Thurs Nedarim 67

If the husband makes Hafara and the father is Mikayim, so the Neder stands. However, if the father is Matir Neder for his Hakama and is Meifer, we do not combine it to the husband's earlier Hafara, since they weren't done at the same time.

Ran explains that it doesn't have to be done simultaneously, but it means it cannot combine with a Hakama in the middle. The Ramban holds that now the husband may Maifer a second time to combine with the father's. The Rambam holds that he lost his ability to be Maifer, since he already id it.

The Ran asks: Why don't we say that when he Matir Neder on the Hakama, it was if the Hakama never happened, so they should combine? We see a precedence to this: if a man marries a wife on condition she doesn't have Nedarim, Even if she had Nedarim, if she's Matir Neder we view that the Neder never happened and it's a good Kiddushin.

The Ran answers: over there, Kiddushin is an entity by itself. Therefore when she was Matir Neder, we say the kiddushin takes effect retroactively. However, here, the husband's Hafara is nothing by itself. Therefore we cannot say it takes effect retroactively, but you need to combine it with what happens after the whole Hakama and Heter. Therefore we cannot say they combine retroactively.

Wed Nedarim 66

The Tana Kama says that if he makes a Neder from this ugly woman and then finds out she was really beautiful, he made the Neder mistakenly so the Neder was never valid. However, if at that time she was ugly, but she developed later to become beautiful, she remains Assur to him.

Ran (before) asks, that we already said that if he makes a Neder on a woman because of his dastardly father, he's Muttur to her if her father dies or does T'shuva. We say that it's as if he made a condition, and as long as the reason is no longer valid, so the Neder is no longer in effect. Why dont' we say the same here?

The Rashba answers: over there, it's apt for the father to either die or do T'shuva, therefore we say he had in mind that the Neder should only last while the father is still a bum. However, it's not to often that the ugly turn beautiful, so we say he meant to Assur her completely.

However, R' Shmuel answers: that if he would say he makes a Neder from her because she's ugly, then when she becomes beautiful she's Muter, since it seems that it's a condition, since he gives it specifically as the reason she's Assur. However, our case is that he makes a neder from this ugly woman. So we don't see he's giving a reason, but rather just identifying the women. Therefore we assume he Assurs her forever.

Tues Nedarin 65

The Gemara says that if you made a neder from partaking any pleasure from someone, he should not Matir the Neder unless that person is also present.

The Ran inquires: what happens B'Dieved if he does Matir it when the other party isn't there. There was those who want to say that B'Dieved it's permitted. The proof is from Mesechta Gitten that they worried perhaps the widow, to prove she didn't collect her kesuva yet, makes a Neder on a food that it should be Assur to her if she already collected it, perhaps she'll go to a Chachum behind everyone's back and be Matir it. But doesn't she need to Matir it in front of the heirs (who she made the Neder for.) So, we must say that's B'Dieved it's Mutur.

Similarly, we see that Tzidkiyahu swore to Nevuchadnetzer not to reveal his secret. It bothered him so much to hold in the secret, he had the Sanhedrin Matir it. How can he do so, if it doesn't work? We must say that it's B'Dieved Matir.

(This that the Sanhedrin Matir it L'chatchila, was because the Mitzvah to listen to the king supersedes this prohibition to not Matir behind the other guy's back. Alternatively, it was interfering with Tzidkiyahu's learning and other duties, so it was Mutur to do so.)

However, Ravad held that it's B'Dieved not Matir. In the case of the widow, after the Neder was made, it was no more interest to the heirs whether she keeps her Neder or not (since what was done by collecting it twice was done), so therefore she has the right to Matir if they're not there. Or perhaps, although it doesn't work, she might do it because she might think it works. The same by Tzidkiyahu, perhaps they did do wrong. After all, Hashem punished them for it.

Mon Nedarim 64

There is a Machlokes between R Eliezer that hold that one may regret his Neder for Kavod Av (that it reflects bad on his parents) and the Chachumim disagree.

R' Tzadok says they would argue even regretting for Kavod Hashem (Ran in the name of Sifri: that it is like you made an oath in his name.) The Chachumim says that R' Eliezer would agree that you can't. Abaya says since you might say you regretted because of Kavod Hashem when you didn't, since you're embarrassed to say that you truly didn't care about his Kavod.)

Ran explains that the argument between the rabanan and R' Eliezer if you may lie for Kavod Av, or since it's not as bad as Kavod Hashem he doesn't care if he tells the truth.

Rava explains since all nedarim could be knocked off with such a claim, he might not go to get his Neder Matir, since he'll thinks it will be automatically Mutur.

