Explanation: The seller intended for three. He did not intend to vow, rather, merely to urge the buyer not to stick to his intent, that he said [that he will not pay more than] two Dinarim, and he will agree to three;

Similarly, the buyer intended for three. He intended only to urge the seller to agree to this, and not stick to his intent, that he said [that he will not sell for less than] four Dinarim. Therefore, the Neder does not take effect.

The reason is because it is normal for the seller and buyer to do so. Therefore, these are not called Devarim sheb'Lev (unspoken intents, which have no effect).

Explanation (of the Yerushalmi): This is when they do not persist in their words. He says that he did not really vow. It was just to urge;

However, if they persist in their words, to say that they really vowed, they need a Chacham to permit them.

Question: What is Ze'ira's Chidush? Our Mishnah teaches this. It says "both of them want [three." Surely, when this is not so, they are real Nedarim!]

Answer: The Chidush is that they want [merely to urge the other to agree to three] from the beginning, and not that [only afterwards] they wanted, like our Gemara discusses.

Citation (Yerushalmi): If he was Ma'amid (persisted) for him, and was not was Ma'amid for him, since it is Batel for him, it is Batel for him.

Explanation: If the seller wanted to sell an item to two people, and said "Konam, I will not sell to you (plural) for less than a Sela", and he intended for a vow to one of them, and for the other, he intended to urge, since it is Batel regarding him (the latter), it is Batel regarding him (the former).

Assertion: It seems that when they are not Ma'amid, and they intend for three Dinarim, the seller may give it for less than three, and the buyer may pay more than three;

Since the connotation of the Neder is only to urge, even though they agreed in their hearts for three Dinarim, this is Devarim sheb'Lev.

Opinion #1: However, the seller may not give it for two, and the buyer may not pay four, since the primary connotation of the Neder is only for this.

Opinion #2: Some say that even for such a case, their Nedarim do not take effect.

Gemara: A Tosefta in our Maseches teaches.

Citation: Even vows that they said are permitted, what is the source that one may not vow them in order to nullify them? "Lo Yachel Devaro" - he will not make his words profane.

Remark: The Rambam brings this in Hilchos Nedarim (4:4).

Gemara: Because Nezirus was given only for Hafla'ah (a clear acceptance).

Extrapolation: The same applies to Nedarim, which are equated to Nezirus. It takes effect only if he accepts without a stipulation.

Consequence: Therefore, if a seller and buyer made their vows contingent on a stipulation, even if they transgressed their stipulations, their vows do not take effect.

Gemara: You can even say that it is like Rabanan. Does it say that they wanted?!

Explanation: Our Mishnah of Nidrei Zeruzin is not due to Hafla'ah. Rather, it is because Chachamim estimated their intents. They did not really vow, rather, it was to urge.

Did it teach "Ratzu", which connotes that they wanted in the end?

Explanation: This implies [that they wanted] from the beginning to the end.

Question: Initially, we thought that the reason for [the law of] our Mishnah is due to Hafla'ah. Why did it say that both of them want three Dinarim, and it means that they wanted in the end, i.e. the sale was made for three Dinarim?

Even if the seller sold it for two, or the buyer paid four, their Nedarim are Batel, for at the time they vowed, it was not clear whether or not they will take effect!

Answer: It seems to me that the Tana teaches a bigger Chidush;

Not only for two people walking on the road [and saw someone approaching them], and one of them said "I am a Nazir if this is Ploni", and the other said "I am a Nazir if it is not [Ploni]", neither is a Nazir, like R. Yehudah said in the name of R. Tarfon;

There, it is proper that their Neziros not take effect, since Nezirus cannot take effect on both of them, so since it is Batel for one of them, it is Batel also for the other. (Ayeles ha'Shachar - why does one depend on the other?);

From the first moment, the Nezirus was l'Vatalah. In such a case, it is obvious to the Tana of our Mishnah that this is not Hafla'ah.

Rather, even regarding a seller and buyer, that it is possible that the vow will take effect on both of them, and at the end so it was, that they wanted three Dinarim, and each transgressed his stipulation...

One might have thought that in such a case, this is called Hafla'ah. [The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so.

Gemara: He said to him "more than a Sela..."

Version #1: He said to him "Konam, I will not sell to you for less than a Sela (four Dinarim) and a Perutah", and the buyer said "Konam, I will not give to you more than a Shekel (two Dinarim) less a Perutah. (The Ran brings another version in the coming Dibur.)

Gemara: Is this a Neder, or urging?

Explanation: We can say that since he is so precise, he truly vows, and it is not to urge.

Version #2: He said to him more than a Sela, i.e. he said that he will not sell for less than five Dinarim. The other said to him less than a Shekel, that he will not give for it more than one Dinar;

Do we say that since they are so far apart, he truly vows?

Gemara: This one intended only for eating and drinking.

