Explanation: R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that even in such a case, we establish him in his law (like one who said Ad ha'Geshem), for people are not so meticulous [to distinguish] between Geshem and Geshamim.

Question: If when there is no fixed time for its beginning, he means until the time comes, like I wrote, when he said "until the harvest", why is he forbidden until people start harvesting?

We should say that it is until the time of the harvest comes, even though people are not yet harvesting!

Just like there is no fixed time for its duration, similarly there is no fixed time for its beginning. This is like "Ad ha'Geshem"!

Answer: This is not difficult. Regarding rain, since we know the time of the Revi'ah, like the Beraisa below, we follow it;

However, we do not know the time of the harvest. It all depends on the land. Some lands produce early, and some are late;

Therefore, since we do not know its time, you are forced to say that we follow the actual time of the harvest. So it seems to me.

Gemara - Question (Beraisa): The first rain is on the third.

Explanation: Of Cheshvan.

Gemara: Afeilah (late).

Explanation: The last [rain].

Gemara: Individuals do not fast.

Explanation: Chachamim who fast and pray for rain, like the Mishnah (Ta'anis 10a) says 'the individuals begin fasting.'

Gemara: To request.

Explanation: 'V'Sen Tal u'Matar' in Birkas ha'Shanim.

Gemara: To fast.

Explanation: If rain did not fall.

Gemara: For one who vows

Explanation: If one vowed 'Ad ha'Geshamim', he is forbidden until the second Revi'ah. Stam ha'Geshamim implies the second Revi'ah. It is not early, and not late.

Explanation #1: He says [that the first two Revi'os are on] the 17th and 23rd [of Cheshvan]. According to R. Meir, there are less than seven days between them, and according to R. Yehudah, there are more [than seven].

R. Shimon ben Gamliel addresses them according to their reasoning. Regarding a Noder, I am not particular at all about rain falling, only about the times for rain;

However, according to you, who are particular about rain actually falling, admit to me that even though they started falling at the beginning of the first Revi'ah, and they didn't stop...

Even so, admit to me that since they extended until the second Revi'ah, they have the law of the second Revi'ah, and the time of his vow finished.

Explanation #1 (cont.): We are thinking that we discuss one who vowed Ad ha'Geshem. This is the normal way of people;

If R. Zeira is correct, that when he said Ad ha'Geshem, all agree that it is until the time comes, how did R. Shimon ben Gamliel say to them "admit to me at least"?

And why did he discuss when they fell? Even if they did not fall at all, since he vowed Ad ha'Geshem, and the time came for the second Revi'ah, all agree that the time of his vow finished!

Explanation #1 (cont.): We answer that he said Ad ha'Geshamim. I.e. had he said Ad ha'Geshem, indeed, all agree that it suffices until the time comes;

However, here the case is that he said Ad ha'Geshamim. This is the correct Perush of this Sugya.

Explanation #2: Others explained that initially, R. Zeira said "Machlokes..." i.e. [to explain] when they argue in our Mishnah. However, all agree that he is forbidden until the second Revi'ah. One holds that this is until it falls, and one holds that this is until [the time] comes;

This is only when he said Ad ha'Geshamim, but if he said Ad ha'Geshem, he means until the time of rain, i.e. the first Revi'ah. One holds that this is until it falls, and one holds until [the time] actually comes;

When he said "Machlokes", it is as if he said "we learned [only...]" We challenge this from R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that you count them [seven days of rain] like the first and second Revi'ah;

Inference: Even if he said Ad ha'Geshem, for we are thinking that this is the case, he is forbidden until the second Revi'ah.

We answer that this is when he said Ad ha'Geshamim.

Explanation: I already wrote above that the primary Chidush of the Tana is that even if he vowed from the beginning of the year, since he said "the year", we do not say that he meant one year;

Rather, he is forbidden in it (the year) and its added month, i.e. 13 months.

Distinction: This is only if he said "the year" or "this year." However, if he said "one year" Stam, the added month is not included, even if the year in which he vowed is Me'uberes;

This is because if he did not observe the Isur this year, he completes it in the coming simple (non-leap) year.

Implied question: One may not do so l'Chatchilah, since there is Bal Te'acher!

Answer: Since if he delayed, he completes in another year, his vow was not fixed in this year, which is Me'uberes. Therefore, even if he fulfilled it in this year, the added month is not included.

Opinion #1: The Rashba added that even if he says "one year from this day", the added month is not included.

Proof (Rashba): The Mishnah in Erchin (31a) says that if one sold a Bayis Ir Chomah, he counts the year [in which he has the right to redeem it] only from the time he sold it to him, for it says "Ad Melos Lo Shanah Semimah";

Semimah includes the added month. Selling a Bayis Ir Chomah is like saying "one year from this day", for he counts from the time of the sale;

Even so, this is only because the Torah included it. If not, we would count 12 months without the added month.

