Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned that if the man coming towards the six travelers turned back, then none of them is a Nazir. Based on an inference, the author of this section of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Tarfon - because Rebbi Yehudah said in his name 'Ein Echad Meihen Nazir, Lefi she'Lo Nitnah Nezirus Ela le'Hafla'ah'.

(b) We probably quote Rebbi Yehudah (rather than Rebbi Tarfon in our Mishnah) - because he adds Rebbi Tarfon's source from the Torah (Tosfos).

(a) We conclude that the author (of Hirsi'a le'Achorav) must be 'Rebbi Yehudah di'K'ri' - who says that if someone undertook Nezirus on condition that the pile of grain in front of him contained a hundred Kur, and he later discovered that it had been stolen or lost, he is not a Nazir.

(b) Rebbi Shimon says - that he is.

(c) Rav Ashi in Nedarim does not seem to agree with our Sugya. He comments there that Rebbi Yehudah, who invalidates the Nezirus due to the fact that the pile was stolen - would really say the same thing even if the pile had not been stolen (because he holds like the Rebbi Tarfon that he quoted above) Tosfos.

(d) Rav Ashi will explain our Mishnah - to go like the Tana in 'Hareini Nazir', who says 'Hipilah Ishto, Eino Nazir' (because the Nezirus must ultimately be clarified, in order to become valid) Tosfos.

(a) The Tana discusses a case if someone sees a Koy and declares Nezirus if it is a Chayah, whilst his friend declares Nezirus if it is not. The third friend says that he will be a Nazir if it is a Beheimah, and fourth friend, if it is not.

(b) The fifth friend declares Nezirus if it is both a Chayah and a Beheimah, and the sixth that it is neither - in which case it is an individual species, and may not be bred with either a Beheimah or a Chayah.

(c) If it is both, the ramifications of saying that it is ...

1. ... a Chayah - are that its blood requires covering (after it has been Shechted).
2. ... a Beheimah - that its Cheilev is forbidden.

(a) The seventh friend declares Nezirus if one of them is a Nazir - the eighth friend, if one of them is not.

(b) The ninth friend declares Nezirus if all of them are Nezirim. This feasible - when we explain 'Nezirim' to mean Safek Nezirim'.

(c) The Tana rules - that all of them are Nezirim.

(a) The theory that the Tana follows the opinion of Beis Shamai, who rule in the previous Mishnah too that all of them are Nezirim, is unacceptable (seeing as Tana'im do not go out of their way to teach us the rulings of Beis Shamai), In fact, the author could even be Beis Hillel, who rule there that they are not all Nezirim, meaning 'Vaday Nezirim', (but Safek Nezirim they are).

(b) In fact, the author is Beis Hillel according to Rebbi Shimon - who ruled that if the Nazir turned back, they are all Safek Nezirim, even though it is a Safek which does not stand to become clarified (based on the fact that a person tends to let himself into a Safek Nezirus).

(c) Some commentaries explain that the last three friends are ...

1. ... Vaday Nezirim - because one of them is indeed a Nazir (substantiating number seven's Nezirus), one of them is not a Vaday (but a Safek [number eight]), and all of them are Safek Nezirim (number nine).
2. ... Safek Nezirim - because what they may have meant is - that one of the first ones is a Vaday Nazir (number seven), is definitely not a Nazir (number eight), and that both of them are definitely not Nezirim (number nine) Tosfos.

(d) The problem with the nine Nezirim in our Mishnah is - why the Tana seemingly omits the case where the last one says 'she'Kulchem Einam Nezirim' (Tosfos. Perhaps he does so to balance the previous Mishnah, where he deliberately omits this case, as we explained there).

(a) Some explain our Mishnah to mean that all nine people are Nezirim (as we explained it). Others explain - that it is one man who accepted nine separate Nezirus.

(b) The problem with this is how it is possible to apply the last three cases in the Mishnah ('she'Echad Mikem Nazir', 'she'Ein Echad Mikem Nazir' 'she'Kulchem Nezirim') to one person. We resolve it - by establishing that nine men had previously accepted Nezirus in this way, and we are speaking about a tenth man who took upon himself all of their Nezirus in the event that they are all Nezirim.

7)

(a) Our Mishnah teaches us that Nezirus comprises three prohibitions. From the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kadosh Yih'yeh Gadeil Pera" - we learn that a Nazir is forbidden to cut his hair.
2. ... "*mi'Kol* Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin, me'Chartzanim" - that a Nazir receive Malkos for eating a k'Zayis comprizing grapes, raisins pits and skins.

