1)

(a)On what grounds did Botnis the son of Aba Shaul ben Botnis annul Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi's Neder? What 'pain' had he caused the Rabanan?

(b)In a similar incident, what did a certain laundry-man do, out of anger at seeing the Rabanan frustrated at not being able to find a Pesach for his Neder?

(c)On what grounds did they subsequently annul Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi's Neder?

(d)Rav Acha mi'Difti queried that ruling, on the basis of the Mishnah in Rebbi Eliezer regarding 'Nolad'. What does the Mishnah say there? What is Nolad?

(e)What was Ravina's reply? Why was this case not a question of Nolad?

1)

(a)Botnis the son of Aba Shaul ben Botnis annulled Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi's Neder - by getting him to admit that he would not have declared it had he known that he would cause the Rabanan (who were trying) to annul it such pain by their having to go backwards and forwards from the sun to the shade and from the shade to the sun trying (unsuccessfully) to find him a Pesach (see Agados Maharsha).

(b)In a similar incident, a certain laundry-man angry at seeing the Rabanan frustrated at not being able to find a Pesach for his Neder - struck Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi with a laundry-tub.

(c)They subsequently annulled Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi's Neder - when he declared that he would certainly not have declared the Neder had he known that he would be struck with a laundry-tub.

(d)Rav Acha mi'Difti queried this ruling, on the basis of the Mishnah in Rebbi Eliezer - where the Tana invalidates any Pesach which is 'Nolad' (a Pesach that only occurs after the Neder has been made, and which could have been anticipated).

(e)Ravina replied - that this was not Nolad, since there were many Apikorsim around (like that laundry-man) who annoyed the Rabanan (so it was to be expected that such an incident would occur).

2)

(a)What dispute did Abaye and his wife have over marrying off her daughter?

(b)Abaye then forbade Hana'ah on his wife, should she contravene his wishes. What happened next?

(c)On what grounds did Rav Yosef annul Abaye's Neder?

(d)What precedent do we bring from Rebbi Yosi for such a strange Pesach? What makes it strange?

2)

(a)Abaye and his wife's dispute concerned - whether her daughter should marry his relation or hers.

(b)Abaye then forbade Hana'ah on his wife should she contravene his wishes - which she did by marrying off her daughter to her relative.

(c)Rav Yosef annulled Abaye's Neder - on the grounds that had Abaye known that his wife would indeed contravene his Neder, he would not have made it.

(d)We bring a precedent from Rebbi Yosi for such a strange Pesach. Rebbi Yosi annulled the Neder of a man who had been Madir his wife Hana'ah should she go to Yerushalayim on Yom Tov and she went - on the basis of the fact that, had her husband known that she would go, he would not have declared the Neder in the first place. It is strange to use the contravention of the Neder as a Pesach, when it is clear that that is precisely what the Noder wanted.

3)

(a)In the previous case, we express surprise at Rav Yosef, because we believe that the Neder should not be subject to nullification. Why is this case any different than Nidrei Ziruzin, which do not even require Hatarah?

(b)And in which way does this case differ from the next Mishnah, where Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov considers someone who declares a Neder on his friend's property, to try and induce him to eat by him, Nidrei Ziruzin, even though he really means what he says?

(c)What does the Gaon (whose Chumros we cited at the end of the previous Amud) say about all the current cases of Pesach?

3)

(a)In the previous case, we express surprised at Rav Yosef, because we believe that the Neder should not be subject to nullification, despite the fact that in the case of Nidrei Ziruzin, the Neder does not even require Hatarah - because there, it is obvious that both parties agree on three Dinarim, and the Neder does not conform with their thoughts; whereas here, Abaye certainly meant what he said.

(b)This case also differs from the next Mishnah, where Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov considers someone who declares a Neder on his friend's property to try and induce him to eat by him, Nidrei Ziruzin, even though he really means what he says - because there, it is obvious that the Neder is not meant seriously, seeing as his friend's refusal to eat with him does not warrant forbidding himself from all of his friend's property; whereas in the case of Abaye and his wife, there is no reason to suggest that Abaye did not mean what he said.

(c)The Gaon (whose Chumros we cited at the end of the previous Amud) - adds all the current cases of Pesach to that list. He only permits the nullification of Nedarim by means of a regular Pesach.

4)

(a)We have already learned that a Yachid Mumcheh is required to annul Nedarim, and that, where none is available, three Hedyotos (ordinary people) may do so. This is the opinion of the Rabanan. What additional requirement does Rebbi Yehudah demand with regard to one of the three Hedyotos?

(b)What about the other two?

