Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Beis Shamai, if a man says 'Amrah Parah Zu Hareini Nezirah Im Omedes Ani' or 'Amrah De'les Zeh Hareini Nezirah Im Niftach Ani', the man is a Nazir - according to Beis Hillel, he is not.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah interprets Beis Shamai as saying - that the animal is a Korban if he said 'Harei Parah Zu Alai Korban Im Omedes Hi' (but not that he is a Nazir if he said 'Hareini Nezirah').

(a) Cows simply do not speak, and it is the man who is assessing what the cow (or someone who sees the cow in that state) is probably thinking. Rami bar Chama therefore explains our Mishnah - by a crouching cow, which 'thought' that it would never rise on its own. And it was in that connection that the Noder said that he would become a Nazir should the cow rise under its own steam.

(b) 'Hareini Nezirah' means - that he will be a Nazir from its flesh (as if there was a dot in the 'Hey').

(c) The word 'Ani' (in our Mishnah - is difficult to explain according to Rami bar Chama's interpretation of the Mishnah (seeing as he already said 'Hareini' (and both words refer to the Noder, and not to the cow).

(d) When we say 've'Halchu Beis Shamai le'Shitasan u'Veis Hillel le'Shitasan' - we mean that Beis Shamai declares him a Nazir for exactly the same reason as he did in the previous Mishnah of 'G'rog'ros' (because they hold like Rebbi Meir); and Beis Hillel disagrees for the same reason as he did there (because they hold like Rebbi Yossi).

(a) According to Rami bar Chama, Beis Hillel argue three times over the same point: by 'G'rog'ros', by 'Parah' and by 'De'les'. Having taught us their Machlokes by ...

1. ... G'rog'ros, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it by 'Parah' - where Beis Shamai might well have conceded that he is not a Nazir, because whereas a person might easily confuse *figs* with grapes (seeing as they are both fruit), he can hardly confuse *meat* with grapes (so he must have meant specifically meat).
2. ... 'Parah', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it by 'De'les' - where Beis Shamai might well have conceded that he is not a Nazir, because whereas a person might even confuse meat with wine (since both constitute the major part of a meal), it is highly unlikely that he will confuse a door for wine.
3. ... 'De'les', the Tana find it necessary to repeat it by the other two cases - because we might otherwise have thought that Beis Hillel only argues there, but concedes to Beis Shamai by 'G'rog'ros and 'Parah' that he is a Nazir.

(b) The Tana could indeed have presented the case without the detail of the cow standing up (seeing as it does not add any Chidush to the Halachah) - but this is really included in the Kashya that we are about to ask on Rami bar Chama anyway.

(c) We refute Rami bar Chama's explanation because of the word 'Me'eilehah' (under its own steam),which Rami bar Chama adds but quite unnecessarily (since this detail of the case does not add any Chidush).

(d) This does not mean that he could just as well have established our Mishnah irrespective of whether the cow arose under its own steam or whether it was picked up - because people do not make such conditions which they are able to fulfill without difficulty).

(a) So Rava tries at first to establish our Mishnah when he said (with regard to the same crouching cow) 'Harei Alai Korban Im Lo A'amidah' - meaning that if he does not manage to raise the cow, he will bring it as a Korban.

(b) Despite the fact that our Mishnah speaks in a case of 'Hareini Nazir ... ', we establish the case by a Korban - what the Noder meant was that he would bring the cow as a Korban Nezirus.

(c) Although one did not bring a cow a Korban Nezirus, it was however, customary to bring other voluntary Korbanos together with one's Korban Nazir, and it was to those Korbanos that he was referring.

(d) The problem with this is - from the second case in the Mishnah (regarding 'De'les'), since a door cannot be brought as a Korban.

5)

(a) To eliminate this Kashya - we amend Rava to read 'Hareini Nazir mi'Yayin, Im Lo Amdah ('A'amodah')'. By doing so - we have now added the word 'Lo', which does not appear in our Mishnah.

(b) What happened next - was that the cow arose under its own steam.

(c) He is a Nazir according to Beis Shamai - because what the Noder meant was that he would become a Nazir if *he* did not raise the cow, but not according to Beis Hillel - because all he wanted was that the cow stand up, no matter how.