Ran says but by Kivod Av they argue if it would automatically be a good regret for all Nedarim, or there are small Nedarim that wouldn't reflect too badly on the parents that he made it.

Alternatively, the Rava holds like Abaya by Kivod Hashem, that we're afraid that he'll lie. However, he disagrees completely that we would be worried for this by Kivod Av, since no one would be too embarrassed to say he doesn't care about their kavod. So therefore he needs a new reason why the rabanan says you cannot regret for their kavod. So we must say that the Chachamim has this new Chashas that all Nedarim could be Matir with this, so they won't bother having them Matir. R' Eliezer is not worried for that to happen.

Thurs Nedarim 60

The Gemara says that if someone made a Neder not to eat today, although really he should be permitted at night, However the Rabanan required him to eat only with Hataras Nedarim. R' Yosef explains: its' a gezaira so he shouldn't permit to eat at night when he makes a Neder for a day, which he needs to refrain fro 24 hours.

R' Yirmiya says it's a Kanos (fine) for making a Neder,since he did wrong by making a Neder in the first place.

Ran explains: although regularly we don't fine people to extend their Neder to fine them. However, here there is a reason to extend it because of R' Yosef's Gezaira. However, R' Yirmiya holds that in itself it's not enough to worry that he'll become confused between the two Nedarim. However, since he did wrong for making the Neder we'll impose this gezaira on him and make him to make sure there is no chance whatsoever to mix them up.

Wed Nedarim 59

Nedarim 59

The Gemara says that Tevel for Trumos Maaser that was planted and grow, one needs to take off for only the amount of the original Tevel (and we don't say that it's Batul to what grows) since we have a Pasuk (as the Ran explains) that says only Heter that's planted turns into the next crop, but not seeds that are Assur (because of Tevel.)

Ran points out this must be only an Asmachta. Since we refer to things that don't disappear when it starts growing. We know all things that are Chayiv from the Torah, its seed disappears when you plant it and grows. So, we must say the real reason they Assured it, since what you planted was Issur(Tevel) and what grows afterwards is also Issur (either Tevel or Shvious.) Therefore, just as we said (last week, by Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin) that Heter cannot Mivatel Heter. So too, Issur cannot Mivatel Issur.

Tuesday Nedarim 58

At the end of last Blatt the Gemara brings a proof that what grows afterwords Mivatels what you planted. R' Yochanan says if you plant an onion that all the Trumas and Maasaros were removed, what grows afterwards is tevel and you must take off Trumos and Maaseros on the whole onion. So we see that even what was planted becomes tevel because it's batul to what grows.

The Gemara says that really it's not Batul, but the Rabanan were Machmir

Ran asks: Why don't we say that since really what you planted is not Tevel you might take off Trumah from what you planted on what grew which is obligated. Thus it would come out that it wasn't separated properly.

Ran answers: since what you planted doesn't become Batul that grows, ther reason for that is what grows becomes Batul to what you planted as it grows. Therefore, really none of theis onion is Tevel from the Torah.The whole onion is only Tevel Midarabanan, and has the same obligation. So you can separate for any part of the onion from any other part.

The Gemara wants to bring a proof from a sixth year onion that you plant on Shvious, we say that what grows Assurs the main part (especially before Biur, then even the smallest amount grows Assurs the planted part since its a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin, since you can eat it with the Hilchos Shvious.) So this proves that we don't say what grows is Batul to what you planted.

The Gemara also answers that it's only a Chumra.

Ran asks why does the Gemara ask this, if we already answered this in the first case. So why should we think this case is different to ask it again.

Ran answers: I would have thought that we wouldn't say that this Braisa is only a Chumra, since it already has a Chumra to say that even the smallest amount is not Batul to what's planted because of Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin, i would assume they wouldn't impose another Chumra that the growth is not Batul to the original. Therefore i would assume that the reason it's not Batul because that;s the actual halacha. However, the Gemara answers that it's a Chumra.

Mon Nedarim 57

If one makes an oath on these fruit, he's forbidden to partake in what grows (if you plant them) and what it's exchanged for.

Ran explains since you specify the fruit by saying "these fruit." Therefore, your stating that they're like hekdish, thus we treat them so to forbid the growth and the exchange. However, if you just make an oath on the type of fruit in general, this won't apply.

However, Ran asks on this, since in an earlier Perek Rumi b. Chama inquired if this only applies to the one who makes the Neder, since he can Assur other people's property on him, so too they can Assur himself on what grows and is exchanged, despite that it's not his yet. Or any Issur Hannah has a Halacha of Hekdish and therefore this would apply to all. The second side obviously applies even if you don't specify the fruit, since it applies to all Issur hanah. Since Rami b. Chama doesn't explicitly ask if the Mishna specifying "these" is not exact and refers even when there is no specification, thus we must assume that he wasn't in doubt. So we must say that even his first side refers even when he doesn't specify. Thus we see that this applies even without specifications.

