1) If one says “Konam wine today,” he’s only forbidden to drink until nightfall. But if he says “for one day,” he’s forbidden for twenty-four hours.

2) This, which we said “Konam today” is only forbidden until nightfall; R’ Yirmiya says that he needs to ask a Chachum by nightfall to permit it. R’ Yosef explains the reason: they decreed it so that you don’t confuse it with saying “for one day” {Ran: that you might come to permit that after nightfall}. However, you don’t need to wait for nightfall on the second day when you said “for one day” so not to allow when saying “today” before nightfall {Ran: since he had to wait twenty four hours before it’s permitted, he won’t confuse them, so they didn’t decree.}

3) {The Ran says: however, by an individual’s fast, it’s permitted to eat by nightfall and we don’t need to make a decree to have a Chachum permit it since everyone knows the laws of fasts and won’t confuse it with other Nedarim. The Rashba answers: we only need to decree this by Nedarim made in middle of the day, so we have a concern that he’ll assume it’s forbidden after nightfall too. However, fasts that start at dawn don’t have this concern. The Ran disagrees since we make the decree by Nedarim that were made before dawn. Therefore, it seems that, if someone says that he’ll fast on Sunday, he’s permitted by nightfall since he definitely intends it to be like the laws of all rabbinical fast.}

4) Ravna quotes R’ Yosef the reason of R’ Yirmiya (to require a Chachum by nightfall) is since he was wrong to make this Neder since “all who vow is as if he constructed a Bama, and if he fulfills it, and doesn’t ask a Chachum to permit it, it’s as if he brought a Korban on it. {Ran explains: with the combination so that you don’t confuse it with saying “for one day” (although we wouldn’t decree it for itself since it’s not a common concern). After all, if not, we should forbid all Nedarim when its time is up. Rather, it’s just saying that we should make all decrees possible to forbid, even if it’s not common, as a fine. Therefore, if someone made a Neder for a Mitzvah, which is proper to do, he’s permitted completely at nightfall.}

5) If one says “Konam this Shabbos (i.e., week),” he’s forbidden the whole week including Shabbos (and we don’t say he only means all the weekdays until Shabbos, but not including Shabbos).

6) If he says “Konam this month,” he’s forbidden until Rosh Chodesh, even the first day Rosh Chodesh, although it’s technically part of the last month, since we follow the way people speak, and they consider it the beginning of the next month, so it’s permitted. {Ran says: therefore, in documents, you shouldn’t date the first day of Rosh Chodesh as part of the previous month, but of the present month, since that’s what people call it, and, otherwise, it would be a predated document that’s Pasul. Therefore, the second day Rosh Chodesh should be written as the second of the month. However, the Rashba quotes Tosfos we should be stringent and write “the thirtieth of Tishrei, which is Rosh Chodesh Cheshvon.”}

7) If you say “this year,” he’s forbidden until Rosh Hashana, but not including Rosh Hashana. If he says “this seven year Shmita period,” the Shmita year is included. However, if he says “for a week,” or “a year” or “a seven year period” he’s forbidden for that amount of time to the second.

8) There’s an unresolved inquiry whether he says “Konam day” if it’s like he said today, which he’ll be permitted by nightfall, or as if he says “one day” and needs twenty four hours. {Ran says: therefore, since it’s not resolved, we should be stringent and forbid for twenty four hours.}

9) If he says “Konam this Yovel,” according to the Rabanan that the Yovel year is not part of the next cycle, so the Yovel year is included. However, R’ Yehuda says that it starts year one of the next Yovel cycle, so it’s not included in the Neder.

