1)

(a)When Rebbi Eliezer says 'Poschin l'Adam bi'Chevod Aviv v'Imo', he means - that if, when the Chacham asks him whether, had he realized when making the Neder, that he was degrading his parents' honor (because people will say that it is from them that he learned to treat Nedarim disrespectfully, he replies in the negative, he declares the Neder void.

(b)The Chachamim forbid using 'Kevod Aviv v'Imo' to annul Nedarim.

2)

(a)When Rebbi Tzadok comments with regard to Rebbi Eliezer's statement, 'ad she'Poschin bi'Chevod Aviv v'Imo, Yiftechu Lo bi'Chevod ha'Makom'! - he means to ask why (based on the Sifri, which maintains that someone who makes a Neder, vows by the King Himself) Rebbi Eliezer did not go even further, and permit the annulment of Nedarim using Kevod ha'Makom?

(b)The Rabanan retorted 'Im Ken, Ein Nedarim' - they meant 'Ein Nedarim Nitarin Yafeh'; even Rebbi Eliezer will concede that one cannot use Kevod ha'Makom as a Pesach, since nobody would dare state that even if he had known that when he declared the Neder, Hash-m's Honor was at stake he would have gone ahead and declared it (even if in actual fact, he would have). Consequently, many Nedarim would be annulled unlawfully.

(c)On the other hand, Rebbi Eliezer permits 'bi'Chevod Aviv v'Imo' - because, like any other Mitzvah, people do not take the honor of their parents as seriously as Kevod ha'Makom, and they will not be too embarrassed to state that they would have declared the Neder in any case.

(d)The Yerushalmi rules - 'Ein Poschin bi'Chevod Rabo', because Kevod Rabo ki'Chevod Shamayim.

3)

(a)'v'Od Amar Rebbi Eliezer, Poschin b'Nolad' - which means an unexpected occurrence.

(b)Elsewhere, we query the word 'v'Od', because the Rabanan interrupted the two statements of Rebbi Eliezer. We do not query it here - because here he is coming to be lenient, and we apply the principle 'Ko'ach d'Hetera Adif'.

(c)The Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer regarding 'Nolad' - because, in their opinion, a Pesach must be something that is common (see Rosh DH 'va'Chachamim Osrin').

(d)The Tana gives as examples of 'Nolad', someone who forbade himself Hana'ah from his friend who became a Sofer or who married off his daughter - or someone who forbade himself Hana'ah from a certain house which then became a Shul.

4)

(a)The Chachamim told Rebbi Tzadok that Rebbi Eliezer agreed that one cannot use the honor of his parents as a Pesach to annul a vow because 'Im Ken, Ein Nedarim'. Abaye interprets this to mean 'Im Ken, Ein Nedarim Nitarin Yafeh' (which we already explained in our Mishnah). Rava interprets it as 'Im Ken, Ein Nedarim Nish'alin l'Chacham - meaning that if one is permitted to use Kevod ha'Makom a a Pesach, we are afraid that people will not bother to go to a Chacham, but take the law into their own hands and nullify their own Nedarim with the universal Pesach of Kevod ha'Makom.

(b)Nevertheless, Rebbi Eliezer argues by 'Kevod Aviv v'Imo. He is not afraid that there too, the people will take the take the law into their own hands - because, whereas all Nedarim encroach on Kevod ha'Makom, when it comes to Kevod Aviv v'Imo, seeing as there are some Nedarim that are extremely insignificant, and would not encroach on one's parents' Kevod, in which case it will be necessary to go to a Chacham, people will go to a Chacham for all Nedarim before nullifying them by means of 'Kevod Aviv v'Imo' (in similar vein to the following answer according to the Chachamim).

(c)We learned in our Mishnah how the Chachamim concede that Nedarim that concern one's parents can be nullified using their honor as a Pesach. This is not a problem according to Abaye - because the very Neder demonstrates that the Noder is not overly concerned with his parents' Kevod, in which case he will not be embarrassed to answer in the affirmative when the Chacham asks him whether he would have made the Neder had he realized that this encroaches on their Kevod.

(d)Rava will explain - that it is only Kevod ha'Makom, on which all Nedarim encroaches, that he will take into his own hands, but not Kevod Aviv v'Imo, which sometimes does not.

5)

(a)Alternatively, Rava agrees with Abaye with regard to Kevod ha'Makom ('Im Ken, Ein Nedarim Nitarin Yafeh'), and 'Ein Nedarim Nish'alin' - is the reason that he offers to explain why the Chachamim say 'Ein Poschin bi'Chevod Aviv v'Imo' (because, in his opinion, it is applicable to all Nedarim).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer - simply disagrees with this suspicion. He is not afraid that the people will take the law into their own hands.

(c)The advantage of this explanation is - that it avoids the Kashya that we just asked (in 4b.) and the answer, which is pushed.

6)

(a)When Hash-m told Moshe in Midyan that it was now safe to return to Egypt "Ki Meisu Kol ha'Anashim ha'Mevakshim es Nafshecha" - he was referring to Dasan and Aviram (who had reported his killing of the Egyptian to Paroh).

(b)Despite the fact that it was Yisro who made Moshe swear that he would not leave Midyan, Hash-m was able to use the death of Dasan and Aviram as a Pesach - because it was the fear of Dasan and Aviram that was uppermost in Moshe's mind when he swore.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "Ki Meisu ... " - that 'Poschin b'Nolad' (since sudden death is unexpected).

(d)The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Eliezer because of a statement made by Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai - who said that "Nitzim" and "Nitzavim" in the Torah always refers to Dasan and Aviram, which proves that they had not really died, but that they had become poor (which is not unexpected [because poverty is common], and was therefore not a case of 'Nolad').

7)

(a)Resh Lakish learns from Rachel's statement to Yakov "Havah Li Banim, v'Im Ayin, Mesah Anochi" - that someone who does not have children is considered as if he was dead.

(b)Besides a poor man and someone without children, the Beraisa lists two other people who are considered as being dead. The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Beha'aloscha "Al Na Tehi ka'Mes" (which Moshe said about Miriam), that a Metzora is one of them.

2. ... in Eichah "b'Machashakim Hoshivani k'Meisei Olam" - that a blind man is the other.

(c)We know that Dasan and Aviram were stricken with poverty, and not ...

1. ... blindness - because they themselves later said "ha'Einei ha'Anashim ha'Hem Tenaker" (implying that were able to see).

2. ... Tzara'as - because the Torah writes about them in Ekev "b'Kerev Kol Yisrael" (and a Metzora is not permitted to remain in the camp).

3. ... childlessness - because that would hardly be a reason for Moshe to be able to return to Egypt (since a person who has no children does not carry any less influence than a person who has).

(d)Nor can we answer that they were blind or stricken with Tzara'as in Egypt, but became cured at Matan Torah, when all ailments were cured - because Chazal have taught that after they worshipped the Golden Calf, all their former ailments returned.