25.3 Makkos Daf 16 B (9 lines Dn)Rabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two _lav hanitak l’esehs_ that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.Rabbi Elazar, the other one is Oneis.Challenge: Are there no more than two _lav hanitak l’esehs_ that have the possibility of carrying a _malkos_ penalty? What about Pei’ah? If it was already turned into flour, the opportunity to separate _pei’ah_ is ruined. One would be liable for _malkos_ even if we hold _bitlo v’lo bitlo._SummaryResolution: Rabbi Yochanan excludes Pei’ah in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael who says that _pei’ah_ can even be set aside once it was turned into dough.Challenge: What if he consumed the dough? Even Rabbi Yishmael would agree that he ruined any opportunity to fulfill the _eseh_ in such a case.Resolution: The second case of Rabbi Yochanan (24.5) was indeed Pei’ah.Rabbi Elazar’s opinion (24.6) that _oneis_ is the second case, was based on the statement of Ameimar (25.1) that a _neder_ contingent on the public’s opinion cannot be revoked. However this rule does not apply to a case of a _mitzvah._ _(See 25.1; it is impossible to revoke it because it would require the public’s consent. However in the case of a mitzvah we can assume the public would consent)._ Since there is an eseh for the oneis to take her as a wife, he cannot swear her off effectively.There was a mikra teacher who was too rough with the boys. Rav Acha forced him to take a _neder al daas rabim_ that he will never teach boys again. Ravina reinstated him because they could not find another teacher who was so precise. [Since it was a _mitzvah_ to have him teaching the boys, Ravina overruled the _neder al daas rabim]. (We also see that it’s a mitzvah to teach chumash with precision; Yoav ben Tzeruyah was taught “zachar Amalek” instead of “zecher Amalek” and it led to a great error in practice)._ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.