10) If you say “Konam until Pesach, it’s only forbidden until Pesach, not including Pesach. If you say “until it is Pesach,” you’re forbidden through Pesach {Ran: since it implies until it’s totally through Pesach.} If you vow from something until “P’nai, the face” of Pesach; the Mishna’s text is that R’ Meir only forbids until you reach Pesach, and R’ Yossi held he’s forbidden with it until the end of Pesach. The Gemara wants to say it’s dependent on whether someone wants to be involved in the Safeik, or not. However, it seems to contradict their opinions regarding; if a man has two groups of daughters {Ran: from two wives}, and each set has an older and younger daughter, and someone gives Kiddushin for the older one without qualifying who; R’ Meir says that someone allows himself to fall into a Safeik, and the Safeik includes any daughter from the older set, and the oldest daughter of the younger set. However, R’ Yossi holds that someone avoids going into a Safeik, so it can only mean the eldest of the older set. So we must reverse their opinions here; that R’ Meir is the one who says that he’s forbidden with it until the end of Pesach, and R’ Yossi only forbids until you reach Pesach. We have a Braisa like this text too. {Ran says: the Gemara in Kiddushin answers: don’t turn it around and the reason for R’ Meir is not that he’s not getting himself into a Safeik, but but because he feels that the meaning of P’nai is not face, but Panoi, when Pesach finishes, and R’ Yossi holds it definitely means the surface, i.e., before Pesach. However, the Ran concludes: that the Halacha is like our Sugya since it’s in Nedarim, the main place discussing vows. Also, we have a Braisa to support this answer. Rambam also Paskins that way to permit it on Pesach (since the Halacha is like R’ Yossi when arguing with R’ Meir). However, the Ramban Paskins like the Sugya in Kiddushin and forbids the whole Pesach.}

11) This is only for something that has an established time, like Pesach, we say “until it’s Pesach” means until it was already Pesach. However, if there’s no established time, like when he says “until the harvesting of wheat or grapes,” in all cases, it’s only forbidden until it reaches that time {Ran: since people don’t forbid themselves for indefinite times.}

12) {Ran brings the Yerushalmi’s inquiry that, if someone makes a Neder from wine “until his son’s wedding,” is it establishing the date for the end, since there’s a scheduled date, or since it might get pushed off, it’s not an established time. Therefore, we should be stringent.}

13) If he says “until the Kayitz,” or “until there is the Kayitz,” it’s forbidden until the people start bringing in baskets of figs, but not grapes, since they’re not called ‘Kayitz.’ {Ran says: since Kayitz is only those that are harvested by hand, and grapes need to be harvested with a knife.}

14) If you make a Neder from the Kayitz produce; the Tanna Kama says that he’s forbidden only with figs, but not grapes since they need to be cut with a utensil, it’s not called Kayitz. R’ Shimon b. Gamliel says that it does include grapes since you can pluck them by hand when the stems dry out.

15) If he makes a Neder until the Kayitz days pass; it’s forbidden until they fold the Muktzos knives {Ran: the knives that are designated to cut figs when they made cakes from them.} It’s also permitted at that time to take what’s left of them from the field, and it’s not stealing {Ran: since the owners have Yiyush from those figs left in the fields}, and they’re exempt from Maasar like all other Hefker.

16) There were those who wanted to kill R’ Tarfon since they thought him to be a thief, and he revealed to them that he was really R’ Tarfon, and they allowed him to leave, and R’ Tarfon was very pained from this episode since he used the crown of Torah for his own use, which punishment is that he gets uprooted from the world, (since he was rich and should have bribed his way to save his life). {Ran says: this is only because they still suspected him of stealing, but they only let him go for the Torah’s honor. However, you’re allowed to say you’re a Talmid Chachum in order to reveal that you’re truly exempt for it. Like} to claim you’re a Talmid Chachum so that you don’t need to pay head taxes. Also, he may also claim it so that, if he has a judgment, they should take him first. Also, he can inform people he’s a Talmid Chachum in a city that doesn’t recognize him, but not if they know who he is since “a stranger should praise you, but not from your own mouth.”

