Mishnah: We can be Pose'ach (suggest that a vow was mistaken, which is grounds to permit it) with the honor of his father and mother.

Version #1: We say to him, 'had you known that they disgrace your father and mother because you are light (wanton) with vows, like we say (Sanhedrin 52) that we call a Rasha ben Tzadik 'Rasha ben Rasha', would you have vowed?'

Version #2: [We tell him] that people will say that you learned from them; also they are light with vows.

Mishnah: And Chachamim forbid.

Explanation: The Gemara explains their reason.

Mishnah: R. Tzadok says, rather than being Pose'ach with the honor of his father and mother, be Pose'ach for him with Hash-m's honor!

Explanation: R. Eliezer, just like he permits being Pose'ach with the honor of his father and mother, he permits also being Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor;

We tell him, 'had you known that when you vowed, you belittled the honor of Hash-m, for we say in Sifri that he is like one who vows in the king himself, would you have vowed?'

Explanation: I.e. even R. Eliezer agrees to Rabanan that we are not Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor, for if we are Pose'ach, there are no Nedarim.

The Gemara explains what is a matter between him and his father or mother, e.g. he forbade them to benefit from him.

Distinction: However, granted, we conclude here that we are not Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor. Only with Hash-m's honor we are not Pose'ach, for if we were Pose'ach, Nedarim are not permitted well;

This is like the Gemara says, for no one would be brazen to say that even if he knew that he belittles Hash-m's honor, he would have vowed;

Even if initially he would not have refrained due to this, he will lie to say so [that he would have refrained];

However, we are Pose'ach with honor of one Mitzvah, like the Mishnah below (65b) that we are Pose'ach for him with what is written in the Torah;

[We say] 'had you known that you transgress "Lo Sisna Es Achicha bi'Lvavecha", would you have vowed?'

This is because one Mitzvah like these that the Tana lists are not so severe to people. If he would have vowed even if he was aware of this, he will not lie to say so "had I known, I would not have vowed."

Support: This is like the Mishnah teaches (66a) that we are Pose'ach with Shabbosos.

Yerushalmi:

Citation (Yerushalmi): All agree about his Rebbi's honor, that he is not Ma'amid (he will not say that he would have vowed even if he considered the disgrace to his Rebbi, even if this is not true), for a Mishnah (Avos 4:12) teaches that awe of your Rebbi [should be] like awe of Shamayim. Therefore, we are not Pose'ach with it.

Explanation: Even if initially he would not have refrained due to Hash-m's honor, he will not be brazen about this in front of the Chacham, and he will lie and say "had I known, I would not have vowed";

It turns out that vows are not permitted well. Therefore, R. Eliezer agrees to Rabanan that we are not Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor;

However, regarding honor of his father or mother, he argues. Rabanan forbid, for they hold that there is no difference between honor of Hash-m and honor of his father or mother. Therefore, we are not Pose'ach;

R. Eliezer holds that regarding honor of Hash-m, a person is not brazen. Regarding honor of his father or mother, one would be brazen [and admit that he would have vowed in any case]. Therefore, we are Pose'ach [with this].

Explanation: If so, that we are Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor, people will not ask a Chacham [to permit vows]. Everyone will make this Pesach for himself, for this Pesach is proper for all Nedarim!

Question: If this is why R. Eliezer agrees about Hash-m's honor, why does he argue about honor of his father or mother? Also there, there is concern for this reason (everyone will make this Pesach for himself)!

Answer: Perhaps R. Eliezer holds that there are Nedarim that are so light that there is no disgrace to his father or mother through them. For them, one cannot be Pose'ach with the honor of his father or mother;

Therefore, since this Pesach does not suffice for all Nedarim, for those Nedarim for which it suffices, we are Pose'ach also [with this], like we conclude in our Sugya;

Rabanan hold that if it is true that we are Pose'ach with this, it suffices for all Nedarim. If so, people will not ask [to permit] vows from a Chacham. Therefore, we are not Pose'ach [any Nedarim with this].

Explanation: I can say that Abaye means that if so, vows are not permitted well. Therefore, R. Eliezer agrees to Rabanan about Hash-m's honor (we are not Pose'ach with it);

He argues about honor of his father or mother for this reason itself, like I wrote above. R. Eliezer is not concerned for the reason that vows are not permitted well, and Rabanan are concerned.

