Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa say about a Nezirah who became Tamei and who had already designated two birds for her Chatas and Olah (as well as her Asham), when her husband annulled her Neder - is obligated to bring the Chatas, but not the Olah (or the Asham).

(b) Rav Chisda establishes the author of this Beraisa as Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - who considers the Olah to be part of the Kaparah, as we learned above, but not according to Rebbi, in whose opinion it is merely a gift.

(c) Despite the fact that she does not bring the Olah (even though it comes as a Kaparah, according to Rebbi Yishmael ... ), she bring the Chatas - because, as we shall soon see, she is still left with a sin that requires atonement, and based on a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, a Chatas ha'Of must be brought even on a Safek (and the slender reason that she needs to bring it, considering that her Nezirus has already been annulled, is compared to a Safek - Tosfos).

(d) We conclude that this Tana holds that a husband uproots his wife's Nedarim from their inception (like a Chacham). If he held that he only negates it from that moment and onwards - she would be obligated to bring the Olah and the Asham, too.

(a) We establish Rebbi Yishmael ... like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar (otherwise she would not require a Kaparah at all) - who learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chiper Alav me'Asher Chata al ha'Nefesh" - that a Nazir is a sinner for having abstained from wine (which the Torah does not forbid).

(b) He extrapolates from there - that someone who abstains from food (by fasting) has certainly sinned.

(c) In spite of the fact that, according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, even a Nazir Tahor has sinned, the Torah nevertheless writes 'me'Asher Chata al ha'Nefesh specifically by a Nazir Tamei - because he sinned a second time (this is because, seeing as overall, Nezirus is a Mitzvah, the Torah did not want to bring out the sin aspect of Nezirus for the declaration itself, and it is only when he becomes Tamei, revealing that he has accepted upon himself levels that are beyond him, that the Torah mentions it).

(d) Nevertheless, she does not bring her Chatas even if she did not become Tamei - because the Chatas of a Nazir Tahor is a lamb, and a Chatas *Beheimah* is not brought on a Safek, only a Chatas ha'Of.

(a) Our Mishnah, in the case of someone who undertook Nezirus in a cemetery, continues 'Yatza ve'Nichnas, Olin Lo min ha'Minyan', in itself, a senseless statement - because why should going out and returning per se make any difference.

(b) Shmuel answered 'Kegon she'Yatza ve'Hizah ve'Shanah ve'Taval'. The Tana adds 've'Nichnas', not because it needs to, but to teach us that even though he returned, and even before nightfall (in which case, he is still a T'vul Yom), he may nevertheless begin counting his Nezirus de'Taharah.

(c) When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav why he did not explain this to them, he replied - that he had assumed that they knew it already.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu" - that a Tamei she'Nazar who became Tamei on his seventh day of Taharah does not bring a Korban Tum'ah.

(b) Ula comments - that this is not the case with a Nazir *Tahor* she'Nitma, according to Rebbi Eliezer, who must bring a Korban Tum'ah even if he became Tamei on the first day of his Nezirus.

(c) Rava extrapolates Ula's comment - from the Pasuk "Ki Tamei Nizro", implying that it only applies to a Tamei she'Nazar but not to a Nazir she'Nitma.

5)

(a) Abaye asks on Ula and Rava from a Beraisa. Based on the Pasuk ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu", the Beraisa says that a Nazir for a hundred days who became Tamei on the first day or on the last day - does not demolish his Nezirus.

(b) This does not mean that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, if he becomes Tamei on the hundreth day, he does not demolish his Nezirus at all. In fact - he demolishes thirty days (from the Pasuk "ve'Zos Toras ha'Nazir be'Yom Me'los" - see Tosfos).

(c) We nevertheless require the Pasuk "ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu". We could not learn this from "ve'Zos Toras ha'Nazir be'Yom Me'los" (from which we learned the same Halachah in the first Perek) alone - because if not for the Pasuk "ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu" we would have explained "Yom Me'los" to pertain to the hundred and first day (but on the hundreth day, he would have to demolish all hundred days). And besides, without it, we would not know that at least two days are required even at the beginning of the term of Nezirus (Tosfos).

(a) If he became Tamei on the ninety-ninth day, says the Beraisa - he will demolish all the previous days (because both 'Yamim ha'Rishonim and 'Yamim ha'Acharonim' have been fulfilled).

(b) This will work even according to Rav Masna, who holds 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' - because in spite of it, Lechatchilah he is obligated to observe the entire hundreth day of Nezirus, as we learned in the first Perek.

(c) In any event, we see from this Beraisa that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, even a Nazir she'Nitma requires at least two days both at the beginning and at the end in order to demolish his Nezirus completely.

