1)

(a)The author of our Mishnah, which begins the list of those Nedarim that are not valid with 'Chulin she'Ochal Lach', implying that 'La'Chulin she'Ochal Lach', are - must be Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'mi'Chelal Lav Ata Shome'a Hen'.

(b)And in spite of having taught us this case in the first Perek, the Tana repeats it here - only because it belongs in the list of other cases in our Mishnah.

(c)There would have been no problem had we been able to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, to teach us that this is not a case of 'mi'Chelal Lav ... '. It is not however, possible to do so - because, as we already explained, it is clear from the Mishnah earlier that Rebbi Meir considers this case too, to belong to the category of 'mi'Chelal Lav ... '.

(d)We reject Ravina's contention (that the Tana mentions 'Chulin' to teach us that the entire Reisha does not need Hatarah at all (just like Chulin, where there is no case of Davar ha'Nadur, which might cause us to decree on account of it) - because we know this from the Seifa ('ha'Omer l'Ishto ... ').

2)

(a)The source for 'b'Davar ha'Nadur, v'Lo b'Davar ha'Asur' is the Pasuk in Naso "Ish ki Yidor Neder ... ". The Pasuk is not needed for itself (to forbid a Davar ha'Nadur) - because if a Neder is effective without Hatfasah, why should we need a Pasuk to teach us that Hatfasah b'Davar ha'Nadur is effective too? Why should it not be?

(b)When we ask - 'I Hachi, b'Davar ha'Asur Nami, di'Chesiv "Le'esor Isar al Nafsho" - we mean that, now that we have two Pesukim, it would seem, we will have to go back on our original assumption, that Hatfasah does not need a Pasuk, and say that one of the Pesukim comes to include Hatfasah b'Davar ha'Nadur, and the other, 'Hatfasah b'Davar ha'Asur'.

(c)We resolve the two Pesukim - by remaining with the first Derashah (to learn Davar ha'Nadur from "Ish ki Yidor Neder"), but use the second Derashah (from "Le'esor Isar") to teach us that Hatfasah helps by Isarim (private Isurim).

(d)We reject the previous contention (that one Pasuk comes for Hatfasah b'Davar ha'Nadur, and the other, for Davar ha'Asur) - on the grounds that it is illogical to validate Hatfasah from a Davar ha'Asur, seeing as the Davar ha'Asur is automatically forbidden by the Torah. What sense would it then make to say 'Zeh ka'Zeh' (seeing as the first object was not Nadur)?

3)

(a)We have already learned that of the four cases presented in the Mishnah of Isarim ('Hareini she'Lo Ochal Basar ... Yom she'Yom she'Mes bo Aviv', Yom she'Mes Bo Rabo ... '), the only Chidush is that of 'Yom she'Neherag bo Gedalyah ben Achikam', since it is already Asur mid'Rabanan to eat at all on that day. We initially explain the Chidush in the other three cases to be - the fact that the Neder is effective, despite the fact that he would have followed the custom not to eat meat or drink wine anyway on those days.

(b)We reconcile our Sugya, which learns the Chidush of Isar (a personal Isur) from "Le'esor Isar" with the Sugya in Shevu'os, which learns it from "Ish Ki Yidor Neder la'Hashem" - by substantiating our Sugya, and pointing out that the Sugya there is not yet fully aware of all the Derashos.

(c)Hatfasah is not effective on a Shevu'ah - because there is no object for it to take effect on.

(d)This is the opinion of the Ran. Others say however - that Hatfasah on a Shevu'ah is effective (mid'Rabanan), only there is no Korban and no Malkus for subsequently contravening it.

4)

(a)Abaye resolves our Mishnah, which validates the Neder of 'Harei At Alai k'Eima', with the Beraisa which says 'Lo Amar Klum', by explaining the latter to mean 'Lo Amar Klum' mid'Oraisa, and our Mishnah to mean 'mid'Rabanan. Rava disagrees with Abaye's explanation - on the grounds that 'Lo Amar Klum' implies that it does not require Hatarah at all.

