Explanation: Now, "to include" is like "to exclude." The verse teaches that when a Nochri does not know Lehaflos (to Whom we vow), his Neder is invalid, even if he is an adult;

This is unlike a Yisrael. An adult Yisrael, his vow is valid even if he does not know Lehaflos.

Question: We discuss Erchin. Even if an adult Nochri knows Lehaflos, he cannot be Ma'arich!

Answer: Im Eino Inyan for Erchin, Tenehu Inyan for Nedarim.

Explanation: Also this "to include" is like "to exclude", like we expound in Nedarim (5b) that Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is not a Yad from "Ish Ki Yafli";

Just like the primary [vow] of Nezirus requires Hafla'ah (a clear acceptance), also Yados require Hafla'ah.

Citation (of our Gemara): Abaye says, Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is not a Yad. Rava says, Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is a Yad. This is the text in Seforim.

Note: The text in our Seforim is opposite, like R. Tam says below.

Correction (R. Tam): The text is reversed and errant. Here the text should say like the text in Nedarim (5b), opposite [to Seforim here]. Rava says, it is not a Yad. Abaye says, it is a Yad.

Proof: If not, we cannot resolve what it says in Seforim here "this is fine for Rava. However, according to Abaye, how can we answer?"

According to the text in which Rava says that it is not a Yad, this is fine, like we expound in Nedarim from Ki Yafli, that Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos are not Yadayim.

Rebuttal (Riva): We can resolve the text of Seforim. Ki Yafli is extra, for it is written twice, to expound it. We say in such a case that an exclusion following an exclusion is to include;

Support #1: Now, "Le'asuyei" is [like its simple meaning,] to include.

Support #2: The conclusion connotes like this. We conclude that one Hafla'ah teaches about Isur (how Nedarim cannot be annulled), and one Hafla'ah teaches about Heter (how Nedarim can be annulled). R. Yehudah in the name of R. Tarfon expounds an extra Hafla'ah.

Citation of Gemara: Not one of them is a Nazir.

Reference: This Mishnah is taught above (34a).

Explanation: One is in Parshas Nazir, and one is in Parshas Nedarim.

Implied question: Why doesn't he expound "Ish"?

Answer: Perhaps since the Torah needed to write Ki Yafli, it wrote also "Ish" (so we need not expound "Ish").

Explanation: It is reasonable to establish the exclusion "one whose owns his own Nefesh" in a case (i.e. Nezirus) that he is forbidden to all of them, for through this he becomes weak, and he does not have so much strength to do Melachah;

It is proper that the Torah tell us that his owner can prevent him [from this].

Explanation: Therefore, regarding Nedarim, even without the master's protest, the vow does not take effect at all, for this is harming others. His strength weakens, and he is not strong for Melachah;

We learn Nedarim from Shevu'os, about which it says "Lehara Oh Leheitiv."

Distinction: However, we do not equate Nezirus to Nedarim [even though it says "Neder Nazir Lehazir"!] Rabbeinu Yitzchak explained that this is because it says above (3b) that Nezirus takes effect even on something not in his Reshus, e.g. he swore that he will drink [wine], and then said Hareini Nazir;

This is like we expound, to forbid wine of a Mitzvah like optional wine. This shows that Nezirus takes effect even on something not in his Reshus;

Therefore, Nezirus takes effect also on the slave, as long as the master does not protest.

Limitation: However, surely if [his master] protests, regarding this we expound "Le'esor Isar Al Nafsho" - one whose owns his own Nefesh, to teach that the master's protest helps;

Im Eino Inyan for Nedarim, for the master need not protest, Tenehu Inyan for Nezirus.

Observation: The Beraisa said "but not for Erchin." This is unlike "but not for Nedarim." Rather, the master's protest does not help for Erchin at all;

This is because the master does not lose at all if the slave said "my Erech is Alai" and when he is freed, or when the give a gift to him on condition that his master has no authority in it, [the slave] will pay Hekdesh.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that since the slave fled from his master, presumably the master despaired from him, and he is Hefker;

R. Meir holds like Shmuel, who holds that he does not need a Get Shichrur (document of freedom). Therefore, he cannot drink [wine], for he is not in his master's Reshus, and his [master's] protest does not help any longer;

R. Yosi holds unlike Shmuel. Since he did not go free, his [master's] protest does help.

Citation of Gemara: All hold like Shmuel.

Explanation: [All hold that] one who was Mafkir his slave, he goes free, and he does not need a Get Shichrur. This slave who fled from his master, we do not discuss when the master despaired, so we do not consider him to be Hefker;

R. Meir holds that he may not drink. He holds that the master is not upset if [the slave] is pained and gets weak when he is not by him, so that [the slave] will be pained and return to him. Through this, he will return to him, in order to drink wine;

R. Yosi holds that he drinks. The master is not pleased that he refrain from wine and get weak, and he will not have so much strength and be proper for labor when he returns to him.