(a) When Rav Papa mean when he asked Abaye 'Halein "Yamim" de'ka'Amrinan de'Nafak Chad u'Maschilin T'rein, O Dilma de'Nafkin T'rein u'Maschilin T'lasa' - he meant to ask whether the two days at the beginning need to include a full twenty four period of Nezirus de'Taharah (like there will inevitably be at the end, where the hundreth day is always complete); or whether until nightfall is considered one day, irrespective of when his Nezirus began (and the following day is considered the second day).

(b) Abaye did not answer him ...

1. ... from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Eliezer said 'Lo le'Bo be'Yom', implying that immediately after nightfall demolishes - because Rebbi Eliezer's intention is to counter the Rabbanan, who say that the first day does demolish (and not to convey the extent of his opinion) Tosfos.
2. ... from the Beraisa, which, contrary to the Rabbanan, who hold that Tum'ah demolishes even on the first day, says 'Nitma bi'Techilas Me'ah (Eino Soser)', implying that second day does demolish - because 'Techilas Me'ah' could well incorporate the second day (or we could answer like we answered the previous Kashya) Tosfos.
3. ... from the Seifa of the current Beraisa, which holds that the ninety-ninth day demolishes - because we cannot presume the same to apply to the beginning, since the end is different, inasmuch as the hundredth day is always complete anyway, as we explained earlier) Tosfos.

(c) We also ask from the Beraisa that we quoted above 'Maschil u'Moneh Miyad (ba'Shevi'i)', who brings a Korban Tum'ah if he became Tamei on the eighth day (which is like the second day). Assuming that Rav Papa knew of that Beraisa (which he may well have not), it is difficult to answer that here it is different, because he had the seventh day, which is a complete day - since the seventh day cannot really be complete, seeing as he requires sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah and Tevilah before he can begin Nezirus de'Taharah.

(d) In any event, in spite of that Beraisa - Rav Papa might be searching for a source for this Halachah in a Pasuk?

(a) Abaye did not know how to answer Rav Papa. Rava answered him - that "Yiplu" implying that only a minimum number of days is required for the Tum'ah to demolish the Nezirus (i.e. it will do so on the second day even if a full day of Nezirus de'Taharah did not elapse).

(b) Now that the Torah writes "Yiplu" to teach us that one does not require two complete days, it nevertheless needs to write "Yamim" - to teach us that at least one day of Nezirus de'Taharah is required (to preclude from the opinion of the Tana Kama, who does not require even that).

(a) A Nazir in Chutz la'Aretz is obligated to go to Eretz Yisrael - in order to bring his Korbanos and to conclude his Nezirus (Tosfos).

(b) According to Beis Shamai, once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael, he is obligated to observe another thirty day term of Nezirus. Beis Hillel maintain - that he is obligated to repeat his entire Nezirus.

(c) The reason for both opinions is - a penalty for declaring Tum'ah in a Tamei location (like Tum'ah be'Veis ha'Kevaros).

(a) Queen Helen undertook a seven-year term of Nezirus - should her son return safely from the war.

(b) This turned into a twenty-one year term - when, firstly, the Chachamim made her repeat her term of Nezirus (when, towards the end of it, she arrived in Eretz Yisrael), and secondly, when towards the end of her second term, she became Tamei Meis.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah disagrees. According to him, she was only a Nazir for fourteen years.

(a) The two possible levels of Tum'ah that Chazal decreed on Chutz la'Aretz are - 'Mishum Gushah' (because of Tum'as Ohel of the ground), or because of the air (even as regards someone who enters it in an enclosed box-like contraption.

(b) We suggest that Beis Shamai, who are lenient in our Mishnah, hold 'al Gushah Gazru', and Beis Hillel, who are stringent, hold 'al Avirah Gazru'. We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that if that was the case, there would be no reason for Beis Shamai to decree only thirty days (any more than Tum'ah in a Beis ha'Kevaros, which is only Tamei because of Gushah, and yet it demolishes the entire Nezirus) Tosfos.

(c) So we switch the suggested opinions, submitting that Beis Shamai hold So we switch the suggested opinions, submitting that Beis Shamai hold 'al Avirah Gazru' and Beis Hillel 'al Gushah Gazru'. It is precisely because ...

1. ... Beis Shamai are stringent here, and hold 'al Avirah Gazru' - that they only decreed a thirty-day Nezirus, since everyone will know that the Nezirus here is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and will not confuse this case with a Nazir who became Tamei in a Beis ha'Kevaros.
2. ... Beis Hillel are lenient here, only decreeing 'al Gushah', that they need to be strict as regards the duration of the Nezirus, so that people should not confuse it with a Nazir who became Tamei in a Beis he'Kevaros, who must demolish his entire Nezirus.

(d) We conclude that in fact, they both hold 'Mishum Avirah Gazru'. This explains Beis Shamai admirably. The reason of Beis Hillel is - because Chazal nevertheless decreed accordingly.