1)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, the date on which the first Revi'ah is due is on the third of Marcheshvan, and the second, on the seventh; according to Rebbi Yehudah, the first is due on the seventh and the second on the seventeenth. The date of the third rainfall, according to both ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir and ...

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah is - the twenty-third of Marcheshvan.

(b)According to Rebbi Yosi, the first Revi'ah is due on the seventeenth of Marcheshvan, the second, on the twenty-third, and the third - on Rosh Chodesh Kislev.

(c)The significance of the first date is to ask for rain. Rebbi Yosi states the significance of the third one - as being that, should there still be no rain, the Talmidei Chachamim begin a series of fasts (as described in Maseches Ta'anis).

(d)The significance of the middle date - is regarding Neder (as we learned in our Mishnah).

2)

(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says in a Beraisa that rain that begins to fall on the first of the three dates and subsequently falls for seven consecutive days - is counted as two rainfalls, the first and the second.

(b)He holds like Rebbi Yosi (because according to Rebbi Meir, there are only four days between the two dates, whereas according to Rebbi Yosi, there are ten).

(c)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's statement is quite unnecessary from his own point of view - because whether the Noder said 'ad ha'Geshem' or 'ad ha'Geshamim', he goes after the date that the rain is due, and not the actual rainfall itself.

(d)What he is therefore saying to the Rabanan is - 'will you not at least agree with me that seeing as you go after the actual rainfall, this seven-day rain counts as two seasons (despite the fact that it fell consecutively), and that the Noder's Neder has therefore terminated?'

3)

(a)The Rabanan argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel however - inasmuch as, since they go after the actual rainfall, and in this case, the rain only fell once, they maintain that it only counts as one rainfall, and the Noder must continue with his Neder until the next rainfall.

(b)We conclude that the Beraisa of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is speaking about a case of 'ad ha'Geshamim'. Initially - we thought that, since the Tana does not differentiate, he speaks about 'ad ha'Geshem' as well, proving that the Rabanan even argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel by 'ad ha'Geshem' (a Kashya on Rebbi Zeira [who, by the way, is also the one to establish the significance of the middle date in the first Beraisa by Noder], who said that they agree there).

4)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses someone who declares wine Asur in a year which subsequently turns into a leap-year. The duration of the Neder, if, in such a year, someone says 'Konam Yayin she'Eini To'em ...

1. ... ha'Shanah' or 'Shanah Zu' - even if he declared the Neder on Rosh Hashanah, is until the following Rosh Hashanah (thirteen months later).

2. ... Shanah Achas' - is twelve months.

(b)The reason for the latter ruling is - because if he were to begin the Neder later, he would continue into the following year (from which we see that the Neder is not connected to the leap-year).

(c)The Rashba says - that if the Noder added the words 'mi'Yom Zeh' (when he has no option but to begin immediately) - then the extra month is included in the Neder (like 'Shanah Zu').

(d)This has ramifications with regard to the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, which rules that if someone rents a house for one year, and the year turns into a leap-year, then he gains the extra month. According to what we just said, this will be confined to when he said 'ha'Shanah' or 'Shanah Zu', but not when he said 'Shanah Achas' (when he will only have twelve months).

5)

(a)According to the Rashba, it is only if he actually declares the Neder on Rosh Hashanah that the hirer will have thirteen months in the house - because, if he says 'ha'Shanah' or 'Shanah Zu' later in the year, he will only have until Rosh Hashanah.

(b)We refute the Rashba's explanation - on the grounds that if the scope of the Mishnah is so limited, the Tana should have said so.

(c)And we disagree with him - in a case where the hirer hired the house having stipulated 'Shanah Achas'. Provided he hired it before Adar Sheni, the rental will run for thirteen months.

(d)Nevertheless, someone who purchases a house in a walled city, in whose connection the Gemara says in Erchin, that were it not for a specific Pasuk, the sale would be finalized in twelve months even if it was a leap-year - because that is talking about a stipulation made not by the people involved, but by the Torah, which tends to standardize its Halachos.

6)

(a)We also disagree with the Rashba's distinction between 'Shanah Zu' and 'Shanah Achas'. If someone declares 'Konam Yayin Shanah Achas' ...

1. ... and it turns out to be a leap-year - his Neder will extend for thirteen months.

2. ... and, believing that the Halachah is like the Rashba, he wants to commence his Neder half a year later - he cannot do so, because his Neder comes into effect immediately, and has no Tashlumin.

7)

(a)If, in a leap-year, the Noder says ...

1. ... 'ad Rosh Chodesh Adar' - his Neder lasts until Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon.

2. ... 'ad Sof Adar' - it lasts until the end of Adar Rishon.

(b)In the latter case, some texts read 'ad Sof Adar Sheni' - because this Tana considers the two Adarim as one.

(c)According to Rebbi Meir, someone who writes a Shtar in Adar Rishon, one dates it 'Adar Rishon; in Adar Sheni, he dates it 'Adar' Stam. Rebbi Yehudah says - the other way round.

(d)We initially assume that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that Stam Adar refers to Adar Rishon. According to the text 'ad Sof Adar Sheni' that we quoted above we will simply reiterate what we wrote earlier (that the two Adarim are considered one, so that the end of Adar is synonymous with the end of Adar Sheni). Abaye nevertheless reconciles the Mishnah with Rebbi Meir - by establishing it when at the time of the Neder, they did not yet know that it was a leap-year.

