Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah permits a Nazir whose Nezirus the Chacham declined to annul, to include the days prior to his visit to the Chacham in his Nezirus - even if he had transgressed his Nezirus before visiting the Chacham.

(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the Nazir must first count the days that he transgressed, before counting his term of Nezirus. Rebbi Yossi says 'Dayo bi'Sheloshim Yom'. For the author of our Mishnah to be Rebbi Yossi, we establish it by a case of long-term Nezirus - in which case our Mishnah speaks when the Noder visited the Chacham after having transgressed sixty out of a hundred-day Nezirus. 'Moneh *mi*'Sha'ah she'Nadar' means that he counts *some* (thirty) of the days that he undertook.

(c) In the case of a short-term Nezirus - Rebbi Yossi will say 'Sosrin ha'Kol' (and the Nazir must begin his Nezirus all over again.

(a) To enable the author of our Mishnah to be the Rabbanan - we amend it to read 'Moneh ke'mi'Sha'ah she'Nadar' (meaning that he must count all the days that he undertook all over again, irrespective of whether the Nezirus is short-term or long-term).

(b) The Rabbanan concede that the Noder does not need to count *all* the first days again - if he had already counted some of the days before he drank wine.

4)

(a) When Rav Nachman says (regarding the Ta'us of Ma'aser Beheimah) 'Ta'uso ve'Lo Kavanaso' - he means that the Ta'us is only effective if the owner genuinely erred, but not if he deliberately misnamed the animal.

(b) Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna say that, on the contrary - it applies when he erred and all the more so when he misnamed it deliberately.

(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman why, according to him, when Beis Shamai tried to prove that 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh' from Ma'aser Beheimah, Beis Hillel did not answer that Ma'aser Beheimah is different - inasmuch as it does not become Kadosh intentionally (and that 'Ma'aser Ta'us, Ma'aser' - due to a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv').

(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi resolves Rav Nachman with the Beraisa by pointing out that - had Beis Shamai refuted Beis Shamai's Kashya with that argument, Beis Shamai would have retorted that, quite the opposite, if Ma'aser, which is not Kadosh intentionally, is Kadosh be'Ta'us, Hekdesh, which is, should certainly be Kadosh be'Ta'us.

(b) However, Rav Shimi bar Ashi himself vindicates Rava's Kashya. He refutes his own 'Kal va'Chomer' on the grounds - that Hekdesh requires Da'as. Consequently, even though Ma'aser takes effect unintentionally (through a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'), Hekdesh will not take effect without Da'as.

(c) Beis Hillel did not present this argument to refute Beis Shamai's Kashya (not because it is not a good answer, but) - because they gave an equally good answer ('Chad mi'Trei Nakat').

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah teaches that if someone declared a Neder Nezirus, and then discovered that his designated Korban had been stolen, a Chacham could not annul his Nezirus on the basis of the theft (because of the principle 'Ein Poschin be'Nolad'). This would not be the case - if he declared his Nezirus only after it had been stolen (because then it would not be 'Nolad').

(b) Beis Shamai (who hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh') could nevertheless be the author of this Mishnah - because a Nezirus that has been annulled is weaker than Hekdesh Ta'us.

(c) The Nezirim returned from Galus - in order to bring their Korbanos and terminate their Nezirus. However, they discovered that this was not possible, because the Beis Hamikdash had been destroyed.

(d) Nachum ha'Madi committed an error by annulling their Nezirus on the basis of the Charatah which in turn, was based on the Churban (which is Nolad). The basis of his error - was the fact that he failed to differentiate between a foreseeable Nolad (which can be annulled) and one which is not (which cannot).

7)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer held 'Poschin be'Nolad'. Seeing as he lived in that era, the significance of the fact that he did not protest when the Chachamim rebuffed Nachum ha'Madi is - that he retracted.

(b) Rava rules that although we hold 'Ein Poschin be'Nolad', nevertheless 'Poschin bi'Tenai Nolad' - meaning that the Chacham can annul the Neder on the basis of the question 'If you had known at the time of the Neder, that someone may inform you (before the termination of your Nezirus) that the Beis Hamikdash has been destroyed, would you have still declared it', should the Noder reply in the negative?

(a) Had Rav Yosef been there, he would have agreed with Nachum ha'Madi, on the basis of the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Heichal Hashem, Heichal Hashem, Heichal Hashem" - clearly indicating that the second Beis Hamikdash was destined to be destroyed (taking it into the category of a foreseeable Nolad). Tosfos explains that he would not have annulled their Neder, but merely scolded them for not taking into account the strong possibility that they would be unable to terminate their Nezirus. It is unclear though, why they explain Rav Yosef in this way.

(b) Abaye learns from the Pasuk in Daniel "Shevu'ayim Shiv'im Nechtach al Amcha ve'Al Arei Kodshecha" - that the Churban Bayis Sheini would take place four hundred and ninety years after the first Churban (the seventy years of Galus Bavel plus the four hundred and twenty years that it stood), making even the year that it would occur, predictable.

(c) Nachum ha'Madi was nevertheless wrong - seeing as the exact date was unpredictable (in which case, the Nezirim might have been able to terminate their Nezirus and bring their Korbanos before it took place). Consequently, the Churban was considered an unforeseeable Nolad.

(a) We have already explained the Mishnah of six Nezirim, in which Beis Hillel say 'Ein Nazir Ela Mi she'Lo Niskaymu Devarav'. What is obviously difficult with this text is - that surely it ought to be the one whose words did materialize who is a Nazir, not the one whose words did not?

(b) Rav Yehudah therefore amends the Mishnah to read 'Ein Nazir Ela Mi she'Niskaymu Devarav'. Abaye prefers to retain the original text. In order to do that, we must add to the Noder's wording 'I Nami La'av P'loni Hu, Ehevei Nazir'.

(c) When the Tana says 'Mi she'Lo Niskaymu Devarav' - he means 'Lo Niskaymu Devarav ha'Rishonim Ela ha'Acharonim'.

(a) According to Rebbi Tarfon, not one of them is a Nazir - because when they undertook the Nezirus, none of them knew for sure who was right, and (based on the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yafli") Nezirus must be certain at the time that it is declared.

(b) The fourth friend who said 'Hareini Nazir, she'Ein Echad Mikem Nazir', is not a Nazir (despite the fact that neither of the first two is a Nazir) - because this implies that one of them is not a Nazir, but the other one is.

(c) In order to be a Nazir, according to Rebbi Tarfon - he would have to say 'Hareini Nazir, she'Ein *Shum* Echad Mikem Nazir'.

(d) And that explains why the Tana omits the last case, where a tenth friend said 'Hareini Nazir, Im Ein Echad Mikem Nazir' - because even Rebbi Tarfon would agree there that he is a Nazir.

(a) In the event that the man coming towards them turned back, this Mishnah holds that not one of them is a Nazir (despite the fact that one of the first two was definitely right) - because even if the Nezirus does not need to be certain at the time that it is declared, it must become clarified before it can come into effect.

(b) The author of our Mishnah must therefore be Rebbi Yehudah, who holds - that a person does not let himself into a doubt(ful Neder).

(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, and he is a Safek Nazir, the immediate ramifications of which are - that the Nazir must fulfill all the obligations of a Nazir regarding the prohibitions of shaving, drinking wine and becoming Tamei.

(d) Nevertheless, he needs to declare that, in case he is not a Nazir, he undertakes Nezirus Nedavah - to enable himself to terminate his Nezirus (by shaving and bringing his Korbanos).

Next daf