Previous daf

1)

(a) We already cited the Tana of the Beraisa that discusses what the Din will be if a husband of a Nezirah annuls her Nezirus after she becomes Tamei Meis - her Chatas ha'Of is brought, whereas her Olas ha'Of is not (i.e. it reverts to Chulin).

(b) We only asked why the Nezirah brings her Chatas ha'Of, and not her *Olas ha'Of*, and not why she does not bring her *Asham*, even though it has the same Din as it in this regard - because the Olas ha'Of is mentioned in the same Pasuk as the Chatas ha'Of (Tosfos).

(c) To reconcile this with the side of the She'eilah which holds that a husband uproots his wife's Nedarim retroactively, we establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar (and her Chatas comes to atone for abstaining from what the Torah permits). The reason that, in the Beraisa on the previous Amud, where the husband of a Nezirah Tehorah annulled her Nezirus, and where we compared her Chatas to a 'Chatas she'Meisah Ba'alehah' *without citing Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar* is - because, despite the fact that that answer too, is based on the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, it differs from his case, inasmuch as there, the animal is not ultimately brought (whereas in our case, it is).

(d) We could also reconcile the two Beraisos by amending the Beraisa currently under discussion to read - 've'Keivan de'Lo Tzerichah Kaparah, Havah Lei ke'Chatas she'Meisu Ba'alehah', not because of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar at all, but because, having designated the animal, it became sanctified, and the Hafarah renders it similar to a Chatas whose owner died, in which case it must die (presumably mi'de'Rabbanan).

(a) We finally resolve our She'eilah from a Beraisa. The Tana says that a man who annulled his wife's Nezirus after her friend heard her and said 'va'Ani' - that she is permitted but her friend remains forbidden (even though she linked her own Nezirus to that of her friend).

(b) This proves - that a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim from now on and not retroactively.

(c) We reconcile this with the Sugya above, where we proved from the Beraisa which obligated the Nezirah to bring her Chatas but not her Olah, that a husband uproots a Neder retroactively - by turning this point into a Machlokes Tana'im, bearing in mind that the previous Beraisa goes according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, and this Beraisa, like the Rabbanan (Tosfos).

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon in the current Beraisa - if the friend says 'Hareini Kamosech' - she too, becomes permitted.

(b) The Ri (in Tosfos) reconciles Rebbi Shimon with the Mishnah in the first Perek, which based on the principle 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in', rules that someone who undertakes Nezirus for one day only, remains a Nazir for thirty days - by means of a Tosefta, which explains that the Lashon used here implies that the Nezirus of the second woman is totally conditional to that of the first one (and should not be viewed in the light of half a Nezirus).

(c) According to the Ri, Rebbi Shimon is coming to explain the Tana Kama, not to argue with him. According to Rabeinu Peretz - Rebbi Shimon compares the case of 'va'Ani' to that of 'Hareini Kamosech', in which point he argues with the Rabbanan, who do not.

4)

(a) Rami bar Chama asked - whether someone who declared 'Harei Alai ki'Besar Zevach Shelamim' had in mind ...

1. ... 'be'Ikra (or 'me'Ikara) Matfis' - which means after the designation of the Shelamim (but before the Zerikas ha'Dam when it was forbidden to eat. This is the equivalent of 'me'Ikara' [its original status]).
2. ... or 'bi'Tzenana Matfis' (from the word 'Tzonan' meaning after its Isur has cooled down) - which means after the Zerikah, when it is permitted.

(b) Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Mari resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from the above Beraisa - that the Noder must have had in mind 'be'Ikra', because otherwise, the Nezirus of the friend would be permitted too.

(c) Others differentiate between the two cases - inasmuch as in our case, the Tana holds 'be'Ikra Matfis' only because, after the Hafarah, there is nothing left for the friend to have had in mind (so he cannot have meant to be Matfis 'bi'Tzenanah'; whereas in the case of the Shelamim, it is feasible to suggest that 'be'Tzinenah Matfis', and the Noder really had in mind the Shelamim after the Zerikah, seeing as it is still considered a Shelamim in various regards (e.g. eating it outside Yerushalayim).

(d) The final word in the Sugya on this matter is - that others agree with Rami bar Chama.