8)

(a)We prove Abaye right from the Beraisa 'ad Rosh Chodesh Adar, ad Rosh Chodesh Adar ha'Rishon. Im Hayesah Shanah Me'uberes, ad Rosh Chodesh Adar ha'Sheni', which cannot be interpreted literally - because if the Reisha (as is implied by the Seifa), speaks in an ordinary year, why does the Tana say 'ad Rosh Chodesh Adar ha'Rishon' (implying that there is an Adar Sheni)?

(b)We therefore interpret the Seifa to mean that they knew at the time of the Neder that it was a leap-year, and the Reisha, that they did not (even though it later turned out to be one).

(c)In any event, we established our Mishnah when they did not know that it would be a leap-year. This poses a Kashya on the alternative text (in the Seifa) that we quoted above - because if the Tana speaks when they did not yet know that this year was destined to become a leap-year, how can he say 'ad Sof Adar Sheni' (seeing as it is not feasible for the Noder to have had it in mind)?

(d)Based on the principle 'Rebbi Meir v'Rebbi Yehudah, Halachah k'Rebbi Yehudah', we rule like Rebbi Yehudah (regarding Stam Adar). Consequently, a Shtar that is written in Adar Sheni as 'Adar' Stam - will be a Shtar Mukdam (predated) and is therefore Pasul.

9)

(a)If someone declares a prohibition on wine 'ad she'Yehei ha'Pesach, in spite of his having said 'ad she'Yehei', Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah only prohibits wine until Seder-night - because it is obvious that he only intended to forbid wine until then, seeing as that is when everyone drinks wine.

(b)By the same token, if he said 'Konam Basar ... ad she'Yehei ha'Tzom' - he will be forbidden to eat meat until the Se'udah ha'Mafsekes (the meal immediately prior to the commencement of Yom Kippur), when it is customary for everyone to eat meat.

(c)This case teaches us (over and above the previous one) - that even though 'ad Leilei' implies until nightfall, we interpret it to mean earlier than that.

(d)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah adds 'Konam Shum she'Eini To'em ad she'Tehei Shabbos, Eino Asur Ela ad Leilei Shabbos' - because Ezra instituted the eating of garlic on Erev Shabbos. The Chidush is - that even though this is only a Takanah of Ezra, we assume even there, that that is what the Noder meant.

10)

(a)The Ramban rules like the Rabanan, who argue with Rebbi Yehudah (and certainly with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah). They nevertheless agree with Rebbi Yehudah in 'ha'Noder min ha'Mevushal', in the case of 'Ta'an v'Hizi'a ... Amar Konam Tzemer ... Olah Alai, Mutar Lehiskasos v'Asur Lehafshil l'Acharav' - because there, due to the incident that occurred, it is obvious that that is what he meant (whereas in our case, there was no incident, only an assumption).

(b)The Ra'ah disagrees with the Ramban, and rules like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah - because, since this Mishnah appears among a series of Mishnahs (of 'Umdena') which are all Halachah, we can assume that it is Halachah, too.

(c)The Ramban proves his point from the fact that the Mishnah earlier 'ad ha'Pesach ... Asur ad she'Yetzei, ad she'Yehei, Asur ad she'Yetzei', which clearly refers to our Sugya of Konam Yayin, from which we see that the Rabanan hold 'ad she'Yehei, Asur ad she'Yetzei' (not like Rebbi Yehudah). The Ra'ah refutes this proof however - because the Tana may not be referring to 'Konam Yayin', but to other Nedarim which he connects to Pesach, that are not so obvious; and even if he is, he only uses 'Konam Yayin' as an example, and the case should be taken with a pinch of salt.

11)

(a)We learn in our Mishnah that if the Noder stipulated that, unless his friend accepts a Kur of wheat and two barrels of wine on behalf of his son, he (the Noder) will not accept any benefit from him, the Neder does not require Hatarah - because the Mudar can say that since the Madir only meant his Kavod, as far as he is concerned, he considers it as if he had received the wheat and the wine.

(b)Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan argue in the Seifa in the reverse case to the previous one (when the Madir forbids the Mudar to have Hana'ah from him unless he gives his son a Kur of wheat and two barrels of wine). Like before, the Chachamim do not require Hatarah in this case - because this time it is the Noder who can say to the Mudar 'It is as if I received the wheat and the wine from you'.

(c)Rebbi Meir rules - that the Mudar is forbidden to having any Hana'ah from the Madir until he gives his son the specified amount of wheat and wine.

(d)He also argues in the Reisha - forbidding the Madir to have Hana'ah from the Mudar until the latter accepts the wheat and the wine on behalf of his son.

12)

(a)If, in response to efforts by his sister to marry her daughter, or following his divorce of his wife someone declares 'Konam she'Hi Nehenis li Le'olam', the Tana permits them to benefit from him - because, in either case, it is clear that his intention was only that he would never marry her (again).

(b)The Tana refer specifically to a case of marrying his sister's daughter - because it is a Mitzvah to do so.

(c)Similarly, if, in response to his friend's efforts to invite him for a meal, someone declares 'Konam l'Veischa she'Eini Nichnas' or 'Tipas Tzonan she'Eini To'em Lach', he permits him to enter his house and to have a drink - because in this case too, it is obvious that his sole intention was not to eat the meal by him, and nothing else.

(d)If someone responds to his friend's efforts to get him to partake of a feast that he is preparing, by declaring 'Konam l'Veischa she'Eini Nichnas' - the Tosefta forbids him to enter the house during the feast, but permits him to enter afterwards.