Previous daf

1)

(a) If someone says ...

1. ... 'Hareini Nazir Achas Gedolah' - he means that he accepts one Nezirus of thirty days (as indeed all three cases do), but that it is very hard for him to do so.
2. ... 'Hareini Nazir Achas Ketanah' - and that it is not hard at all.
3. ... 'Hareini Nazir mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sof ha'Olam' - that it is as hard for him as traveling to the end of the world.

(b) We interpret his words leniently in this latter case. If not for the Mishnah, we would have thought that he must become a Nazir until the end of his life (because, seeing as it takes five hundred years to walk from one end of the world to the other.

(c) The Mishnah later says that if someone says 'Hareini Nazir mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Makom P'loni', if there are ...

1. ... less than thirty days walking distance from where he is to that place - he is a Nazir for thirty days.
2. ... more than thirty days - he is a Nazir for as many days as it takes to walk there.

(d) The reason that we do not say there (even in the latter case) too, like we say in *our* Mishnah, that what he really meant was that the Nezirus is hard on him like it is to walk to that place, and he is a Nazir for thirty days is - because it speaks when he had already set out on the journey, in which case he probably meant to undertake Nezirus for the duration of the journey, to offset the potential danger with the merit of the Nezirus.

(a) In the latter case in our Mishnah, we do not declare him a Nazir for as many days as there are Parsah from one end of the world to the other, explains Rav Papa - because it speaks when the Noder lives in a place where they do not measure distance in Parsah (though it is unclear why we do not count in the same way however many of whatever measures they do use to measure distance).

(b) We cannot explain this last Kashya on the Mishnah later ('Hareini Nazir mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Makom P'loni') which we were just discussing - because since we are talking about when he had already set out on the journey, it is more logical to explain that he only intends to be a Nazir for the duration of his journey and no longer.

(c) The Beraisa say that someone who declares himself a Nazir like the dust of the earth or like the hair of his head ... - is a N'zir Olam (who shaves once every thirty days and brings his three Korbanos.

(d) Nevertheless, we do not say in our Mishnah that he is a Nazir for as many times as there are inns from one end of the world to the other - because, whenever the time period is fixed (like traveling from one end of the world to the other, which is known to be five hundred years walking distance), we say that, since the Noder did not state that time period, he actually accepted a minimum Nezirus of thirty days, and when he said 'to the end of the world, he meant that the Nezirus was as difficult to him as walking to the end of the world.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that someone who declares Nezirus for ...

1. ... as long as he lives, or forever - is a N'zir Olam, who has to shave every thirty days and bring his Korbanos.
2. ... for a hundred or even a thousand years - he is a Nazir forever.

(b) This distinction proves - that there is a difference between Nezirus which has a fixed time period and one which doesn't.

(c) The Din in our Mishnah is not the same as the Din in the Beraisa however. Someone who says 'until the end of the world' is not a Nazir for one long period until the day of his death - because he added the words '*mi'Ka'an ve'Ad* Sof ha'Olam', which has the connotation of being as difficult as walking to the end of the world.

(a) Rabah differentiates between our Mishnah ('mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sof ha'Olam'), and the Mishnah later ('ka'Afar ha'Aretz u'che'Sa'ar Roshi ... '). In his opinion - the reason that we are more stringent in the latter is because each speck of dust and each hair on a person's head is separated from the next one (and so his statement implies many separate periods of Nezirus), whereas when we say 'mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sof ha'Olam' (which deals with time), the days are all joined, implying only one Nezirus.

(b) His explanation is not disproved from the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vayehi Erev, Vayehi Voker, Yom Echad" (which appears to divide the days) - because even though each day is a separate entity, it is nevertheless joined to the next one.

(c) Rava has a different approach to explain the Seifa of our Mishnah. According to him, the Seifa is connected to the Reisha - where the Noder said 'Hareini Nazir Achas' (clearly implying only one Nezirus).

(d) The previous Amora'im disagree with Rava - inasmuch as in their opinion, 'Hareini Nazir Achas' pertains to the first two cases in the Mishnah, but not to the third case.

(a) If someone says 'Hareini Nazir ve'Yom Echad' - he is a Nazir for sixty days, because it is as if he said 'Hareini Nazir ve'Nazir Yom Echad'.

(b) In spite of having taught us this, the Tana of our Mishnah nevertheless adds the case of 'Hareini Nazir ve'Sha'ah Achas' to teach us the same thing - because otherwise, we might have thought that he will be a Nazir for thirty-one days, because it will suffice to turn the hour into a full day.

(c) And having taught us that, he nevertheless deems it necessary to add the case of 'Hareini Nazir u'Mechtzah' to teach us the same thing yet again - because otherwise, we would have thought that when he says an hour, we need to turn it into a full term of Nezirus, seeing as there is no such thing as hours by Nezirus; but 'Nezirus and a half', we would have interpreted to mean one and a half Nezirus, to render him a Nazir for forty-five days.

(d) There is no such thing as Nezirus for less than thirty days.

6)

(a) The Tana say that someone who says 'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim Yom ve'Sha'ah Achas' - is a Nazir for thirty-one days (because there is no Nezirus for hours (only days).

(b) According to Rav, if a person says ...

1. ... 'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim-ve'Echad Yom' - he is a Nazir for thirty-one days.
2. ... 'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim Yom ve'Yom Echad' - he is a Nazir for sixty days?

(c) The reason for the difference is - because in the latter case, he added the extra word 'Yom'.

(d) Rav seems to refer to our Mishnah when he says 'Lo Shanu Ela de'Amar Sheloshim ve'Echad Yom'. This is because, our Mishnah, which discusses 'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim Yom ve'Sha'ah Achas', is the continuation of the latter case of the previous Mishnah ('Hareini Nazir ve'Sha'ah Achas'). The equivalent continuation of the former case ('Hareini Nazir ve'Yom Echad') is the case referred to by Rav.

(a) Rav follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in Bava Basra. The Mishnah there say that the sale of a house - does not include pits and enclosures, even if he added the depth and the height in the sale.

(b) According to Rebbi Akiva, the path leading to the pits and to the enclosures however, is included in the sale. The Rabbanan say - that it is not.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether a person sells with a generous heart (Rebbi Akiva) or not (the Rabbanan).

(d) Rebbi Akiva will agree with the Rabbanan that he retains the path for his own use - if he specifically precluded pits and enclosures from the sale because, seeing as they are precluded anyway, he clearly meant to preclude the path leading to them.

Next daf