(b)So he resolves the apparent discrepancy - by establishing our Mishnah by an Am ha'Aretz, and the Beraisa by a Talmid-Chacham, whose Hatfasah on a Davar ha'Asur is not valid at all, and requires no Hatarah.

(c)We prove Rava's explanation from the Beraisa 'ha'Noder ba'Torah (which will be explained shortly) Lo Amar Klum' (even though the comparison is not absolute, see Rosh). Rebbi Yochanan concludes 'v'Tzarich She'eilah l'Chacham'. Rav Nachman adds - v'Talmid-Chacham Eino Tzarich She'eilah'.

5)

(a)The Neder of someone who swears by the Torah is invalid - because he is referring to the parchment, in which case, he has not sworn by the Name of Hash-m.

(b)If someone swears by what is written in the Torah on the other hand - his Neder is valid, because he is referring to the Names of Hash-m that it contains.

6)

(a)According to the Ra'avad, the Beraisa is talking literally about a Neder (and not a Shevu'ah, as we previously explained). The case will then be - if he said 'Kikar Zeh Alai ba'Torah' or 'Kikar Zeh Alai ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah'.

(b)The difference between 'Bah' and 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Alav' is then that 'Bah' refers to the parchment, which is not a Davar ha'Nadur, whereas 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Alav', which refers to the writing, is.

(c)What makes the writing a Davar ha'Nadur is - writing the letters on to the parchment and preparing them for Kedushah.

(d)'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah' - might also refer to the contents of the Sefer-Torah, including the Korbanos, and that is what he is Matfis on.

7)

(a)Rav Nachman explains that the Reisha of the Beraisa (the two cases that we just discussed) speaks when the person was holding the Torah in his arms. The Seifa, which states 'Bah uva'Meh she'Kasuv Bah, Devarav Kayamin', speaks - when the Torah is lying on the ground.

(b)The Din will differ in the Seifa from the Reisha - if he says 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah', in which case he really means the parchment, which is not the case if he is holding it in his arms, as we just explained.

8)

(a)In the second explanation, the entire Beraisa speaks when the Sefer-Torah is lying on the ground - and still, if he says 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah', he is referring to the writing in the Torah, and not just to the parchment, as we explained in the previous answer.

(b)The Seifa ('Bah uva'Meh she'Kasuv Bah, Devarav Kayamin') is nevertheless not redundant - because it is the Seifa which teaches us that the Beraisa is speaking when the Sefer-Torah is lying on the ground.

(c)In the third answer, we establishes the Reisha when the Torah is lying on the ground - in which case, we differentiate between whether he says 'Bah' (which refers to the parchment) or ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah' (referring to the writing).

(d)The Seifa now speaks when he is holding it in his arms, and 'Bah uva'Meh she'Kasuv Bah' means that if he said 'Bah', it is as if he said 'ba'Meh she'Kasuv Bah', because when he is holding the Torah, then even 'Bah' implies the writing, and not just the parchment.

9)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses 'Konam she'Ani Yashen', 'Konam she'Ani Medaber' & 'ha'Omer l'Ishto, Konam she'Ani Meshamshech' - which are all subject to the Lav of 'bal Yachel Devaro'.

(b)The Tana uses the expression 'she'Ani Yashein ... ' - because he is speaking about a Neder, which requires a tangible object (and 'she'Ani' refers to the Noder's eyes); whereas the Tana of the Mishnah in Shevu'os - who is speaking about a Shevu'ah, which takes effect even on something that is abstract (such as not sleeping), says 'she'Eini Yashen ... '.

10)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, if someone says 'Konam Eini b'Sheinah ha'Yom Im Ishan l'Machar', he is forbidden to sleep today, in case he sleeps tomorrow. Rav Nachman says - that he may, because we are not afraid that a person will contravene his Neder.

(b)Rav Yehudah concedes to Rav Nachman that if he said 'Konam Eini b'Sheinah l'Machar Im Ishen ha'Yom' he is permitted to sleep today - because we are only afraid that a person will contravene the condition (once the main Neder has passed), but not the main Neder itself (after the condition has passed).