Inference: Even though he was meticulous, and distanced greatly from what his friend wanted, that he eat - he forbade himself even walking [in his friend's house] and drinking a cold drink!...

Even so, we say that he did not truly vow;

Also here, even though one said 'more than a Sela', and the other said 'less than a Shekel', this is urging, and it is not truly [a vow].

Gemara: Is this similar?! Regarding a cold drink, Tzadikim say little and do much!

Explanation: Therefore, this one [who vowed] fears that if he agrees to a drop of cold drink, perhaps [the host] will feed him much. Therefore, he said 'a drop of cold drink', but it is not truly [a vow];

Distinction: However, here (the seller and buyer) we cannot say so. Perhaps he truly said [a vow], and not just to urge!

Ruling: Our question was not resolved. We are stringent.

Gemara: The Tana taught that they permitted.

Inference: They are permitted without asking.

Explanation: He should not permit through regret, rather, through a Pesach. A Neder permitted through a Pesach is intrinsically proven that it was a mistaken Neder. It is like the four Nedarim;

However, he should not [permit] via regret. The reason a Pesach is better than regret is because every Neder permitted through a Pesach, the Noder says that even at the beginning, when he vowed, had he put that Pesach to his heart, he would not have vowed. It turns out that the Neder is a mistake;

However, a Neder permitted through regret, he himself does not find any reason that, had he put it to his heart at the beginning, he would not have vowed;

Rather, he says now that he vowed amidst anger, or amidst haste, and now I regret that I ever vowed.

Explanation #1: I.e. was your heart settled on you at the time that you vowed, and also now you are not taken aback about your Neder until now, just from today and onwards you want to uproot it;

If it is such a case, this is not called regret. We require regret from the beginning, or your heart was not settled on you, for you vowed amidst anger, and now you are taken aback about what your earlier actions.

Explanation #2: Your heart that you had at the time you vowed, is it still on you? You want[ed] your Neder until now, just from now and onwards you regret it.

Explanation: I did not vow with a settled mind at first, therefore I regret that I ever vowed. Therefore, he permitted him.

However, this is only with regret from the beginning like this, but not regret from now. This is even according to the opinion that we are Pose'ach with regret.

Proof #1: If you would not say so, why does it say "we are Pose'ach", which connotes that Beis Din opens for him?

Proof #2 - Question: Why did Rav Huna ask the one who came in front of him? Surely, since he requested a Heter, he regretted his vow at least from now and onwards. Why did he need to ask "is your heart [still] on you?"

Answer: Rather, surely regret now does not suffice. Rather, he asked whether he had regret from the beginning, like I explained.

Alternate text: Some texts say "he holds that Posechin b'Charatah." Both mean the same, for this idea that if there were 10 people is worse than a Pesach and better than regret;

It is worse than a Pesach, because now (i.e. in reality, at the time) there were not 10 people to appease him, that we should say that it is a full Pesach, that had he known this, he would not have vowed;

It is better than regret, because with mere regret, he does not find any reason that due to it, he would not have vowed at the time;

This (one who says that if 10 people...) knows himself, that had they appeased him at the time, he would not have vowed.

This is more clarified that he vowed amidst haste.

Conclusion: The one whose text says "we are not Pose'ach with regret", it means that we are not Pose'ach with regret alone, rather, with regret that is well clarified, like this;

The one whose text says "we are Pose'ach with regret", it means that we do not require a Pesach. Rather, clear regret [suffices].

Gemara: Do you regret like this?

Explanation: I.e. do you regret from the beginning. 'Tahisa' is like 'Tohe Al ha'Rishonos' (regrets his earlier deeds).

Gemara: He said to him, and not?

Explanation: This is said in astonishment.

Gemara: And he permitted him.

Explanation: He holds that we are Pose'ach with regret.

Question: Rav Asi said above 'we are not Pose'ach [with regret]'!

Answer: R. Asi is not Rav Asi. (Here we discuss R. Asi; Rav Asi is not Pose'ach with regret.)

Gemara: Do you want that the vow forbade?

Explanation: Are you pleased with your vow until now, but from now and onwards you regret? If so, there is no Heter for you.

Gemara: Had they not angered me...

Explanation: I.e. had they not angered me initially, would I have vowed?! Surely not!

Rather, I vowed via anger. Therefore, I regret now that I ever vowed.

Gemara: He told him, it should be like you want.

Explanation: The vow will be permitted, like your desire.

Gemara: Megirasech (your neighbors).

Translation: Megirasech means 'your neighbors '

Gemara: Matters of abandonment.

Explanation: She is worthy to be abandoned, that she not benefit from her mother, due to those matters.

Gemara: The text in the Yerushalmi says.

Citation (9:1): R. Muna vowed. He went to R. Simai. He said to him, 'had you know that people will distance from you, for you vow habitually, would you have vowed?' He said no, and R. Simai permitted him.