(d) We do not query Rava on the grounds that he has added the word 'Lo' which is not contained in the Mishnah itself (like we asked above from the word 'Me'eilehah' that Rami bar Chama added to the Mishnah) - because, according to Rava, the Machlokes Tana'im evolves around the cow arising, in which case the only way of explaining it is by adding 'Lo' (a common enough method used to clarify a Mishnah); whereas according to Rami bar Chama, where they are arguing about whether Nezirus is effective by 'Noder min ha'Basar' or not, there seems to be no reason to add the word 'Me'eilehah' which has no bearing on the Halachah (and the Kashya is not so much why he used the word 'Me'eilehah' as why the Tana needs to add 'Im Amdah' in the first place).

(a) The problem with Rava's explanation from Rebbi Yehudah in the Seifa, in whose opinion, Beis Shamai declare the cow a Korban in the event that it stands up is - seeing as the Noder specifically declared himself to be a Nazir from wine, how can Rebbi Yehudah explain Beis Shamai otherwise?

(b) So we amend Rava's version of the Mishnah once more, to read 'Hareini Nazir mi'Besarah Im Lo Amdah ('A'amodah'), ve'Amdah Me'eilehah'. The basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel remains exactly as it was in the previous explanation. Only now that he mentioned ' ... Nazir mi'Besarah' (rather than 'Nazir mi'Yayin') we have enabled Rebbi Yehudah to argue with the Tana Kama, to explain that Beis Shamai means Korban and not Nazir.

(c) From what we just said according to Beis Hillel ('Turfei de'ha'Hu Gavra Mishum de'Revi'a, ve'Ha Kamas', it seems that if the cow had not arisen, then even Beis Hillel would concede that he is a Nazir. We reconcile this with another Beraisa which states 'mi'Besarah, Lo Havi Nazir' - by establishing Beis Hillel's opinion like the latter Beraisa (that he is not a Nazir anyway, whether the cow stood up or not. And when Beis Hillel said to Beis Shamai that when the cow arises by itself, he is not a Nazir, he meant (not to preclude when the cow did not arise at all, as we just explained, but) to ask them whether they would not concede at least there that this was the case (since the cow did stand up).

(d) Beis Shamai replied - that they stuck to their guns and that it is only if he had actually raised the animal that he would have been free from Nezirus.

(a) In that case, why did Rava find it necessary to add to the Lashon of the Mishnah and to establish the case when he said 'Hareini Nazir im *Lo* Amdah'? Why did he not leave the Mishnah 'Hareini Nazir Im Amdah' intact?

(b) In the first answer, we explain that if we were to do so, then Beis Hillel would agree with Beis Shamai - because in that case, 'Im Amdah' would certainly imply S'tam, whether it stood by itself or whether he stood it up (Tosfos).

(c) In the second answer - they explain that people tend to make a Neder Nezirus in response to a challenge in order to free themselves from the Nezirus, not in order to adopt it.

(a) Despite the fact that according to Rava, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over a very different point than the one in the previous Mishnah (of 'G'rog'ros'), we can justify the statement 'mi'Tartei T'las' (that we made according to Rami bar Chama) even according to Rava - when we realize that they actually argue in the previous point (whether Basar implies a Lashon of Nezirus or not) as well. Otherwise, they would confine their argument to when the Noder said 'Hareini Nazir min ha'Yayin ... ' (like we suggested in Rava's previous answer)?

(b) We nevertheless know that Beis Hillel argue with Beis Shamai with regard to the implication of 'Im Lo Amdah' as well as over the Lashon - because otherwise, why would the Tana need to add 'Im Lo Amdah ... ' at all?

(c) In spite of the fact that, according to Beis Hillel, the Noder would not be a Nazir anyway, due to the fact that he declared his Neder Nezirus over meat, they nevertheless need to argue over the implication of 'Im Amdah' - so that we should know what the Din will be in a case where he said 'Hareini Nazir min ha'Yayin'.

(d) They do not argue in that case directly, on the other hand - in order to accommodate Rebbi Yehudah's opinion in the Seifa (as we explained earlier).