1)

(a)When the Tana of our Mishnah writes 'Konam she'Ani Yashen ... ', he cannot be speaking literally, because sleep is abstract. Neither can he be referring to someone who said 'Konam Eini b'Sheinah' for an indefinite period, because of Rebbi Yochanan - who said that someone who makes a Shevu'ah not to sleep for three days, receives Malkus for making a Shevu'as Shav and is permitted to sleep immediately.

(b)Nor can the Tana be speaking ...

1. ... when the Noder said 'Konam Eini b'Sheinah l'Machar im Ishan ha'Yom' - because we have already permitted such a person to sleep on the day of the condition, seeing as a person would not contravene his principle vow.

2. ... when he said 'Konam Eini b'Sheinah ha'Yom' - because that would be obvious.

(c)The Tana must therefore be referring to a case - where the Noder said 'Konam Eini b'Sheinah ha'Yom Im Ishan l'Machar' and he slept on the first day (otherwise how would he contravene 'Bal Yachel' by sleeping on the second day), a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who forbids sleeping on the first day.

(d)We answer this Kashya on Rav Yehudah - by establishing the Mishnah when the Noder slept on the first day (not l'Chatchilah, but) b'Di'eved.

2)

(a)'Harei Zeh b'Bal Yachel', according to ...

1. ... the conclusion - means that one should take great care not to sleep on the first day (like Rav Yehudah), because if he does, he is prone to contravene 'Bal Yachel' when he sleeps on the second.

2. ... the Kashya, when we thought that he is allowed to sleep on the first day - that he is permitted to enter into the Safek of 'Bal Yachel' (like Rav Nachman), because we are not afraid that he will contravene his Neder.

(b)Even bearing in mind the latter explanation, when we asked above 'Why the Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder said 'Konam Eini b'Sheinah l'Machar im Ishan ha'Yom', we could not have answered by explaining 'Harei Zeh b'Bal Yachel' in the same way - because there would be no point in telling us the Heter of eating on the first day (the day of the Tenai), which is obvious, before having told us that it is forbidden to do so when the first day is the day of the principle Neder (which is not so obvious).

(c)Ravina interprets 'she'Ani Yashen' literally. According to him - 'Bal Yachel' in our Mishnah means mid'Rabanan, since the Chachamim decreed that a Neder on something that is abstract is valid.

(d)And this explains the Tana's use of the term 'Harei Zeh b'Lo Yachel Devaro' - which implies that it is not really Asur, but only a Rabbinical branch of 'Bal Yachel'. Had the Isur been d'Oraisa, the Tana would have said 'Asur', like he does regarding the equivalent case in Shevu'os.

3)

(a)We have a precedent for 'Bal Yachel' mid'Rabanan - in the case of 'Devarim ha'Mutarim, va'Acherim Nahagu Bahem Isur' (which is Asur because of a Neder, which Chazal forbade), and about which the Tana concludes 'she'Ne'emar "Lo Yachel Devaro" (see also Tosfos DH 'va'Acherim').

4)

(a)The Mishnah in 'ha'Noder min ha'Yerek' states 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Pesach im Teilchi l'Veis Avich ad ha'Chag, Halchah Lifnei ha'Pesach Asurah b'Hana'aso ad ha'Pesach' - from which we can infer 'Lo Halchah, Muteres' (that she is permitted to benefit from her husband, even though she might still contravene the condition after Pesach), a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who forbids it.

(b)Rebbi Aba answers by explaining the Mishnah to mean - 'Halchah, Asurah v'Lokah; Lo Halchah, Asurah b'Alma' (i.e. if she went before Pesach, she is forbidden to benefit from her husband [and will receive Malkus if she does]; whereas if she did not, she is still forbidden to benefit from him [but is not subject to Malkus]).

(c)According to the Rambam, it is the husband who receives Malkus should he contravene the Neder by giving his wife Hana'ah - because "Lo Yachel Devaro" implies that it is the person who declares the Neder who contravenes, rather than the person who merely contravenes it.

(d)Those who disagree with the Rambam say - that to the contrary, it is the person who contravenes the contents of the Neder who receives Malkus (and "Lo Yachel Devaro" means that one should not contravene the wording of the Neder), and not the person who declared the Neder.

5)

(a)When the Tana of the Mishnah continues 'Achar ha'Pesach, Harei Zeh b'Bal Yachel Devaro' - he means that if she did benefit from her husband before Pesach, then, should she go to her father's house after Pesach, she will contravene the Lav of ' Bal Yachel Devaro'.

(b)This does not prove that one is permitted to break the Neder before the condition (like Rav Nachman) - because the Tana speaks when she benefited b'Di'eved (and not l'Chatchilah, like we thought).

(c)The Chidush of the Mishnah is then - that she should take care not to benefit from her husband before Pesach, in case she contravenes the Neder by going to her father's house after Pesach (like Rav Yehudah).

6)

(a)The Mishnah there then discusses a case of 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Chag im Teilchi l'Veis Avich ad ha'Pesach', forbidding her to derive any benefit from her husband after Pesach if she went to her father's house before Pesach. The Tana concludes 'u'Muteres Leilech Achar ha'Pesach'. We might otherwise have thought - that this would be forbidden, to remind her that she went before Pesach, and that she is therefore forbidden to derive any benefit from her husband.

(b)We infer from the Tana - that had she not gone before Pesach, she would have been permitted to benefit from him (even before Pesach), despite the fact that she might still go before Pesach, a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who forbids it.

(c)Rava reconciles Rav Yehudah with the Mishnah - by explaining the inference (in the same way as Rebbi Aba did on the previous Amud) 'Halchah, Asurah v'Lokah; Lo Halchah, Asurah b'Alma'.

7)

(a)When someone says 'Kikar Zu Alai ha'Yom, Im Eilech l'Makom Peloni l'Machar', the Tana of a Beraisa rules 'Achal, Harei Zeh b'Lo Yeilech'. There is no Kashya from this Tana (who seems to permit eating the loaf on the first day) on Rav Yehudah, who forbids it - because that is why he said 'Achal', and not 'Ochel'.

(b)We were led to believe that he was permitted to eat the loaf l'Chatchilah - by the fact that the Tana, listing all the cases which are subject to 'Bal Yeilech' or 'Bal Yachel', seems to have omitted this one.

(c)We have now dispensed with the Kashya - by pointing out that, even though the Tana did not teach us this Isur explicitly, he specifically used the word 'Achal', to teach us, by implication, that here too, there is an Isur.

8)

(a)The Seifa of the Beraisa states 'Halach, Harei Zeh b'Bal Yacheil Devaro' - inferring 'Halach' v'Lo Mehalech, insinuating that he must have eaten the loaf on the first day, posing a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who forbids it.

(b)We answer that although the Tana could have written 'Mehalech', he preferred to write 'Halach', to balance with the Reisha where the Tana had no choice but to write 'Achal' (as we explained earlier).

(c)In fact, it would have been possible for the Tana to have written 'Mehalech', even with reference to 'Achal', in the Reisha. In that case - we would have established the Reisha, which places the Isur of Bal Yeilech on the Noder if he were to go, when he remembered that the Isur of going was dependent upon his eating the loaf, and he nevertheless went; and the Seifa, which permits him to go, when he forgot, making him a Shogeg, in which case Bal Yachel does hot apply, because one only contravenes a Neder or a Shevu'ah when one is aware that he is doing so.

(d)The Tana nevertheless prefers not to write 'Mehalech' - because our Sugya is not concerned with that particular area of Neder.

9)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "She'eirah, Kesusah v'Onasah Lo Yigra", the problem with our Mishnah, which validates the Neder of a man who says to his wife 'Konam she'Ani Meshamshech' is - how can the Tana validate such a Neder, seeing as he is Meshubad to her.

(b)Rava says - that Konamos have Kedushas ha'Guf, and therefore override someone else's Shibud.

(c)There is nevertheless a problem with our Mishnah. We cannot say there too, that the Konam removes the woman's Shibud - because just as we know that the Chachamim reinforced the Shibud of the husband, so too, did they reinforce that of the wife (protecting it against Konamos).

(d)Our answer to the Kashya is based on Rav Kahana - who makes a distinction between a woman who says to her husband 'Tashmishi Alecha', which she has no right to do, and one who says 'Hana'as Tashmishcha Alai' - which forbids him to her, and we do not feed a person something that is forbidden to him. Similarly here, when the husband said 'Hana'as Tashmishech Alai', she becomes forbidden to him, and his Neder is valid (even though it would not be if he were to say 'Tashmishi Alayich').

10)

(a)What makes 'Konam she'Ani Mashamshech' a Neder mid'Rabanan is - the fact that it is on something abstract (and a Neder d'Oraisa can only take effect on a tangible object), as we explained earlier.

(b)The Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder said 'Konam Gufech Alai mi'Tashmish' (which would make it a Neder d'Oraisa) - because it must be similar to the other cases in the Mishnah ('she'Ani Yashen', 'she'Ani Medaber' ... ), which Ravina established earlier as being Nedarim d'Rabanan.

(c)It is possible for a Neder d'Rabanan to negate the Chiyuv Onah which is d'Oraisa - because the Neder is valid automatically, and once it is, we apply the principle which empowers the Chachamim to override Torah institutions in a negative way.

(d)The Neder is effective anyway, in spite of the principle 'Mitzvos Lav Lehanos Nitnu' (the objective of Mitzvos is not the physical benefit that one derives) - which only applies to the pleasure that one derives from the actual Mitzvah, but not to any physical pleasure that accompanies the Mitzvah (such as Bi'ah in this case, or Toveling in cold water on a hot day), which is incidental to the Mitzvah, and which is not covered by the principle.

11)

(a)What the following ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Eini Yashen' ... she'Eini Medaber' ... she'Eini Mehalech' have in common is - the fact that they are all listed in our Mishnah as being valid Shevu'os (because a Shevu'ah is effective even on something that is abstract).

2. ... 'Korban ... Lo Ochal Lach' ... she'Ochal Lach'; 'Hei Korban, she'Ochal Lach'; 'la'Korban, Lo Ochal Lach' have in common is - the fact that they are all listed in our Mishnah as being Nedarim that are invalid, as we shall now see.

(b)The two possible meanings of 'Korban ... Lo Ochal Lach' are - 1. 'By the life of the Korban, I will not eat from you', which is meaningless; 2. 'Whatever I do not eat of yours will be Asur like a Korban', in which case, he has only forbidden what he will not eat, but not what he will.

(c)'Hei Korban', meaning 'By the life of the Korban' is not a valid Neder either - because it too, has no meaning.

(d)Nor can the correct text be 'ha'Korban Ochal Lach' - because we will shortly establish this Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, and we already learned in the first Perek that, according to Rebbi Meir 'ha'Korban Ochal Lach' is a valid Neder.

12)

(a)The Tana of the Mishnah does not consider 'Lo Korban, Lo Ochal Lach' to be a valid Neder - because it will only be valid by inference ('Ha Korban, she'Ochal Lach'), and as we just explained, the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir who holds 'mi'Chelal Lav I Ata Shome'a Hen'.