Explanation: I.e. even R. Eliezer agrees to Rabanan that we are not Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor, for if we were Pose'ach, there are no Nedarim.

The Gemara explains what is a matter between him and his father or mother, e.g. he forbade them to benefit from him.

Distinction: However, granted, we conclude here that we are not Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor. Only with Hash-m's honor we are not Pose'ach, for if we were Pose'ach, Nedarim are not permitted well;

This is like the Gemara says, for no one would be brazen to say that even if he knew that he belittles Hash-m's honor, he would have vowed;

Even if initially he would not have refrained due to this, he will lie to say so [that he would have refrained];

However, we are Pose'ach with honor of one Mitzvah, like the Mishnah below (65b) that we are Pose'ach for him with what is written in the Torah;

[We say] 'had you known that you transgress "Lo Sisna Es Achicha bi'Lvavecha", would you have vowed?'

This is because one Mitzvah like these that the Tana lists are not so severe to people. If he would have vowed even if he was aware of this, he will not lie to say so "had I known, I would have refrained."

Support: This is like the Mishnah teaches (66a) that we are Pose'ach with Shabbosos.

Explanation: Even if initially he would not have refrained due to Hash-m's honor, he will not be brazen about this in front of the Chacham, and he will lie and say "had I known, I would not have vowed";

It turns out that vows are not permitted well. Therefore, R. Eliezer agrees to Rabanan that we are not Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor;

However, regarding honor of his father or mother, he argues. Rabanan forbid, for they hold that there is no difference between honor of Hash-m and honor of his father or mother. Therefore, we are not Pose'ach;

R. Eliezer holds that regarding honor of Hash-m, a person is not brazen. Regarding honor of his father or mother, one would be brazen [and admit that he would not vowed in any case]. Therefore, we are Pose'ach [with this].

Explanation: If so, that we are Pose'ach with Hash-m's honor, people will not ask a Chacham [to permit vows]. Everyone will make this Pesach for himself, for this Pesach is proper for all Nedarim!

Question: If this is why R. Eliezer agrees about Hash-m's honor, why does he argue about honor of his father or mother? Also there, there is concern for this reason (everyone will make this Pesach for himself)!

Answer: Perhaps R. Eliezer holds that there are Nedarim that are so light that there is no disgrace to his father or mother through them. For them, one cannot be Pose'ach with the honor of his father or mother;

Therefore, since this Pesach does not suffice for all Nedarim, for those Nedarim for which it suffices, we are Pose'ach\t, like we conclude in our Sugya;

Rabanan hold that if it is true that we are Pose'ach with this, it suffices for all Nedarim. If so, no one will ask a Chacham. Therefore, we are not Pose'ach any Nedarim with this.

Explanation: Abaye said that if so, vows are not permitted well. Therefore, R. Eliezer agrees to Rabanan about Hash-m's honor (we are not Pose'ach with it);

He argues about honor of his father or mother for this reason itself, like I wrote above. R. Eliezer is not concerned for the reason that vows are not permitted well, and Rabanan are concerned.

Rava argues with him (Abaye), and says that indeed, regarding Hash-m's honor, you are correct. There is concern that vows are not permitted well. Therefore, all agree that we are not Pose'ach with it;

However, regarding honor of his father or mother, even Rabanan are not concerned that vows are not permitted well, for the Tana says that for the honor of one Mitzvah we are Pose'ach, like I wrote in our Mishnah. Honor of his father or mother is no different;

Rather, the reason Rabanan forbid with honor of his father or mother is because if we are Pose'ach, since this Pesach suffice for all Nedarim, people will not ask a Chacham;

R. Eliezer is not concerned for this reason at all.