17) We have a Hekish between a Talmid Chachum and a Kohein, so he should open first {Ran: in the Torah reading} and Bentch first, and to take his portion first {Ran: when dividing with a partner, the partner should cut it in half, and he should choose the piece he wants.}

18) {Ran: even} a Talmid Chachum can say that “he’s a servant to the fire” in order to exempt himself from taxes {Ran: since the servants to the fire priests were exempt from taxes. This is not a problem that he’s admitting to idolatry since everyone knows he’s only doing this to exempt from taxes, and besides, his heart is to Heaven since Hashem is called fire, as it says “you G-d is a consuming fire.”}

19) You’re allowed to sell wood to the fire idol and we don’t say that you transgress “don’t place a stumbling block” since most wood is use for firing up (ovens or hearths) and not to serve the idol {Ran: and if there’s a way to assume it will be used in a permitted way, we always assume it to be that way.}

20) If he says “Konam until the harvesting,” we assume it the wheat harvesting, and not the barley {Ran: if there’s no specific grain it’s known by in that place}. However, it all depends on the place {Ran: and if in that place it’s referred to barley, you wait until the barley harvesting. Even if it means the wheat harvesting, it depends on the place} if it’s in the mountain, it’s for when it’s harvesting time in the mountain, in the valley, it’s for when it’s harvesting time in the valley. If he travels to a different habitat between the Neder and the harvesting, we follow the place he was in when he made the Neder.

21) If he makes a Konam until “the rains” or until “there are rains,” he’s forbidden until the second downpour of the season. {Ran explains: the average rain falls then, and it’s not the rain that falls early on the first downpour, or the late rains on the third one.} R’ Shimon b. Gamliel says that it’s only forbidden until the time we expect the second downpour even if the rain didn’t come. This argument is only if he says “the rains,” but by saying “the rain (in the singular)” everyone agrees that it’s until the time we expect the second downpour.

22) {The Ran explains: usually, everyone agrees that people don’t want to get into a Safeik, and thus, he intends that it should only go up to the time it supposed to rain (even if it doesn’t rain yet, at least when it has a known time, excluding ‘the harvesting,’ where we always follow the time it’s actually harvested). A proof to this is the Yerushalmi’s inquiry if someone makes a Neder from wine “until his son’s wedding,” is it establishing the date for the end, since there’s a scheduled date and that’s what he intends to even if it does get pushed off, or since it might get pushed off, it’s not an established time, and he doesn’t intend to the scheduled time even if it gets pushed off since it doesn’t dawn on him that it will get pushed off. Therefore, when someone says rain, he only means the expected time. However, the Tanna Kama says that, if he says in the plural ‘rains,’ he’s adding that he wants to add that the rains need to fall, and R’ Shimon b. Gamliel says that people don’t differentiate between saying ‘rain’ or ‘rains,’ so he’s not trying to add anything.}

23) R’ Shimon b. Gamliel says that the Rabanan agree to him that, if it rained for seven days straight, that it can be counted as the first and second rains (even without a break in the rains) and it’s permitted.

24) The order of the three rain periods; R' Meir says that they're on the third, seventh and seventeenth of Chesvon. R' Yehuda says they're on the seventh, seventeenth and twenty third of Chesvon. R' Yossi says they're the seventeenth and twenty third of Chesvon, and Rosh Chodesh Kisleiv. The practical difference of the date of the first rain is when to start asking for rain. The practical difference for the date of the second rain; R' Zeira says regarding vows that he said “should last until the rains,” it's forbidden until the second rain. The practical difference of the date of the third rains is; if the rains hadn't yet fell by then, the individuals {Ran: i.e., the great Tzadikim} start fasting.

25) If someone says a Konam from wine for a year, if they make it into a leap year, it’s forbidden to him for an extra month. {Ran says: this is when you say “this year” or “the year,” then you’re forbidden until the end even if you’re making the Neder at the beginning of the year, you need to refrain for thirteen months. (After all, if it’s made in middle of the year, since you’re not waiting twelve months anyhow, of course you need to wait until the next Rosh Hashana.) Rashba says that this is only so when you say “this year,” but “for a year,” it’s only forbidden for twelve months. This is not only true if you didn’t explicitly say that you’re starting the year now, since it’s not necessary that the year is a leap year, since you can push it off to next year (albeit, you’ll transgress Baal Taachar by pushing it off, but you would still be keeping your Neder). However, it’s even true if you say it should start today, it’s only forbidden for twelve months. After all, a proof is from Mesechta Erichin that we need a Drasha by selling a house in a walled city of ‘a complete year,’ that it’s included the extra month of a leap year, but regularly, it’s not included. Therefore, this, which we say in Bava Metzia that, if you rent a house for a year, if the year became a leap year, the renter gets the extra month; that’s only when he rented it “for this year” or “for the year” and he rented it at the beginning of the year, but not if he rented it “for a year,” since that would only be for twelve months.}