(c)The Yachid Mumcheh, according to the Ramban, must be a Samuch. How do we know this?

(d)What does Hataras Nedarim have in common in this regard, with Kidush ha'Chodesh (Mo'adei Hash-m) irrespective of how one interprets 'Yachid Mumcheh'?

4)

(a)We have already learned that a Yachid Mumcheh is required to annul Nedarim, and that, where none is available, three ordinary people may do so. This is the opinion of the Rabanan. Rebbi Yehudah requires in addition - that one of the three Hedyotos must be a Chacham (who is both 'Gamir' and 'Savir' - learned and who gets the point when others convey it to him) like Rav Nachman, who did not receive Semichah.

(b)The other two - must be at least 'Savir'.

(c)The Yachid Mumcheh, according to the Ramban, must be a Samuch - because if 'Gamir v'Savir' was sufficient, then why would the Chacham in the Beis-Din of three require the other two to sit with him, seeing as he is already a Yachid Mumcheh.

(d)Hataras Nedarim, like Kidush ha'Chodesh (Mo'adei Hash-m) - requires a Yachid Mumcheh (though by Kidush ha'Chodesh, it is all three Dayanim who must be on that level).

5)

(a)The above is basically, the opinion of the Ramban. How does the Rambam define 'Yachid Mumcheh'?

(b)What qualifications do the three Hedyotos require (according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah)?

(c)Why should a Beis-Din of three Hedyotos not annul Nedarim when a Yachid Mumcheh is available?

(d)If they did, is the Neder annulled?

5)

(a)The above is basically the opinion of the Ramban. The Rambam defines Yachid Mumcheh as 'Gamir v'Savir'.

(b)The three Hedyotos need to be 'Savir' (according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah), but not 'Gamir'.

(c)A Beis-Din of three Hedyotos should not annul Nedarim when a Yachid Mumcheh is available - out of respect for the Yachid Mumcheh.

(d)If they did - the Neder is nevertheless annulled.

6)

(a)What (according to the initial text) does Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov advise someone to do, if he wants to induce his friend to eat by him with a Neder (forbidding his food on him if he does not comply)?

(b)On what condition will the Tenai then take effect?

(c)Why is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov's advice as it stands, impractical?

(d)Why can we not simply answer that the Noder made the declaration silently?

6)

(a)According to the initial text, Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov advises someone who wants to induce his friend to eat by him with a Neder (forbidding his food on him if he does not comply) - to declare the Neder that he is about to make void.

(b)(According to the text in our Mishnah) however, the Tenai will only take effect - if he remembers when declaring the Neder, that he made it.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov's advice as it stands is impractical - because, seeing as the Nadur knows about the Tenai, how can the Noder expect him to take the Neder seriously?

(d)We cannot simply answer that the Noder made the declaration silently - because a. the word 'Af ha'Rotzeh ... ' suggests that this is an extension of Nidrei Ziruzin (which does not require Hatarah at all), and b. because unless we amend the statement, the words 'on condition that he remembers the Tenai at the time of the Neder' with which the Tana concludes are meaningless (seeing as he declares the Neder immediately after the Tenai.

7)

(a)So we amend the Tana's statement by adding words and transforming it into two statements. How does the new version now read?

7)

(a)So we amend Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov's statement by adding words and transforming it into two statements - 1. Someone whose friend declines his invitation to eat by him and who makes a Neder to induce him to do so, does not require Hatarah, because it is included in Nidrei Ziruzin; 2. Someone who wants to render void any Neder that he makes during the year should stand on Rosh Hashanah and invalidate in advance, all Nedarim that he will make in the course of the year.

23b----------------------------------------23b

8)

(a)Why does the wording in our Mishnah 'u'Vilvad she'Yehei Zachur b'Sha'as ha'Neder' make no sense?

(b)But did we not learn at the end of the previous Amud, that when a Neder follows a Tenai, it is the Tenai that overrides the Neder (and not vice-versa)?

(c)How does the Rashba resolve this discrepancy?

8)

(a)The wording in our Mishnah 'u'Vil'vad she'Yehei Zachur b'Sha'as ha'Neder makes no sense - because if the Noder remembers the Tenai at the time of the Neder, then, by declaring the Neder, he automatically overrides the Tenai.

(b)When we learned at the end of the previous Amud, that a Tenai that precedes a Neder overrides the Neder (and not the reverse) - that is when the Noder declares the Neder immediately after the Tenai, where he is in effect saying, that the Neder is to take effect with the Tenai in mind; whereas we are currently speaking when the Noder declares the Neder long after the Tenai (in which case, it is the Neder that overrides the Tenai). And besides, here we are speaking about a personal Neder, which he obviously intends to take effect, whereas above we were speaking about a Neder concerning his friend, where the Sevara of Nidrei Ziruzin allows us to say that he wants the Tenai and not the Neder.

