Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ANNULMENT BY A HUSBAND

(a) Answer #4 (Beraisa): A woman accepted to be a Nazir, and became Teme'ah; later, her husband annulled her Nezirus - she brings a bird as a sin-offering, but not a bird burnt-offering.

1. Suggestion: If a husband cuts off a vow - she should also bring a bird as a burnt-offering!
2. Counter-question: But if he uproots it - she should also be exempt from the bird sin-offering!
3. Answer: The Beraisa is as R. Eliezer ha'Kapar.

i. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ha'Kapar): Question: "That he sinned on the soul" - on which soul did he sin?
ii. Answer: (On his own soul), he pained himself by abstaining from wine; for this he is called a sinner.

4. One who pains himself by abstaining from only 1 thing is called a sinner - all the more so, one who fasts and denies himself all food!

(b) Answer #5 (Beraisa): Leah accepted to be a Nezirah; Rachel said 'And I'. Leah's husband annulled her vow - Leah is not a Nezirah, Rachel is.

1. This proves that a husband's annulment cuts off a vow.

(c) (Continuation of Beraisa): R. Shimon says, if Rachel said, I am as you, when Leah's Nezirus is annulled, so is Rachel's.

(d) (Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari): From Chachamim (who say that Rachel remains a Nezirah after Leah's Nezirus is annulled) we can resolve the question of Rami Bar Chama.

1. Question (Rami Bar Chama): This is forbidden to me as the meat of Shelamim - what is the law?

i. Does a person Matfis (endow Chulin with the Kedushah of something Kodesh) as the original Kedushah of the Kodesh (i.e. before the blood of the Shelamim was thrown on the Altar, when the meat was forbidden to all)?
ii. Or, does he Matfis with the final Kedushah (i.e. after the blood was thrown, and the meat may be eaten)?

(e) Version #1 - Objection: Our case is unlike Rami Bar Chama's case!

1. There, even though the meat may be eaten after the blood is thrown - it may not be eaten outside the Temple! (And a person might intend Lehatfis in the final Kedushah.)
2. Here, Rachel cannot intend Lehatfis in the final Kedushah - after Leah's Nezirus is annulled, Leah is not a Nezirah at all!

(f) Version #2: Yes, from Chachamim we can resolve the question (a person is Matfis in the original Kedushah).

(a) Question: After Leah accepted Nezirus, Rachel said 'I am a Nazirah in your footsteps' - what is the law?

1. Does Rachel intend to always have the same status as Leah, and if Leah's Nezirus is annulled, Rachel will also be permitted?
2. Or, does she intend to follow in Leah's path before annulment (and will remain forbidden)?

(b) Answer (Mishnah): Leah said, 'I am a Nezirah'; her husband heard and said 'And I' - he cannot annul her Nezirus.

1. If a person intends Lehatfis before annulment - he should be able to annul her Nezirus, and he will still be a Nazir!
2. Rather, it must be that he wants to always have her status, and therefore he cannot annul her Nezirus (for this would permit his own Nezirus).

i. If someone else was Matfis in Leah's Nezirus, he would become permitted after annulment.

(c) Rejection: Really, a person is Matfis before annulment.

1. Her husband cannot annul her Nezirus, because saying 'And I', is as confirmation.

i. If he regrets his confirmation, and a Chacham annuls the confirmation, the husband may then annul his wife's Nezirus; if not, he cannot annul it.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven said to his wife 'I am a Nazir - and you?' She answered 'Amen' - he can annul her Nezirus, and he is still a Nazir.
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa): Reuven said to his wife 'I am a Nazir - and you?' If she answered 'Amen', they are both Nezirim; if not, neither is a Nazir. - he can annul her Nezirus, and he is still a Nazir.
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): Correct the Beraisa to say 'He can annul her Nezirus, and he is still a Nazir' (as the Mishnah).
(d) Answer #2 (Abaye): We need not alter the Beraisa. The case is, he said 'I am a Nazir, and you?' - he only accepted Nezirus if she will be a Nazir.