26) {However, the Ran disagrees, since the Gemara in Bava Metzia says unqualified that the renter gets the extra month, and it should have differentiated that it’s only when he says “this year” on Rosh Hashana. Rather, in all cases, we say the extra month is included. The reason we need a Gezeiras Hakasov by the house in a walled city because it’s not a condition for a particular year, therefore, I might think that all years should be the same, I.e., average years, of twenty four months, so we’re taught otherwise. Also, it seems, even when you say the Neder is for one year, even if you don’t explicitly state that it should start today, it starts right away, and if you’re negligent and don’t keep it right away, you can’t make it up.}

27) If the Neder is until Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon, according to R’ Yehuda regarding dating a document; who says that you write a regular Adar for Adar Rishon, and you spell out Adar Sheini for the second Adar, you’re forbidden until Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon. However, according to R’ Meir who says that you write Adar Sheini as regular Adar, and you need to write Adar Rishon for the first one; you’re forbidden until Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini. However, this is only when you knew at the time of the Neder that it was a leap year, or else it’s always permitted on Adar Rishon. {Ran concludes that the Halacha is like R’ Yehuda and the unqualified Adar is the first one, and if you write an unqualified Adar for Adar Sheini in a document, it’s considered a predated document that’s Pasul.}

28) If he says “until the end of Adar, he’s permitted at the end of Adar Rishon {Ran: either since he holds that the unqualified Adar is the first one, or when he’s not aware that they made it a leap year.}

29) R’ Yehuda says: if someone makes a Konam from wine until it’s Pesach, (although it usually means until it passes Pesach), we assess his intent that he only wants to forbid until the night of Pesach when Jews drink wine {Ran: we assess his intent this way even though the terminology doesn’t imply it.} The same applies when someone makes a Konam from meat until Yom Kippur, he’s permitted to eat meat in the meal {Ran: right before} Yom Kippur since we’re accustomed to eat meat by the Seuda Hamafsekes {Ran: as we assess his intent to be this way}. His son, R’ Yossi b. Yehuda, adds that if he makes a Konam from garlic until it’s Shabbos, it’s permitted on Friday night {Ran: since it’s Ezra’s decree to eat garlic then. Perhaps R’ Yehuda doesn’t allow in this case since it’s just a decree, and not a true enactment.}

30) {Ran says: regarding the Halacha, the Ramban doesn’t Paskin like R’ Yehuda, nor like his son, since these assessments are not as strong as the Gemara’s later assessments since those are more compelling, and probably, the Rabanan disagree with them like they disagree in the sixth Perek regarding what R’ Yehuda says that it all follows the context of the one who made the Neder. Therefore, if he’s carrying piles of flax and its ‘sweating’ liquid, which creates a bad smell, and he makes a Neder from linen, his only intent is on the load he’s only forbidden to carry it, but is permitted to carry it. A proof to this, earlier we said that the term “until it’s Pesach” forbids the full Pesach, and it’s probably referring to the case of the beginning of the Perek of making a Konam on wine. However, the Raah Paskins like R’ Yehuda and his son since it’s brought in a Mishna that’s giving p’sak on assessing intent. Perhaps the case earlier that forbids the whole Pesach was not on the case of wine; or even if it refers to it, it wasn’t exact and was taught on wine just as an extension of the earlier Mishna, and it just explains that the meaning is this way, and the practical difference is regarding other items.}

31) If someone says to his friend “Konam to have pleasure from you if you don’t take a Kur of grain and two barrels of wine,” that the Neder can be permitted without a Chachum by having the receiver say “you only made a Neder to honor me (with this gift) (which is the assessment of his intent) and my honor is my will not to accept the gift.”