Consequence: [The Rashba] wrote also that according to this, the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a (102a) which says that if one rented a house to his friend for a year, and it became a leap year, the tenant gets the added month [for free]...

This is when he said "this year" or "the year." The tenant always gets the added month;

However, we find that he gets 13 months only when [he said so] on Rosh Hashanah, but not if he said so in the middle of the year;

If [in the middle of the year] he said "the year" or "this year", he has only until Rosh Hashanah;

If he said "one year", he counts only 12 months from today. These are [the Rashba's] words.

Rebuttal: Surely, the Tana's primary Chidush is to say that in a leap year, the tenant gets 13 months;

If you will say that this is only when [he said so] on Rosh Hashanah, the Tana should have explained this;

He should not have written Stam a uniform law "if it became a leap year, the tenant gets the added month", for we find this only in a rare situation!

Opinion #2: Therefore, it seems to me that one who vows or rents, whenever the vow or rental preceded the added month, and they said "one year", from this day we count 13 months;

The Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a is like the simple reading (even if he did not rent on Rosh Hashanah).

Implied question: If so, the Mishnah in Erchin (31a) is difficult!

Answer: This is no proof at all;

If there was a Tenai between the seller and the buyer in a leap year, to say "if you will not redeem from this day to another year, it will be Chalut (the right to redeem will cease)", indeed, we would not need an inclusion to include the added month;

However, here the seller and buyer do not stipulate at all. Rather, the Torah fixed a time for all years, that if he does not redeem until a year, it is Chalut;

Therefore, if not for an inclusion, one might have thought that the Torah allotted one time for all buyers, i.e. 12 months, which is a year, in most years;

Support: You see that at the beginning of our Perek, we reject that even during a leap year, if one said 'the year', had the Tana not taught [otherwise], one might have thought that we follow most years, which do not have an added month;

All the more so, the Torah, which did not discuss a known year, if not for an inclusion, one might have thought that it refers to [what is considered] a year, in most years. Therefore, we need an inclusion. So it seems to me.

Supposition: I suspect further to say that even if one vowed one year Stam, he is forbidden in the added month, for presumably it connotes this year;

Even if he transgressed [his vow], I lean to say that there is no compensation, for his vow took effect from now;

This is explained from what I wrote at the beginning of this Maseches (3b) regarding how Bal Te'acher applies to Nezirus. Once he said "Hareini Nazir", he is a Nazir! (Rather, he said "I will not leave the world until I am a Nazir." This connotes "it is Alai to count Nezirus in a way that there will be no concern for [not fulfilling] the matter, and I will complete my Nezirus before I leave the world.")

Mishnah: 'Until Rosh Chodesh Adar' - [he is forbidden] until Rosh Chodesh of the first Adar. 'Until the end of Adar' - until the end of the first Adar.

Explanation: This is the primary text. The reason is because Stam Adar is Rishon.

Alternative text: Some texts say 'until the end of Adar' - until the end of Adar Sheni.

Explanation: He holds that the two Adar's are like one month. Therefore, when he said 'until the start', he is forbidden until Rosh Chodesh Adar ha'Rishon, and when he said 'until the end' he is forbidden until the end of Adar Sheni.

Observation: According to the first text that I wrote (in the previous Dibur) in our Mishnah (if he vowed "until the end of Adar", he is forbidden until the end of Adar Rishon), this is fine. Our Mishnah teaches that whether he said "until the start", or "until the end", this implies [Adar] Rishon.

Also according to the other text ("until the end" forbids until Sof Adar Sheni), the Gemara means as follows. Since [both Adars] are considered like one month, all counts of the Adars are for Adar Rishon;

This is like R. Yehudah, who says that in Adar Rishon, he writes Stam.

Indeed, according to him, on the 10th of Adar Sheni, if he wants, he counts from Adar Rishon. However, when he wants to count from Adar Sheni, he writes "Sheni". (I.e. he can say 'three months from Adar 15', or 'two months from Adar Sheni 15.' - PF)

However, we cannot establish our Mishnah like R. Meir. Since he said that Stam Adar connotes Sheni, and not Rishon, this shows that it is considered a month unto itself.

Gemara: And a Beraisa teaches.

Explanation: This is [a support, and] not a question.

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. Since it taught "until Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon", this implies that there is a second [Adar]!

Rather, surely the entire [Beraisa] discusses a leap year. However, in the Reisha he did not know that it is Me'uberes;

Therefore, when he said "until Rosh Chodesh Adar", this implies until Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon, for he did not know that there is Adar Sheni.

The Seifa, which taught "if it was a leap year...", means that if he knew at the time of his vow that it is Me'uberes, when he said "until Adar", this implies until Adar Sheni.

Question: According to the other text in our Mishnah, that "until the end of Adar" is until the end of Adar Sheni, this is difficult to me;

Since we establish our Mishnah to be when he did not know that the year is Me'uberes, why is he forbidden until the end of Adar Sheni?

Gemara: Regarding the Halachah.

