Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) NEZIRUS FROM ONE CUP

(a) (Mishnah): They mixed a cup of wine for a man; he said, 'I am a Nazir from it' - he is a Nazir.
(b) There was a case of a woman that was drunk. They mixed a cup of wine for her; she said, 'I am a Nazir from it' - Chachamim said, she only intended to forbid that cup with a vow.
(c) (Gemara) Question: The case brought opposes the Mishnah!

1. The beginning of the Mishnah says, he is a Nazir; in the case brought, she is forbidden to drink that cup, but permitted to drink others!

(d) Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated; it means, 'They mixed a cup of wine for a man; he said, 'I am a Nazir from it' - he is a Nazir; if he was drunk, he is not a Nazir.

1. The reason is, it is as if he forbade that cup as a sacrifice.
2. Suggestion: If so, he should have said so!
3. Answer: He reasoned, if I forbid just that cup, they will bring me another and annoy me; rather, I will say something which will cause them to desist.
4. There was a case of a woman ...

(a) (Mishnah): 'I am a Nazir on condition that I can drink wine and become Tamei' - he is a Nazir, with all the prohibitions;
(b) 'I knew about Nezirus, but I did not know that a Nazir is forbidden to drink wine' - he is forbidden; R. Shimon says, he is permitted;
(c) 'I knew that a Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, but I thought that Chachamim will permit me because I cannot live without wine, or because I bury the dead' - he is permitted; R. Shimon says, he is forbidden.
(d) (Gemara) Question: R. Shimon should also argue in the 1st case!
(e) Answer #1 (R. Yehoshua Ben Levi): Indeed, he also argues in the 1st case.
(f) Answer #2 (Ravina): He does not argue, because the man stipulates contrary to Torah, and such a stipulation is void.

1. R. Yehoshua Ben Levi holds, when he said 'on condition', he is delimiting what he is accepting (as opposed to accepting Nezirus and stipulating that he will have a leniency).

(g) A Beraisa supports Ravina.
(h) (Beraisa): 'I am a Nazir on condition that I can drink wine and become Tamei' - he is a Nazir, with all the prohibitions, because he stipulated contrary to Torah, and such a stipulation is void.
(i) (Mishnah): 'I knew that a Nazir is forbidden to drink wine ...'
(j) Question: In the previous case, Chachamim said that he is forbidden, and R. Shimon said that he is permitted!
(k) Answer #1: The opinions should be switched - (Chachamim say) he is forbidden, R. Shimon says he is permitted.
(l) Answer #2: There is no need to switch the opinions.

1. In the previous case, he did not accept all prohibitions of a Nazir. Chachamim say, acceptance of 1 prohibition suffices to make him a full Nazir; R. Shimon says, unless he accepts all prohibitions, he is permitted. 2. In this case, he accepted all the prohibitions, and seeks annulment of 1 of them.

i. According to Chachamim, just as acceptance of 1 prohibition makes him a full Nazir, annulment of 1 prohibition permits him.
ii. According to R. Shimon, just as he is not a full Nazir unless he accepts all prohibitions, he is permitted unless he annuls all the prohibitions.

(m) Answer #3: The Tana'im argue regarding vows in situations of coercion, as Rav Asi and Shmuel argue.

1. (Mishnah): Chachamim permitted 4 categories of vows: vows of persuasion; vows of exaggeration; vows through oversight; and coerced vows.
2. (Rav Asi): One who took one of these vows must ask a Chacham to annul it.
3. Shmuel: The Tana says, Chachamim permitted these vows - you cannot say, one must ask a Chacham!

(n) Chachamim hold as Shmuel (he is permitted immediately), and R. Shimon holds as Rav Asi (he is forbidden until he asks a Chacham).

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven said 'I am a Nazir, and it is upon me to bring sacrifices of a Nazir'; Shimon heard this, and said 'I also, and it is upon me to bring sacrifices of a Nazir' - if they are clever, each brings the sacrifices of the other; if not, each must bring (his own sacrifices and) the sacrifices of another Nazir.
(b) (Gemara) Question: If Shimon heard and said 'I also' - does this refer to both things Reuven said, or on just one?

1. Question: If it only refers to one - to the 1st, or the 2nd?

(c) Answer (Mishnah): 'I also, and it is upon me to bring sacrifices of a Nazir' - from the fact that he had to say 'And it is upon me' in addition to 'I also', we see that 'I also' only refers to one.
(d) Question: Does it refer to the 1st or the 2nd?
(e) Answer: We also learn this from the Mishnah - since he had to repeat the 2nd, 'I also' refers to the 1st.
(f) Question (Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Perhaps it really refers to both - 'And it is upon me' merely clarifies what he accepted!

1. Support for this is the continuation of the Mishnah (12B) - 'It is upon me to bring sacrifices of a half-Nazir'; Shimon heard this, and said 'I also, and it is upon me to bring sacrifices of a half-Nazir'.

i. There, Shimon only heard one thing - clearly, 'And it is upon me' merely clarifies what he accepted!

(g) Answer (Rava): If 'I also' always only refers to 1, the Mishnayos are understandable.

1. Our Mishnah must teach 'And it is upon me' (without this, Shimon only accepted Nezirus); the next Mishnah repeats 'And it is upon me' for parallel structure.
2. But if 'I also' refers to both things - there was no need to teach 'And it is upon me', in either Mishnah!