32) If he makes a Konam that his friend can’t have pleasure from him if he doesn’t give a gift to my son,” the Neder can be permitted without a Chachum by having the one who made the vow say “it’s as if I accepted it.” However, R’ Meir forbids it.

33) The same with someone who’s pestering him to marry his niece, and he made a Neder to forbid pleasure, he’s permitted with pleasure since we assess his intent that he only wants to stop getting married.

34) In a case where someone was trying to convince another to eat a meal by him, and the other vows that he won’t come into his house and drink cold water; he may drink the water since he only intended to forbid a large eating and drinking . {Ran brings a Tosefta: if someone was pestering to join a party and he makes a Neder to forbid pleasure from it, he’s only forbidden during the party, but not afterwards.}

Perek 9

1) R’ Eliezer says that the Chachum can give an opening to permit the Neder with the honor of his father and mother {Ran explains: it embarrasses his parents the fact that he’s so callous with Nedarim. As we say in Sanhedrin that we call a Rasha the son of a Tzadik as if he’s the son of a Rasha. Alternatively, they’ll say that he learned his habit from his parents since they’re also callous with Nedarim.} However, the Chachumim forbid.

2) R’ Tzadok held that R’ Eliezer even argues regarding the honor of Hashem {Ran: like we say in the Sifri, it’s as if you made a vow in the life of The King}. However, R’ Tzadok colleagues responded that R’ Eliezer agrees in this case not to give such an opening. Abaya explains: since these Nedarim can’t be permitted easily {Ran: since we’re concerned that, even if he doesn’t care much about Hashem’s honor, he won’t be brazen before the Chachum and will claim that he wouldn’t have made the Neder, even though it’s a lie. (However, just for one sin, like that, by making the Neder, he’s transgressing “don’t hate your friend in your heart,” he wouldn’t lie.) R’ Eliezer and his Chachumim argue regarding your parent’s honor if people will be brazen to tell the truth that they don’t care about it much, or they will be also compelled to lie. The Yerushalmi says that we don’t give an opening about your Rebbi’s honor, since we say that the fear of your Rebbi should be like the fear of Heaven.} Rava explains: if we give this opening to permit, he doesn’t need to go to a Chachum anymore to permit {Ran: since it’s applicable by all Nedarim, so he thinks that all Nedarim are automatically permitted with this reason. Although it would seem that an opening for your parents’ honor is applicable by all Nedarim; we can say that R’ Eliezer holds that there are some small Nedarim that it’s not so bad for your parents’ honor, so it’s not automatically permitted by all Nedarim. However, the Rabanan held that it’s applicable by all Nedarim, so he won’t come again to a Chachum to permit. (Alternatively, Rava held the reason for Hashem’s honor like Abaya, that we’re afraid that he’ll lie, but that’s not applicable by parents since it’s no worse than one Mitzvah. On that, he says the reason for the Chachumim that you can’t give such an opening since it’s applicable by all Nedarim, he won’t come to ask).}

3) The Chachumim agree that, if it’s a Neder that concerns the parents {Ran: like he forbade them from having pleasure from him}, it’s possible to give an opening of his parent’s honor. According to Abaya, we don’t need to worry that he’ll lie not to be brazen, since he started to be brazen by forbidding his parents, we’re not worried that he’ll lie to avoid brazenness. According to Rava who holds that you can’t give an opening that’s applicable by all Nedarim, but this is not applicable to all Nedarim, but only those concerning your parents.