The Ran answers: really our Mishna needs specification for the one who made the Neder. Therefore he can Assur him not only what he exchanged the object for, but even what others exchanged it. Rami b. Chama only asks if we say that for others that didn't make the Neder, do we say that we permit all exchanges, since the Neder can't go on them. Or do we say the Halacha of Issur hanah that he's forbidden with what he exchanges the item for. However, we never had a Hava Amina that it should be forbidden to them what others exchanged it for.

Thurs Nedarim 53

The Tanna Kamma says that if one makes a Neder from dates, he's permitted to eat date honey.

Ran asks: why is this different from whey that is Assur to r' Yossi if you make a Neder from milk since it's called "milk's whey?" Even the Rabanan only argue because they called it regular whey. However, they would agree here where the product is called date honey.

The Ran brings the Rashba that answers: that whey is different since it doesn't change it's appearance as it was in the milk, so we consider it one and the same. Over here, the honey change its appearance as it was while it was part of the date.

The Ran answers: since there is many types of honey, we need to be specific which honey we refer to, so we call it date honey. Therefore, this doesn't make it its actual name, but a description. However, there is no other whey but what comes from milk. Therefore, there is no reason to call it milk's whey unless it's part of the actual name.

Wed Nedarin 52

If someone says "I make a Neder on meat or wine that I'll eat" if some fall into a stew, we prohibit the stew if you can taste it in the stew.

Ran asks: we see later that a Neder is a Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin (it has a way to permit it by Hataras Nedarim.) We know the rule that if it has Matirim it' not Batul even in a thousand. If so, why don't we forbid it if you cannot taste it?

His Rebbis answered: since Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirim is only Batel if it's mixed in the same type of food. Here it's not applicable since it's mixed into a different food. Therefore they ask on the Rif that forbids bread baked with a small amount of milk (that doesn't give taste) with meat. Since it has a Matir to eat it without meat, he needs to. So the Ran's Rebbis asks: we already said that only if it's mixed with the same type of food is it not Batul. However, the milk is not the same type of food as the bread and should be Batul.

However, the Ran defends the Rif. he explains the reason that Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin needs to be mixed with its own type of foo based on a Gemara. R' Yehudah holds That anything mixed with its own type is not Batul. We see this from Yom Kippur that the Kohain Gadol mixed the bull's and goat's blood together, and yet the Torah calls it a mixture of bull's and goat's blood. Although the bull's blood is more, we say the goat's blood is not Batul. The Rabanan explain that there is different since they're the same category, Kosher Olos. This is no proof to a mixture of Kosher and non-Kosher.

So the Ran theorizes that the Rabanan consider that being the same amount Kosher is more of a reason to say they're equal so that they're not Batul together, than the fact they're the same type of food. Therefore, if one is Kosher and one is not, we consider them so different that we say they are Batul despite being the same food. A Davar Sheyesh lo Matirin is somewhat similar. Although it's not permitted now, since it will be permitted, so we consider it somewhat similar. So if it has another aspect in common, that it's the same type of food, so we say it's also not Batul. However, if it's completely Kosher, we consider them completely similar that it's not Batul even if the foods are totally different types. Since the milk and the bread are both completely permitted, we say that the milk cannot be Batul in the bread and therefore cannot be eaten with milk.

Tuesday Nedarim 51

If someone makes a Neder from "the pickled" he refers only to pickled vegetables. If he makes it from "the cooked" or from "the roasted" he refers to meats only. If he says from "the salted" he refers only to fish"

However, if he makes a Neder from "pickled (or cooked or roasted or salted) that I will eat" he refers to any type in that category.

The Ran has two ways of explaining the difference between the first cases and the last. The first way he learns that since he prefaced the word with "the" he refers to a specific type, the most prevalent. The last case where he doesn't say "the" so he refers to general category which includes all.

Alternatively, the second case he says an extra phrase "that I'll eat" teaches us to add more than we originally assumed. Therefore we include all that's within its category.

Then the Gemara has a Shaila: how about if he says "D'Kavush"etc.

Ran learns the question according to his first explanation: is the inference of a "Daled" in the beginning of a word is the same as a "Hey" (to mean "the" and only mean a specific food) or not.

He then explains according to the second explanation: Is it exact that you need to add an extra phrase "I'll eat" to include all types of food in that category, or does it mean it even if he says the word "Kavush" by itself. (We only say it refers to the most usual case only if he says a "Hey" before it.)