(b) According to the Mishnah Rishonah, one is only Chayav for drinking a Revi'is (one and a half egg-volumes) of wine. Rebbi Akiva says - that one is even Chayav for a k'Zayis of bread soaked in wine (considerable less than a Revi'is).

(c) According to the Tana Kama, a Nazir is Chayav even for eating a k'Zayis of pits or of skins. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says - that at least two pits and one skin are required before he can receive Malkos.

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, "Chartzanim" are the skins and "Zagim", the pits; whereas Rebbi Yossi holds the reverse. The sign he gives by which to remember this is - the 'Zug' (bell) of an animal, which is on the outside (whilst the clapper is on the inside).

8)

(a) We infer from our Mishnah, which states that a Nazir transgresses when he eats anything that is 'Yotze min ha'Gefen' - that he is not Chayav for eating part of the vine itself.

(b) Others make the same inference from the Seifa 've'Eino Chayav Ela ad she'Yochal k'Zayis min ha'Anavim'. They decline to learn like the first opinion - because, in their opinion, 'Kol ha'Yotze min ha'Gefen' incorporates the vine itself.

(c) Either way, this does not conform with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar - who obligates even a Nazir who ate the leaves or the small branches of a vine.

(d) Both Tana'im derive their respective opinions from the Pasuk "mi'Yayin ve'Sheichar Yazir ... mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin ... . Rebbi Elazar Darshens this Pasuk in the form of a 'Mi'ut and Ribuy'. From ...

1. ... the latter Pasuk, he includes - everything.
2. ... the former one - he excludes the large branches.

(a) The Rabbanan add the Pasuk "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag", and Darshen all three - in the form of 'P'rat u'Chelal, u'Ferat'.

(b) They subsequently Darshen the 'P'rat u'Chelal u'Ferat' (like they would a 'K'lal u'Ferat u'Chelal') - to include whatever is similar to the P'rat' (i.e. fruit and waste [such as unripe or wormy grapes]).

(c) They Darshen the P'rat in this way (in spite of the fact that it is actual food) and not literally (confining the La'av to actual food) - because whatever is food from the vine (grapes, raisins, wine and vinegar) has already been mentioned in the Pasuk itself (Tosfos).

(d) In any event, it is quite inconceivable to exclude wormy grapes for two reasons, one of them because it is no worse that vinegar, which the Torah specifically includes. The other one - because what would the 'P'rat u'Chelal u'Ferat' then come to include (Tosfos)?

(a) We ask why the Pasuk needs to add "Mechartzaim ve'ad Zag". True, we just used that as the second P'rat. What we are asking however, is - why the Torah places this second P'rat after the K'lal, and not simply add it to the first P'rat (Tosfos).

(b) The Torah places it after the K'lal - to teach us that we cannot treat a 'K'lal u'F'rat' like a 'K'lal u'Frat u'Chelal'.

(c) Had there not been a P'rat after the K'lal - we would have used the K'lal to include the branches and the leaves (because a 'P'rat u'Chelal' works in the same way as a 'Mi'ut ve'Ribuy' (according to Rebbi Elazar).

(d) Rebbi Elazar conquers with Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in our Mishnah, who learns from "Mechartzanim ve'ad Zag" - that one is only Chayav if one eats at least two grape-pits and one skin.

(a) The 'P'ri referred to in the Beraisa is the fruit itself, and the 'Peso'les P'ri', vinegar. 'Af Kol P'ri' comes to include 'Guharki', and the 'Af Kol' of Peso'les P'ri, 'Invi Dichrin'.

1. 'Guharki' means - unripe grapes, and ...
2. ... 'Invi Dichrin' - wormy ones.

(b) From "*ve'Ad* Zag" we include 'de'Bein ha'Beinayim' - small grapes which will never ripen.

(c) Despite having already included unripe grapes, we nevertheless need a Pasuk to include these small grapes - because, unlike the unripe grapes, they will never ripen.

(a) Others explain 'de'Bein ha'Beinayim' to mean the flesh between the pits and the skin, an explanation which we initially reject - on the grounds that this is the grape itself, which we already know from "Anavim" (Tosfos).

(b) We ultimately accept it (answering the previous Kashya in the process) - by establishing it when he picked of the flesh and ate it (which is an unusual way of eating it, and for which, if not for the D'rashah, he would not be Chayav).