4) R’ Eliezer says that you can give an opening on something that came to being after the Neder was made (I.e., Nolad), as we see that Hashem permitted the Neder of Moshe from ever returning to Egypt through that the people who wanted to kill him had died. The Chachumim forbid it {Ran: since only one that’s not Nolad can seem that he made a mistaken Neder, but by Nolad, it wasn’t a mistake to make the Neder at that time.} They push off the proof from Moshe since the antagonists didn’t die, but they just became poor {Ran: the Yerushalmi says: becoming poor and regrets are not a problem of Nolad.}

5) If someone makes a Neder, you don't permit it if the one you made it before is not there. {Ran says: the Yerushalmi brings an argument why you can't annul without the other before him. Some say in order to embarrass him that he made such an insulting vow to forbid him to have pleasure from someone (which is only applicable by Nedarim that he forbade to have pleasure). Others say it's because he'll suspect you that you're transgressing your vow if he didn't witness the permitting (which is applicable to all Nedarim. However, there’s a leniency that you don’t need to actually permit it before him, but as long as you inform him. However, according to the other reason, you need to permit it only in front of him.}

6) {Ran says : there are those who want to prove from the Gemara in Gitten that was worried, when a widow makes a Neder to collect her Kesuva, that she'll have a Chachum permit it and we don't say that the Chachum can't permit this vow if the orphans aren't there, since it's only L'chatchila, but B'dieved, it's annulled. We also see that the Sanhedrin permitted Tzidkiyahu’s Neder not in front of Nevuchadnetzar. (That, which they permitted it L’chatchila since it was bothering Tzidkiyahu so much that it was diverting him from his service of Hashem, or that they thought that the Mitzvah to listen to the king superseded this prohibition.) However, the Raavad forbids and rejects these proofs since it shouldn’t make a difference to the orphans, after she made her Neder, if she’s permitted to eat the fruits. Alternatively, we’re worried that she’ll think it’s permitted when it’s not. Also, we see that Tzidkiyahu and the Sanhedrin were punished for it, so we can’t bring a proof from what they did wrong.}

7) R’ Meir says: there are things that seem like Nolad, but it really isn’t. Like if someone says that he’s not marrying Plonis since her father’s a bad person. If he’s informed that her father died or did Teshuva, he’s permitted. The same if he made a Neder not to enter a house with a vicious dog or snake is in it, if he’s told that it died, he may enter. However, the Chachumim disagree. (Some texts say that they agree.)

8) The reason that it’s not Nolad; R’ Huna explains: since he made it dependent on something {Ran: since he only made the Neder because of the father, and since he died, the Neder doesn’t take effect, and he doesn’t even need a Chachum to permit it. This is also brought in the Yerushalmi.} R’ Yochanan holds that we refer to when he already died or did Teshuva when he made the Neder, so it was a mistaken Neder. However, it’s difficult to R’ Yochanan since later we bring cases of mistaken Nedarim, so, why do you need this case too?

9) R’ Meir also permitted with giving an opening, would you make the Neder if you would realize that you’re transgressing taking revenge, bearing a grudge, don’t hate your friend, or love your friend like yourself. {Ran says: although in the third Perek, we don’t allow with an opening that “all who vow is as if he constructed a Bama, and if he fulfills it, and doesn’t ask a Chachum to permit it it’s as if he brought a Korban on it since he might lie; that’s because it’s a great punishment, but these Mitzvos are not so stringent to people and he wouldn’t be embarrassed to say that he would have made the Neder anyhow.}

10) Also, if he made the Neder and then the forbidden one becomes poor, we can permit with an opening would he make a Neder if he would transgress “you should make your brother live with you.” Although he doesn’t fall on you personally, but on the public, and you can do your part by donating to the administrator {Ran: and the administrator can distribute it as he sees fit, so it’s like you gave it to another party in between, who can now give it to the one who’s forbidden}, still since he doesn’t fall immediately on the public, {Ran: but first tries to borrow money from his relatives, and at that time he transgresses “you should make your brother live with you.”}

11) You can give an opening would you make the Neder on your wife if you realize you need to pay her a Kesuva and you need to pay her your whole inheritance from your father?