Mon Nedarim 50

R ' Akiva offered a Pesach to his father-in-law: would you have made the Neder if your son-in-law would become a budding scholar. His father-in-law replied: I wouldn't have made it if he would learn one Perek or one Halacha.

Ran asks: we know that we cannot Matir Neder on a factor that was not present when he made the Neder. This is known as Nolad. One cannot say if he made a Neder on an ignoramus if I knew he would become a scholar I wouldn't have made the Neder, since he wasn't a scholar when he made the Neder. Therefore, how could R' Akiva make such a Pesach that's basid on Nolad?

Ran answers : since they already made up that he'll join the Yeshiva to become a scholar. Therefore it's not Nolad, because by such a person we can assume that he ought to learn at least a Perek or Halacha.

Thurs Nedarim 46

The Gemara says that even R' Eliezer b. Yaakov permits if the courtyard is too small to split up between the partners. However, if they could split up, then he cannot enter the courtyard.

Ran explains: that we cannot say he bought the whole courtyard for when he uses it, since his partner can force him to split, we say that he may not bought this part that he's entering, since it might fall out in his partner's half after the split.

The Rashba explains: it would be Assur after the split too. Since the split is a sale (each one buying out the other one's partnership in their half.) We have a rule that even if the oath maker sells his house, the Assur party cannot go in unless that there after the fist sale, but only after the buyer sells it to a third person. However, the Rambam permits it after the split. The Ran explains: we must say that it's an unstipulated condition in the original partnership that each side cannot make an oath to forbid the partner after the split. Therefore, he never owned it enough to be able to forbid it.

Wed Nedarim 45

Tana Kama says that the partner in the courtyard that swore off pleasure from the other cannot enter the courtyard. R' Eliezer b. Yaakov says that he may, since he's going into his portion.

Ran brings the Gemara in Bava Kama that says the argument is do we say Breira. When they bought the courtyard jointly, can we say that each one owns what he eventually uses. Therefore each one walks into his possession only, since it's revealed that he was the one who bought it for that moment. Or we don't say that. When they bought it jointly, at that moment we don't know when they're going to use it, so they both own the whole property always jointly, so he's always going into what his partner also owns.

However, the Ran asks: In Beitza we Paskin that for D'oiraisa cases we don't rely on Breira, so here we should Paskin like the Rabanan that says we can't say the future reveals what he bought. However, the Gemara Paskins like R' Eliezer b. Yaakov.

The Ran answers: we only don't say Breira if we need the future to decide the whole transaction. Like if someone puts an Eiruv T'chum that it should take effect if a rabbi comes on Shabbos there and he wants to walk there. If he doesn't come, he wants the Eruv not to take effect, so he should have the same T'chum as his fellow town dwellers. Therefore we rely on Breira to reveal to us during Shabbos was there an Eiruv at here at all before Shabbos.

However, our case the transaction definitely took place, they bought the courtyard jointly. We only need to say Breira to learn the details in the purchase, which specific times did each partner buy for. Therefore we may say Breira in this case.

Tues Nedarim 44

The Gemara tries to reconcile the beginning and the end of the braisa. The Raisha seems to say that once he made it Hefker, it leaves the owner's possession immediately, like Rabanan. The Seifa, where he made a time limit for when it will be Hefker, implies that he may renege on his Hefker, so it doesn't leave his possession until someone else takes it.

The first answer that it's like the Rabanan, however the Seifa is different, since it's not common to make such a Hefker.

The Ran explains: since he did something uncommon and did not do the regular type of hefker, forever, we see he's reluctant to mafkir it. Therefore, we assume his intent is not to release it from his possession until someone takes it. However, most people by regular Hefkir is not reluctant, so they release it from their possessions immediately.

Mon Nedarim 43

Someone took an oath not to take pleasure from a person, neither can lend to each other, nor borrow from each other nor buy from each other.

The Gemara asks, I understand why the oath maker can't borrow since he receives pleasure from him. However, why can't he lend?

Abaya's answers that we make a Gezeira that if he lends he'll come to borrow.

The Ran asks: that it seems all over that only the one who makes the oath can't have pleasure from the other person, but the second person may have pleasure from the oath maker, and we don't decree to forbid him?

The Ran answers: when dealing with regular pleasures, like eating from the second person, we know that it's included in the oath, so there is no reason someone will get mixed up. However, the pleasures listed in the Mishna are not such strong pleasures that one might mistake that it's not included in the oath. So if the second person will borrow from the oath maker, they'll make a mistake thinking that it's not included, and the oath maker may borrow. Therefore they enacted it in this situation.