupah is only mid'Rabanan, whereas the Neder is valid mid'Oraisa.

(c)The thirty-day limit, according to this answer - is due to the fact that we can only trust a person (the trustee in this case) to perform his Shelichus for thirty days, but not more.

8)

(a)We attempt to give a third answer - that he made the Neder when they were betrothed and they subsequently married, explaining why the Neder is valid on the one hand, and why he is obligated to feed her on the other. Despite the fact that when she married him, she knew that she would not receive Mezonos, he nevertheless needs to feed her through a trustee - because she can say 'I thought that I would be able to manage without Mezonos, but I now realize that I can't'.

(b)We refute this answer however, on the grounds that, although we apply a similar Sevara with regard to a man who marries a woman with Nedarim, we cannot apply it here - because whereas in the case of Nedarim, it is feasible for a person to think that he can manage to live with a wife who has Nedarim, to think that one can live without Mezonos is not. Consequently, she must have been Mochel completely, and cannot retract.

9)

(a)Ordinarily, the trustee would be carrying out the Shlichus of the husband, which would be forbidden (because the husband would then be contravening his Neder). To avoid this problem - we establish our case when he appoints the trustee by announcing 'Kol ha'Zan Eino Mafsid!', in which case the volunteer does not really become his Shaliach.

(b)We query this however, from a Mishnah in Gitin, which discusses the case of a man who falls into a deep pit and announces that whoever hears his voice should write a Get for his wife. The Tana rules there - that whoever hears his voice should write the Get and hand it to his wife.

(c)So we see that even an indirect appointment such as 'Kol ha'Shome'a Koli Yichtov Get l'Ishti' is considered a Shelichus (otherwise, in what capacity would the person who heard the husband's voice be permitted to act on behalf of the husband) - in that case, why should 'Kol ha'Zan Eino Mafsid' be any different?

(d)We differentiate between the two cases - by drawing a distinction between 'Kol ha'Zan' (which is not a command), and 'Yichtov Get' (which is).

10)

(a)Rebbi Ami said that when there is a fire - one is permitted to announce on Shabbos 'Kol ha'Mechabeh Eino Mafsid', in the hope that a Nochri will come forward and volunteer to put out the fire (for a small fee).

(b)Rebbi Ami specifically said 'bi'Deleikah Hitiru Lomar Kol ha'Matzil ... ' not to preclude our case of 'Kol ha'Zan ... ', but to preclude other Melachos of Shabbos (where Chazal were strict), which are not generally as crucial as a fire, and will not result in Chilul Shabbos if they are not permitted.

11)

(a)In a case where Shimon, who has no money for food, and who, due to a Neder, is forbidden to have any Hana'ah from Reuven, the Beraisa permits the latter - to approach a store-keeper from whom he often purchases and tell him of his friend's predicament (and to explain that he cannot help him due to the Neder), on the assumption that he will provide his friend with food, and come back to him for payment.

(b)We initially extrapolate from the fact that the Beraisa specifically mentions the case of a store-keeper - that the Tana is coming to preclude the concession of 'Kol ha'Zan ... ' (a Kashya on Rav Huna).

(c)And we answer - that it is rather to inform us that even such a case is permitted (even though he made the [albeit indirect] request to a specific person with whom he is acquainted), and all the more so when he said 'Kol ha'Zan ... ', where the request is to no-one in particular.

12)

(a)The Beraisa also permits a person whose friend is forbidden to have any Hana'ah from him (due to a Neder), and who ...

1. ... cannot afford to have his house or his fence repaired, or to hire workers to harvest his corn - to approach the relevant professionals and tell them about his friend's predicament, in the hope that they will carry out the required tasks and come back to him for payment.

2. ... is accompanying him on a journey and has nothing to eat - to give a gift of food to a third person, who may then feed his friend.

(b)If there is nobody to whom to give a gift - then he is permitted to place the food on a rock or on a fence and declare it Hefker for anyone who wants it.

(c)Rebbi Yosi disagrees with the Tana Kama in the latter case because of the episode that once took place in Beis Choron - where a man gave the Chatzer and the Se'udah for his son's wedding-feast to a third person in order to permit his own father who was Mudar Hana'ah from him to participate. And when the recipient declared the gift Hekdesh, he protested that the gift was for the exclusive purpose of permitting his father to participate. The Chachamim ruled that, in such a case, the gift is not valid (because a gift by definition, means that it belongs to the recipient to do with as he wishes).