Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Beis Shamai, someone declares himself a Nazir from G'rogros or from a D'veilah (dried figs or from a cake of figs) is - a full-fledged Nazir.

(b) Beis Hillel say - 'Eino Nazir'.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. In his opinion - Beis Shamai consider the figs Asur like a Korban.

(d) He says that despite the fact that the Noder used the term Nazir - because 'Nazir' really means separate, so we interpret his words to mean that he was separating from the figs as if they were a Korban.

3)

(a) The problem that we initially have with Beis Shamai's ruling 'Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros u'Min ha'Deveilah, Harei Zeh Nazir' is - that a grapes and wine are forbidden to a Nazir, but not figs?

(b) We answer that Beis Shamai holds like Rebbi Meir - who says in Erchin that someone who declares 'Erech K'li Alai' - knows that Keilim are not subject to Erchin, and that he simply meant to give its regular value (Damim) to Hekdesh (because a person does not make such declarations in vain). Similarly, Beis Shamai in our Mishnah hold that everyone knows that figs are not forbidden to a Nazir, so the Noder must have meant to forbid wine (even though he said figs).

(c) And Beis Hillel hold like Rebbi Yossi - who holds that if someone declares 'Harei Alai Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim', the animal should be sent to romp in the field until it obtains a blemish, and then, when it is sold, half of the proceeds go towards an Olah, and half, towards a Shelamim (because we go after a person's final words). So too in our Mishnah, Beis Hillel go after his final words, and since, there is no Nezirus from figs, his Neder remains ineffective.

(d) In Erchin, Rebbi Yossi holds '*Af* bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas', and the animal has the Kedushah of both an Olah and a Shelamim (as we explained) - because there is no way to reconcile his first words with his last ones; whereas here, he goes after 'G'mar Devarav' *exclusively*, and the Noder is not a Nazir - because it is possible, that his last words come to clarify the first ones, meaning that he has undertaken to separate from figs and not from wine.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah here maintains that Beis Shamai too, holds like Rebbi Yossi (that 'Af bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas') - for the reason that we just explained (because the Noder's final words can be construed to explain his first ones); whereas in Temurah he argues with Rebbi Yossi and says 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' (declaring 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim' to be an Olah [and not a Shelamim]), because there is no way of reconciling his last words with his first ones.

(b) We prefer to establish Beis Hillel like Rebbi Yossi rather than like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, who hold 'Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah' - to avoid establishing the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan to be the same as that of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

(c) Despite the fact that Rebbi Meir holds (with regard to 'Erech K'li Alai') 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah' he agrees with Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, who disregard the Noder's declaration - because (unlike in his case, where a K'li has 'Damim', he maintains that that is what the Noder must have meant) there is no such thing as a Nazir from figs (which means that he must have retracted, in which case he no longer holds 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah').

(d) We repudiate the above interpretation of the Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - because seeing as he wants to retract from his original statement 'Toch Kedei Dibur', and to forbid on himself only figs, why is the Neder not negated automatically?

(a) We still establish Beis Shamai like Rebbi Meir. But now we consider the Noder as having changed his mind when he said 'min ha'G'rogros', and Beis Shamai follow their own reasoning. Based on their principle 'Hekdesh Ta'us Havei Hekdesh', they say - 'Ein She'eilah le'Hekdesh' (and similarly, 'Ein Charatah le'Hekdesh', even 'Toch Kedei Dibur'). And this extends to Nezirus, which Beis Shamai also consider Hekdesh in this regard.

(b) Beis Shamai's source for giving a Nazir the Din of Hekdesh in this regard - is the Pasuk in Naso "Kadosh Yih'yeh, Gadel Pera".

(c) We could not have given Beis Shamai's reason as 'Ein Poschin ba'Charatah' - because 'Charatah' only applies when the Noder comes to ask the Chacham to revoke his Neder, but not when he comes to cancel it himself 'Toch Kedei Dibur'.

(d) We did not just reply that Beis Shamai, following their own reasoning, hold 'Ein She'eilah le'Hekdesh', but found it necessary to repeat that Beis Shamai holds like Rebbi Meir - because we would otherwise have thought that we have gone back on that S'vara, and that Rebbi Meir now holds that the Neder is not valid in the first place. If that is so, then we would not be able to say that they hold 'Ein She'eilah be'Hekdesh' (because if the Hekdesh is not effective, then there can be no She'eilah either.

