Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) VOWS OF KUSIM

1. "A man" teaches that (regular) Nezirus applies to them!

(b) Answer: R. Yochanan taught, shaving on money the father set aside for shaving is tradition from Moshe from Sinai; a verse would not come to exclude this.
(c) Question: "A man that Yafli (precisely) takes a vow of Erchin" - why is the verse needed?

1. By calling Erchin a vow, the Torah equates Erchin to vows.
2. (Beraisa): "A man" - this teaches that Kusim may vow sacrifices as Yisrael.

(d) (Summation of question): What does "A man that Yafli takes a vow of Erchin" teach? (Even without this, we would learn from vows that Erchin apply partially to Kusim!)
(e) Answer: To include a Mufla Samuch l'Ish (someone close to adulthood that understands vows).

1. This fits well according to the opinion that vows of a Mufla Samuch l'Ish are valid mid'Oraisa.

(f) Question: According to the opinion that Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Rabanan, what does the verse teach?
(g) Answer: To include a Kusi Mufla Samuch l'Ish (his vows of Erchin are valid mid'Oraisa).

1. This fits well according to the following opinion.
2. (Beraisa): Bnei Yisrael have Erchin values (if one vows to give the Erech of a Yisrael, this is valid); Kusim do not;

i. One might have thought, Kusim cannot vow to give Erchin - "A man" teaches, they can.

(h) Question: According to the following opinion, what does the verse teach?

1. (Beraisa): Bnei Yisrael can vow to give Erchin; Kusim cannot;

i. One might have thought, Kusim have no Erchin values - "A man" teaches, they have Erchin values.

(i) (Summation of question): Even a month old baby has an Erech value - what does "Yafli" teach?
(j) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): To teach that vows of an adult Kusi are valid only if he understands vows.
(k) Question: "Yafli" is also written by Nezirus - what does it teach?

1. Nezirus is equated to vows - we could have learned from "Yafli" written by Erchin!

(l) Answer #1: To include ambiguous Yados (incomplete languages of acceptance of Nezirus).

1. (Abaye): Ambiguous Yados are valid Yados.
2. (Rava): Ambiguous Yados are not valid Yados.

(m) The above answer works for Abaye, but not for Rava!
(n) Answer #2: "Yafli" teaches R. Tarfon's law.

1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): R. Tarfon says, none of them are Nezirim, for Nezirus requires Hafla'ah (a clear acceptance).

(o) The above answer works for Abaye, but not for Rava!
(p) Answer #3: "Yafli" teaches as R. Eliezer.

1. (Mishnah): Annulment of vows has no solid source in the written Torah;
2. R. Eliezer says, it has a solid source - "Yafli" is written twice.

i. Once teaches that a vow cannot be annulled without regret; the other, that it can be annulled through regret.

2) VOWS OF A WIFE AND SLAVE

(a) (Mishnah): There is a stringency in the vows of slaves which does not apply to women: a husband can annul his wife's vows, but a master cannot annul his slave's vows;
(b) A husband's annulment is permanent; if a master annulled his slave's vow, when the slave becomes free, he must fulfill his vow.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa) Question: Why can a master force his slave to transgress Nezirus, but not vows or Erchin?

1. Presumably, we learn that he can force his slave to transgress Nezirus from "To put a prohibition on his own soul", to exclude a slave, who does not own his own soul.
2. This verse was written by vows, it should apply to vows!

(d) Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): The case is, a cluster of grapes is in front of the slave.

1. If he vowed not to eat it, he can eat other grapes, so the master cannot force him to transgress.
2. If he accepted Nezirus, he is forbidden on all grapes, therefore, the master can force him (so he will not become weak).

(e) Objection: The Beraisa says he can never force him to transgress vows, even if there are no other grapes around, and he will become weak if he doesn't eat these!
(f) Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, he vowed not to eat a Chartzan (grape peel or pit).

1. Such a vow will not weaken him; but Nezirus forbids him to eat all produce of the vine!

(g) Objection: It can be, there is nothing else around to eat, and keeping his vow will cause him to become weak!
(h) Answer #3 (Abaye): The Beraisa says, the master must force the slave to transgress Nezirus (if not, the slave must guard Nezirus), but the slave is not bound by his (other) vows and oaths even if the master does not force him.

1. It says by oaths, "To harm or benefit" - just as benefiting is optional, also harming;
2. An oath to harm another (e.g. the master) is invalid. (We learn from oaths to vows, but not to Nezirus).

(a) (Mishnah): A slave (that accepted Nezirus) fled from his master. R. Meir says, he may not drink wine; R. Yosi says, he drinks.
(b) (Gemara) Suggestion: The Tana'im argue on Shmuel's law.

1. (Shmuel): One who declares his slave ownerless, the slave becomes a free convert and does not need a document of freedom.

i. (Implicit assumption): When the slave flees, the master loses hope of getting him back, and this is as declaring him ownerless.

2. R. Meir holds as Shmuel; R. Yosi argues on Shmuel.

(c) Rejection: Really, both hold as Shmuel (and they do not hold that the master despairs).

1. R. Yosi says that he drinks, in order that he should be strong when he will return.
2. R. Meir says that he may not drink, in order that he will suffer, so he will want to return (expecting that his master will force him to drink).