Explanation: Since we hold (Eruvin 46b) that when R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah, we hold that Stam Adar implies Rishon.

Consequence: If one is in Adar Sheni, and he writes Adar Stam, the document is predated, and it is Pasul, for Stam Adar implies Rishon. Therefore, he must write 'in the month Adar Sheni';

In Adar ha'Rishon, he writes [Adar] Stam, both in Gitin and in documents.

Mishnah: This person intended only until the time when people normally drink wine.

Explanation: I.e. until Pesach night. We follow assessment of intent. He did not intend to forbid wine on the nights of Pesach, even though according to the wording of his vow, it implies that he is forbidden, for he said 'until it will be.' (Why does the Ran say nights (plural) of Pesach? Almost all the Tana'im were in Eretz Yisrael, where there is no Yom Tov Sheni! Also, the Mishnah says Leilei Yom Kipur and Leilei Shabbos! Perhaps this refers to one who forbade himself every year '[e.g. from Rosh Chodesh Nisan] until it will be Pesach.' - PF)

Mishnah: Until the time when people eat meat.

Explanation: I.e. Erev Yom Kipur, like a Mishnah (Chulin 83a) teaches. R. Yosi ha'Gelili says, even Erev Yom Kipur in Galil (one must inform one who buys an animal if he sold its mother for Shechitah, lest both buyers slaughter on Erev Yom Kipur, for it is common to eat meat then).

Remark: This is a bigger Chidush than the first case, for its Isur does not extend until the fast. 'Until the nights of Yom Kipur' is not precise, for one eats during the day! Rather, it is until the Seudah of Leilei Yom Kipur.

Gemara: For it is the way of people to eat garlic.

Explanation: On Shabbos night, from Ezra's enactment.

Opinion #1: The Ramban wrote that the Halachah does not follow the father (R. Yehudah), and not [his] son (R. Yosi), for Rabanan argue with them;

The Tana taught Stam "he intended only..." only in a case that this is proven, like the Seifa teaches when they were refusing [and vowed to stop others from pressuring them];

Alternatively, [we say "he intended only..."] in a case like the Mishnah above (55b), when he was laden [with wool and linen] and sweating [and said 'wool and linen will not come on me'...], Rabanan agree, because the assessment is proven, like I explained there.

Since Rabanan agreed with R. Yehudah about these cases, he added even one who vows until Pesach;

Even though it connotes "until it ends", we assume leniently, that he fixed this time just so he could fulfill the Mitzvah with wine on this night;

His son (R. Yosi) added even regarding garlic, which [is not a Mitzvah. It] is only an enactment of Ezra, we estimate like this (he fixed this time so he could fulfill the enactment). Perhaps also the father argues with his son.

Assertion: However, surely Rabanan do not hold like either of them. The Stam Tana never taught a severe case (when we are lenient based on a weak estimation). He taught only light cases (when we are lenient based on solid estimations). We may not add [to what the Stam Tana taught]!

Support: A Mishnah above (60a) says [that if one said] "until Pesach", he is forbidden until it comes. [If he said] "Ad she'Yehei", he is forbidden until it ends;

Inference: Since it did not return to teach "she'Ani Ochel" or "she'Ani Holech Ad ha'Pesach", rather, it taught Stam, this shows that the Seifa was taught similar to the Reisha, which taught "Konam is wine";

This shows that "Konam Yayin she'Ani To'em Ad she'Yehei Pesach" according to Rabanan forbids until Pesach ends. Therefore, the Halachah follows them. Until here is from the Ramban.

Opinion #2 (Ro'oh): Also these [cases of R. Yehudah and R. Yosi] were taught regarding clearcut Halachah. I.e. all the laws of estimation brought after this, the Halachah follows also [these cases].

Implied question: A Mishnah above (60a) says that "Ad she'Yehei Pesach" forbids until it ends!

Answer #1: Perhaps it does not refer to "Konam is wine."

Answer #2: Even if you will say that it refers to it, along with the others it taught "Ad ha'Pesach", for there it comes only to teach the intent (meaning) of the words.

Mishnah: One who says to his friend... this is my honor!

Explanation: Since the assessment proves [that he intended so], he is permitted.

Mishnah: R. Meir says, he is forbidden until he gives.

Explanation: He argues also about the first case; he is forbidden until he receives.

Support: It says so in the Yerushalmi. I already explained this Mishnah above (24a) at length, with Hash-m's help.

Mishnah: To marry his sister's daughter.

Explanation: This is a Mitzvah, like we say in Yevamos (62b), one who marries his sister's daughter, it says about him "Az Tikra va'Shem Ya'aneh."

Mishnah: This one intended only for eating and drinking.

Explanation: He did not [intend] to be forbidden to enter the house or to taste a drop of a cold drink.

Tosefta:

Citation (Tosefta): If one was refusing to eat at his friend's banquet, and said 'Konam is your house that I will enter', during the banquet is forbidden; after the banquet is permitted.