(a) And we establish Beis Hillel like Rebbi Shimon - who says that if someone declares that he will bring a Minchah from barley, he is Patur from bringing anything at all, because he did not undertake to bring his Korban in the conventional manner.

(b) We could did not simply establish Beis Hillel according to their reasoning, who say 'Yesh She'eilah le'Hekdesh' - because that would not help explain why the Neder ('Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros') is not effective at all, even as regards the G'rogros'), whereas establishing them like Rebbi Shimon does.

7)

(a) Rebbi Nasan disagrees with our Mishnah. In a Beraisa, he quotes Beis Shamai as saying (in the case of 'Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros') 'Nadur ve'Nazir'. In his opinion, they hold like both ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir - who holds 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah'.
2. ... and Rebbi Yehudah - (in our Mishnah, who quotes Beis Shamai as saying that he has declared a Neder, but not Nezirus.

(b) Beis Hillel (says Rebbi Nasan) hold 'Nadur ve'Eino Nazir' - like Rebbi Yehudah (in our Mishnah, but not like Rebbi Meir).

(c) Alternatively, Beis Hillel hold 'Lo Nadur ve'Lo Nazir' - like Rebbi Shimon (as we established according to the first explanation [on the previous Amud]).

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Menachos, someone who undertakes to bring a Minchah of barley or of 'Kemach', must bring one of wheat or of 'So'les respectively - because (apart from the Minchas Omer and a Minchas Sotah, which are exceptions) there is no such thing as a Minchah from barley, or as a Minchah consisting of Kemach.

(b) If he undertakes to bring a Minchah ...

1. ... without oil and frankincense - he is nevertheless obligated to include them in his Minchah (since every Minchas Nedavah contains them).
2. ... consisting of half an Isaron or of one a half Esronim of So'les - he must bring one Isaron or two Esronim, respectively (since all Menachos comprise full Esronim).

(c) According to Rebbi Shimon, he is Patur in all of the above cases from bringing anything at all, seeing as he did not undertake to bring a conventional Minchah.

(d) Chizkiyah establishes the Tana Kama of this Mishnah like Beis Shamai - who said in our Mishnah 'Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros ... Nazir'.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah even like Beis Hillel, who say in our Mishnah 'Eino Nazir'. They may well agree with the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Menachos that his Neder is valid, because he is speaking when the Noder specifically said that, had he known, he would have declared his Neder on wheat (rather than on barley - and so with all the other cases); whereas in our Mishnah, everyone knows that the Din of Nezirus does not extend to figs (and he must have meant what he said).

(b) We conclude that Chizkiyah agrees with Rebbi Yochanan in this point, and what he said was that the Tana Kama confines his statement to someone who undertook to bring barley, but not lentils - since everybody knows that one cannot bring a Minchah of lentils, and he can no longer say that, had he known ... . Consequently, the Tana Kama will agrees with Rebbi Shimon that his Neder is invalid.

(c) Clearly, Chizkiyah has now retracted from what he said above, that the Tana Kama holds like Beis Shammai (according to whom lentils [with regard to a Minchah] would be no different than figs [to a Nazir]).

(d) What convinced him to retract - was the fact that the Mishnah in Menachos talked about G'rogros and not lentils (because people tend to confuse barley with wheat, seeing as there are some Menachos that comprise barley, but no-one confuses lentils with wheat).

(a) The problem that we have with Rebbi Yochanan, who now establishes the Mishnah even when he said 'lentils' is - that he said earlier that we are speaking when the Noder said that, had he known that one cannot bring a Minchah of barley, he would have declared it on wheat (a Sevara that does not apply to lentils [as we just explained]).

(b) We reconcile the statements of Rebbi Yochanan by establishing his latter statement (not in his own name, but) in the name of Chizkiyah, who retracted from his original statement. Rebbi Yochanan is asking him why he retracted) from his distinction between barley and lentils, to which he subscribes) based exclusively on the fact that theTana talked about a case of barley rather than of lentils?

(c) If that is the basis of his retraction, he could well have maintained his initial opinion. And the reason that the Tana Kama refers to a case of barley rather than to one of lentils is (not to preclude lentils, but) because had the Noder said 'lentils', it would be obvious that he had retracted from his initial Neder of Minchah (and he holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon'), and it is where he said 'barley', where we might have thought that the Noder simply became confused between a regular Minchah and one that comprises barley, and his second Lashon comes to explain the first one (which is therefore not valid), that the Tana needs to inform us that even there, his Neder is valid, because he holds like Beis Shamai, that 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah'.