12) There’s an argument between R’ Meir and the Rabanan whether you can collect movable objects for a Kesuva. {Ran says: the Rabanan held that, since he might not end up needing to pay it since he might not die first or divorce her, so she’s not very confident that she’ll collect anyhow, so she doesn’t feel confident to collect but from land. That’s why she’s not similar to all creditors who collect from everything, even from movable objects (and also from orphans, all creditors only collect from land). However, R’ Meir held the opposite, that even movable objects of the orphans can be collected by a Kesuva, although not for any other debt.}

13) We have an argument whether we allow a debtor to keep his necessities {Ran: to allow him to keep his bed and mattress, his work tools, food for thirty days and clothes for twelve months. Do we extrapolate it from Eirchin, where we do, or not? However, what he didn’t pay yet} we don’t rip up the document {Ran: and if he gets money later, he still needs to repay the balance, and it’s not like by Erichin, where he remains exempt.}

14) We give an opening with Shabbos and Yom Tov {Ran: if I would have known that it was forbidden to pain ourselves on those days.} Originally, they held that only Shabbos and Yom Tov were forbidden until R’ Akiva came and Darshens that a Neder that’s partially permitted becomes fully permitted {Ran: as it says “all which comes out of your mouth,” that you’re only obligated if you need to keep the whole Neder.}

15) If he said “all of you are forbidden” and then permits one of them, they’re all permitted. However, if he says “I forbid Ploni and Ploni, etc.” if he permits the first one, the rest are permitted, but if he permits the last one, all the other people are forbidden {Ran: since the latter ones are not dependent on the earlier ones}. If he says “this ones a Korban and this one is a Korban,” even if you permit the first one, you still need to permit the second one. {Ran says: in all other ways, like when he says “Korban to you, Korban to you, Korban to you” without a Vuv between them, or “Korban to you, and Korban to you, and Korban to you” with a Vuv between them, is considered as one general statement and if one is permitted, they’re all permitted.} This is like R’ Shimon who says if you swear to five people that you don’t owe them money, you’re only obligated in one Korban since it’s one swearing until you say another swearing for each one. {Ran says that the Halacha is like R’ Shimon, even though there’s an unnamed Mishna in Shvuos not like R’ Shimon, but here and Kiddushin we have unnamed Mishnayos like R’ Shimon (so unnamed Mishnayos are not a proof to us). Also, the Gemara in Kiddushin had a give and take according to R’ Shimon, implying that the Halacha is like him. R’ Chananel and Ramban also Paskins that way.}

16) If someone makes a Neder from a food that’s detrimental to a certain limb, and then he learns that there are some varieties that are not detrimental to that limb, but beneficial; since part of the Neder is permitted, the whole Neder is permitted {Ran: even without giving an opening}.

17) They can give an opening for his own honor and his son’s honor (if he made a Neder on his wife) if people will start rumors on you that you habitually divorce wives, or that they’ll say on his son; what could be by his mother that her husband decided he must divorce her?

18) If he says “Konam from marrying this ugly woman,” and she turned out to be really pretty, “Konam from marrying this dark woman,” and she turned out to be really light colored, “Konam from marrying this short woman,” and she turned out to be really tall; he’s permitted to marry her since he made the Neder mistakenly. However, it can’t be that she was originally ugly, and she became pretty, or she was originally dark, and she became light, or she was originally short, and she became tall. {The Ran says: although earlier we allow if the bad father dies or does Teshuva; Rashba answers: since it’s normal for the father to eventually die or do Teshuva, but it’s not normal for an ugly girl to become pretty. Therefore, he didn’t vow on the thought that he doesn’t want it if she becomes pretty. R’ Shmuel b. Ribach answers: if he says “Konam from marrying this woman because she’s ugly,” it’s making his Neder dependent on her being ugly, but since he says “Konam from marrying this ugly woman,” it’s not like he’s making the Neder dependent on it, but just describing the woman.}

19) R’ Yishmael says:, it’s even when she was originally ugly, and she became pretty, {Ran: since he holds that you give an opening with Nolad}. After all, Jewish girls are really pretty, but poverty makes them disheveled.