Rava argues with him (Abaye), and says that indeed, regarding Hash-m's honor, you are correct. There is concern lest vows are not permitted well. Therefore, all agree that we are not Pose'ach with it;

However, regarding honor of his father or mother, even Rabanan are not concerned that vows are not permitted well, for the Tana says that for the honor of one Mitzvah we are Pose'ach, like I wrote in our Mishnah. Honor of his father or mother is no different;

Rather, the reason Rabanan forbid with honor of his father or mother is because if we are Pose'ach, since this Pesach suffice for all Nedarim, people will not ask a Chacham;

R. Eliezer is not concerned for this reason at all.

Gemara: Our Mishnah teaches that Chachamim agree to R. Eliezer... Since he was brazen, he was brazen.

Explanation: Since initially he was brazen to forbid them to benefit from him, he was brazen, and when we are Pose'ach for him with their honor, he will not lie. Therefore, we are Pose'ach, for there is no concern [for an improper Heter].

Gemara: Here, why are we Pose'ach?

Explanation: Behold, there is concern! Since he knows that we are Pose'ach with honor of his father or mother, also he will be Pose'ach for himself, and not go to a Chacham!

Gemara: Since all Nedarim, they cannot [be permitted] without a Chacham...

Explanation: For other Nedarim we are not Pose'ach them with honor of his father or mother, and since he does not know to find a Pesach, he needs to go to a Chacham...

Gemara: Also here we are Pose'ach.

Explanation: Since he is used to going to a Chacham, also these Nedarim, he will go to a Chacham.

Implied question: Rabanan interrupt in the middle of R. Eliezer's words. Why does it say 'and further'?

The Gemara was meticulous about this in Eruvin (23a. Since there was an interruption, it should not say 'and further'!)

Answer: Here is different, for he permits; the power of leniency is stronger. Therefore, even though Rabanan interrupted his words, it taught 'and further.'

Mishnah: And Chachamim forbid.

Explanation: Because a Pesach that is common, that makes a vow mistaken (he erred to overlook this), but Nolad, no (there was no reason to be concerned for this).

Mishnah: And he became a scribe.

Explanation: And he needs him constantly. (People hired scribes also for monetary documents (Kesuvos 19b). - PF)

Mishnah: Or, he was marrying off his son.

Explanation: And they normally eat at the wedding meal.

Mishnah: R. Eliezer permits, and Chachamim forbid.

Explanation: Because there are many clauses, it repeated and taught in all of them 'R. Eliezer permits, and Chachamim forbid.'

Gemara: What is R. Eliezer's reason?

Explanation: Whereas Rabanan, their reason seems correct, like I wrote in our Mishnah (DH v'Chachamim).

Gemara: For all the people who seek to kill you, they died.

Implied question: Yisro made Moshe swear [not to leave him, before he gave to him his daughter], like it says "va'Yo'el Moshe Lasheves Es ha'Ish va'Yiten Es Tziporah" (Shemos 2:21. What is the relevance of others dying?)

Answer: Moshe would not have sworn, if not that he feared Dasan and Aviram. Therefore, Hash-m was Pose'ach for him 'all the people who seek to kill you, they died.' (Did Moshe not fear also Pharaoh, who tried to kill him? Perhaps it was clear that Hash-m will save him from Pharaoh, who would want to kill him due to Moshe's mission, but there was no such guarantee regarding Dasan and Aviram. - PF)

Gemara: Rabanan, what is their reason?

Note: Seemingly, they could say that death in a long period of time (this was 40 years after Moshe learns from Egypt, or 68 according to the Ramban) is not called Nolad! (PF)

Explanation: What do they do with [the proof from] this verse?

Gemara: They hold, those [people], did they die?!

Explanation: This is said in astonishment.

Gemara: Every place where it says Nitzim and Nitzavim, it is only Dasan and Aviram.

Explanation: Nitzim - "Shnei Anashim Ivrim Nitzim" (Shemos 2:13); Nitzavim - "va'Yifge'u Es Moshe v'Es Aharon Nitzavim Likrasam" (ibid., 5:20), and we do not know who they were;

Inference: Those men who were quarreling, and informed on Moshe, they were Dasan and Aviram, and they themselves were in Korach's congregation (later). We learn from this that they did not die!

Gemara: Rather, Reish Lakish said that they lost their wealth.

Explanation: And so Rabanan explain the verse "for they died." (Below, the Ran brings from the Yerushalmi that becoming poor is not Nolad.)

Gemara: Four are considered like a Mes.

Explanation: I already explained above (7b DH she'Ne'emar) how we know that they lost their wealth more than the [other of the] four [that are considered dead].

Yerushalmi:

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Is poverty not Nolad?

Citation (Yerushalmi) Answer (R. Ze'ira): (Indeed, it is not.) Poverty is common.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Is regret not Nolad?

Citation (Yerushalmi) Answer: (R. Ila): (Indeed, it is not.) Regret is common.