(c)The Rashba resolves the discrepancy - by establishing our Sugya by an Am ha'Aretz, who may have negated his Tenai when declaring the Neder, though strictly speaking, one intends the Tenai to stand (which is certainly the case by a Talmid-Chacham), explaining the Kashya at the foot of the previous Amud.

9)

(a)So how does Abaye amend it?

(b)Rava leaves the original text intact. According to him, Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov speaks when the Noder made a Tenai at the beginning of the year (as we learned earlier), but he forgot what the Tenai was. What is the Tana now saying? What does 'u'Vil'vad she'Yehei Zachur b'Sha'as ha'Neder' really mean?

(c)What will Rava hold in a case where he forgot the Tenai when declaring the Neder (Abaye's case)?

(d)Then why is he not satisfied with Abaye's answer?

9)

(a)So Abaye amends it to read - 'u'Vilvad she*'Lo* Yehei Zachur b'Sha'as ha'Neder', in which case the Tenai overrides the Neder.

(b)Rava leaves the original text intact. According to him, Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov speaks when the Noder made a Tenai at the beginning of the year (as we learned earlier), only he forgot what the Tenai was. Should he remain silent (even if he remembers the Tenai whilst declaring the Neder, he obviously intends his Neder to override the Tenai. But in the event that he mentions the Tenai ('she'Yehei Zachur' - verbally), then his Tenai overrides the Neder.

(c)If he forgot the Tenai when declaring the Neder (Abaye's case) - Rava concedes to Abaye that the Tenai overrides the Neder.

(d)The reason that he is not satisfied with Abaye's answer is (not because he disagrees with it, but) - because he does not want to alter the text so dramatically (from 'Zachur' to 'Eino Zachur').

10)

(a)'Kol Nidrei' that we say on Yom Kippur night appears to be based on this Sugya. What is the problem with the text 'mi'Yom ha'Kipurim she'Avar ad Yom ha'Kipurim ha'Ba ... ' (see Tosfos DH 'Rava')?

(b)How did Rabeinu Yakov (better known as Rabeinu Tam) amend the text of 'Kol Nidrei'?

(c)Why might it not be such a good idea to follow his text?

10)

(a)'Kol Nidrei' that we say on Yom Kippur night appears to be based on this Sugya. The problem with the text 'mi'Yom ha'Kipurim she'Avar ad Yom ha'Kipurim ha'Ba ... ' (see Tosfos DH 'Rava') - is that it refers to Nedarim that one made during the past year, whereas our Sugya refers to Nedarim that one will declare in the forthcoming year.

(b)Rabeinu Yakov (better known as Rabeinu Tam) amended the text of 'Kol Nidrei' - to the future tense.

(c)It may not be such a good idea however, to follow his text - since this creates an attitude of lightheadedness regarding Nedarim, which the Tana of our Mishnah is clearly trying to avoid (by presenting this Heter in an indirect and cryptic manner).

11)

(a)We have just learned that a Tenai that precedes a Neder can override it when it is declared. Can such a Tenai also override a Shevu'ah?

(b)Why will a Tenai preceding a Neder or a Shevu'ah that one declares forbidding someone else to derive benefit from oneself, not override a subsequent Neder or Shevu'ah?

11)

(a)We have just learned that a Tenai that precedes a Neder can override it when it is declared. Whether or not, such a Tenai can also override a Shevu'ah - is a Machlokes Rishonim.

(b)A Tenai preceding a Neder or a Shevu'ah that one declares forbidding someone else to derive benefit from oneself, will not override the subsequent Neder or Shevu'ah - because the Noder declares such a Neder not on his own mind, but on the Nadur's, in which case, he intends it to override his own Tenai completely.

12)

(a)We ask two She'eilos. One of them: whether the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov or not. What is the other?

(b)Does this mean that the Rabanan might also argue with the concept of Nidrei Ziruzin altogether?

12)

(a)We ask two She'eilos. One of them: whether the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov or not - the other, whether, assuming that they do, the Halachah is like him or not.

(b)This does not mean that the Rabanan might also argue with the concept of Nidrei Ziruzin altogether - only in this case, where it may well be that the Noder really wants the Neder to be effective, but not in the initial case of the minimum Sela fixed by the seller and the maximum Shekel fixed by the buyer, where it is logical to say that both parties really agree on three Dinarim, and their Neder is only to induce the other party to agree with their initial terms.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF