1)

(a)The author of our Mishnah, which differentiates between 'Korban Lo Ochal Lach' and 'Korban Ochal Lach' - must be Rebbi Meir (who validates 'Korban Ochal Lach', because he does not require the 'Kaf' of comparison).

(b)Had Rebbi Yehudah been the author of the Mishnah - he would have added 'Korban Ochal Lach' to the list of cases in the Mishnah that are not valid (because he does require the 'Kaf').

(c)The Mishnah includes in the cases that the Neder is not effective 'Hei Korban she'Ochal Lach'. The text cannot be 'ha'Korban - since we already learned in the first Perek that 'ha'Korban she'Ochal Lach' is Asur according to Rebbi Meir.

(d)Our Mishnah also rules 'Lo Korban (or la'Korban) Lo Ochal Lach, Mutar'. By 'l'Korban Lo Ochal Lach' - the Neder will be valid, because we interpret it to mean 'l'Korban Yehei, Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach' like Rebbi Aba explains).

(e)We cannot validate the former by inferring 'Ha Mah she'Yochal Yehei Korban' - since we just established the author of our Mishnah as R. Meir, who holds 'mi'Chelal Lav I Atah Shome'a Hen'.

2)

(a)In the cases (all listed in our Mishnah) 'Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach'; 'Hei Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach'; 'Lo Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach' - the Shevu'ah is valid.

(b)'Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach' is valid because it implies that he is forbidding the Mudar's food on himself with a Shevu'ah. We do not explain 'Hei Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach' to mean 'by the life of the Shevu'ah' (which is meaningless), like we explained 'Hei Korban' - because people do not tend to say that (whereas 'Hei Korban' they do).

(c)Lo Shevu'ah (or la'Shevu'ah) Lo Ochal Lach' is a valid Shevu'ah, despite the fact that Rebbi Meir, the author of our Mishnah, holds 'mi'Chelal Lav I Ata Shome'a Hen' - because, as the Gemara explains in Shevu'os, he only says that with regard to money matters (incorporating Nedarim, which are confined to tangible objects), but as far as pure Isurim is concerned, he concedes that 'mi'Chelal Lav Ata Shome'a Hen'. And Shevu'os belongs to the realm of Isurim.

3)

(a)In the Mishnah in Shevu'os 'Shevu'os Shtayim she'Hen Arba, she'Ochal v'she'Lo Ochal ... ' - '(Shevu'ah) she'Ochal' can only mean 'I swear that I will eat, because of the contrasting case, '(Shevu'ah) she'Lo Ochal'.

(b)To reconcile this with our Mishnah, where 'Hei Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach' means 'that I will not eat', Abaye explains 'she'Ochal Shtei Leshonos Mashma ... ', meaning that it depends on what was said before: If, following attempts to make a person eat, he says 'Achilna Achilna, v'Od Shevu'ah she'Ochal', then it obviously means that he will eat; whereas if he says 'Lo Achilna Lo Achilna, v'Od Shevu'ah she'Ochal', then it must mean that he will not eat.

(c)The problem regarding 'Achilna Achilna, v'Su Shevu'ah she'Ochal' is from Abaye's own words in Shevu'os - where he says that 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal' Stam means 'I will eat', and it therefore needs no indication to that effect.

(d)We reconcile the two statements - by making it a Machlokes ha'Sugyos.

4)

(a)Rav Ashi disagrees with Abaye. According to him, 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal' means exactly what it says, irrespective of the circumstances under which it was said.

(b)Consequently (to reconcile our Mishnah with the Mishnah in Shevu'os) he amends 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal' in our Mishnah, to 'Shevu'ah she'I Ochal'' ...

(c)... and the Chidush is that - even he claims that he really meant to say 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal', but stammered over the 'Alef' of 'Ochal', and it sounded like 'I Ochal', we do not believe him.

(d)The basis of this strange contention is - the fact that people normally say 'she'Lo Ochal', not she'I Ochal'.

5)

(a)Abaye does not like Rav Ashi's explanation, because the Tana said 'she'Ochal', not 'she'I Ochal'. Rav Ashi, on the other hand, declines to learn like Abaye - because, he maintains, just as 'she'Ochal' has two meanings, depending on the circumstances, so too does 'she'I (or 'she'Lo) Ochal'.

(b)According to this latter explanation - the implication of 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal' after he said 'Achilna Achilna' (according to the text of the Ran) is in rhetoric form: 'Did I swear that I will not eat? Did I not tell you that I will?'

6)

(a)We learned in the previous Mishnah that, unlike Nedarim, Shevu'os take effect even on abstract things. The stringency that the current Mishnah ascribes to Nedarim over Shevu'os is - that they take effect even over a Mitzvah, whereas Shevu'os do not.

(b)The reason for this is - due to the fact that (precisely because a Neder is based on an object) the object of the Neder becomes forbidden, and, as we learned earlier, one does not feed a person something that is forbidden to him.

7)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah 'Zeh Chomer bi'Shevu'os mi'bi'Nedarim', should it refer to the previous Mishnah ''Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach ... Asur' (as it appears to do) is - that the Lashon suggests that both the Shevu'ah and the Neder are valid, only the Shevu'ah is more stringent, when in fact, we have already learned 'Korban Lo Ochal Lach, Mutar', indicating that the Neder is not valid at all.

(b)This problem is solved however, when we answer that it refers to the earlier Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Eini Yashen ... Asur' - because 'Konam she'Eini Yashein' is not valid mid'Oraisa (explaining why Shevu'ah, which is, more stringent), but it is valid mi'de'Rabanan, as Ravina taught us earlier.

(c)We cannot ask the same Kashya on the continuation of our Mishnah, 'v'Chomer Nedarim mi'bi'Shevu'os ... ', implying that, although a Shevu'ah is less stringent than a Neder with regard to negating a Mitzvah, it is nevertheless valid - because this is indeed the case; the Shevu'ah is not effective as far as negating the Mitzvah is concerned, but it is effective inasmuch as it is a Shevu'as Shav, for which one will even receive Malkus.

8)

(a)Rav Gidal Amar Rav (or Amar Shmuel) learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yachel Devaro" - that it is only a Shevu'ah concerning personal matters that may not be desecrated, but not one that concerns Mitzvos.

(b)It is from the word "la'Hashem" - that we learn that Nedarim take effect even with regard to Mitzvos.

(c)We confine this latter Derashah to Nedarim - on the basis of logic; because, seeing as Nedarim take effect on a tangible object, the Torah does not wish to feed the Noder something that is forbidden to him. Shevu'os, on the other hand, forbid the person to benefit from the object, and it is logical to say that the Shevu'ah is not valid, seeing as the person is already obligated to perform the Mitzvah.

9)

(a)Rava's problem with Abaye's Lashon 'Ha d'Amar Hana'as Sukah Alai' is - that such a Neder would not be effective, due to the principle 'Mitzvos Lav Lehanos Nitnu' (the objective of a Mitzvah is the Mitzvah, not the Hana'ah, as we explained on the previous Daf).

(b)So Rava explains that, to forbid sitting in a Sukah with a Lashon of Neder, one would have to say 'Konam Yeshivas Sukah Alai'. However, it is possible that even this Lashon is insufficient - because sitting in a Sukah is abstract, and a Neder requires a tangible object, as we have already learned. So we will have to amend it to 'Konam Sukah li'Yeshivasah'.

(c)Tosfos however, accepts the Lashon as it stands - because the Noder mentioned the object when he said 'Yeshivas Sukah Alai'.

(d)According to Tosfos explanation, we will explain the Sugya in Kesuvos and later in this Masechta, requiring a person who wishes to forbid the work of his wife's hands on himself, to say 'Yikadshu Yadayim l'Oseihen' to mean - that if someone said 'Konam Ma'asei Yedei Ishti' it is as if he had said 'Yikadshu Yadayim l'Oseihen'.

10)

(a)The difference between someone who says 'Konam Yeshivas Sukah Alai' or 'Konam Zerikas Tzror la'Yam' on the one hand, and 'Konam Sukah Alai' or 'Konam Tzror Zeh Alai' on the other, is - that in the former case, his Neder is valid (even though he derives no benefit from sitting in the Sukah or in throwing the stone into the sea - because that is what he undertook to do); whereas in the latter case, we assume that what he undertook, was not to derive benefit, and sitting in a Sukah or throwing a stone into the sea, do not constitute benefit.

11)

(a)We just learned that a Shevu'ah to nullify a Mitzvah is invalid, from the Pasuk in Matos "Lo Yachel Devaro". The Beraisa learns it from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Lehara O Leheitiv" - the latter implying that, if not for the Neder, one would be permitted to do, if one wished (in which case, "Lehara" must have the same connotations, to preclude a Neder to negate a Mitzvah, which would not be permitted, anyway).

(b)We need two Pesukim for this Derashah - the one in Devarim (which talks about Korbanos) to exempt the transgressor from a Korban; whereas the one in Matos exempts him from the Lav (to teach us that it does not take effect at all).