(a) Despite the fact that the Sugya in Nedarim establishes Rami bar Chama's She'eilah after the blood has already been sprinkled and the Shelamim was permitted, we can resolve it from the above Beraisa, which speaks when the friend said 'va'Ani' whilst her friend was still a Nezirah - because clearly, Rami bar Chama himself, disagrees with the Sugya in Nedarim, establishing it in a case when the blood had not yet been sprinkled.

(b) Others explain the Sugya differently. According to them, Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Mari proves from Rami bar Chama that the Beraisa might even hold that a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively (like the previous Sugya concluded). The friend nevertheless remain Asur after the husband annulled the Nezirus - because, when she said 'va'Ani' she had in mind to be like her friend up to the time that her friend's husband annulled her Nezirus (irrespective of what happened to her friend after that) Tosfos.

(c) There are however, numerous problems with this explanation. The first of these emanates from the words of Rami bar Chama himself - who does not resolve his She'eilah (as this explanation suggests) Tosfos.

(d) Another problem is the Sugya above, which discussed the ramifications of the She'eilah whether the husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively, or only from now on - the ramifications of which are whether her friend who said 'va'Ani' becomes permitted too, or not (disproving this interpretation of Rami bar Chama, which forbids her either way) Tosfos.

(a) If the friend said 'be'Ikvech', she might mean that she wants to be like her friend ultimately turns out to be (a Nezirah if her husband does not annul her Nezirus, but permitted, if he does) - or she might mean that she wants to be a Nazir like her ('be'Ikrah' or 'be'Kula Milsa' - similar to Rami bar Chama's She'eilah).

(b) We attempt to prove from our Mishnah 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah be'Nazir ve'Shama Ba'alah va'Amar 'va'Ani', Eino Yachol Lehafer' - that 'be'Ikvah' implies 'be'Ikra' (because otherwise [if it meant 've'Kula Milsa'], why would the husband not be permitted to annul her Nezirus, permitting her whilst remaining himself forbidden)?

(c) We attempt to prove our point from there, despite the fact that the husband said 'va'Ani' and not 'be'Ikvech' - because 'va'Ani' of the husband, who is empowered to annul his wife's Nedarim, implies as much Kula Milsa as 'be'Ikvech of someone else.

(d) We refute the proof from there however, on the grounds that, even if 'va'Ani' of the husband (and 'be'Ikvech') would imply Kula Milsa, he would not be permitted to annul his wife's Nezirus after having said 'va'Ani' - because 'va'Ani' is considered a Hakamah (as we explained earlier), after which, he will only be permitted to annul the Nezirus if he first annuls his Hakamah.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that, if a man says to his wife 'Hareini Nazir ve'At ve'Amrah Amen, Meifer es she'Lah, ve'Shelo Kayam'. We have a problem from a Beraisa, which states 'Sheneihem Asurin'. The Seifa of the Beraisa, with regard to where she did not say 'Amen' - says 'Sheneihem Mutarin'.

(b) The Tana's reason ...

1. ... in the Reisha is - because a husband uproots his wife's Neder retroactively, and annulling her Neder would incorporate annulling his own Neder too.
2. ... in the Seifa is - because he linked his own Nezirus to hers, and, seeing as she did not accept the Nezirus, his Nezirus is not effective either.

(c) Rav Yehudah amends the Beraisa, adding a (middle) section to read like our Mishnah. There are now three sections in the Beraisa. The Reisha, which rules that if he did not annul her Neder, both are forbidden, does not teach us anything. The Chidush of the Beraisa lies in the Seifa, which permits him to annul her Neder, whilst his Neder remains intact, because the Tana holds that the husband annuls his wife's Nedarim from now on (and not retroactively) Tosfos.

(d) Abaye slightly amends the Reisha, without adding anything else to the Beraisa. The difference according to him, between the text of our Mishnah and that of the Beraisa is - that where the Mishnah says 've'At' (implying that he accepts Nezirus anyway, and is asking her whether she wants to do likewise), the Beraisa says 'Ratzah At' (or 've'Im At'), linking his Neder with hers. Consequently, in the latter case, he cannot annul her Neder without annulling his, whereas in the former, he can.