Previous daf

1)

(a) We have already discussed our Mishnah (of a Nezirah whose husband annulled her Nezirus after she had already designated her Korbanos).
Which three animals does she bring for her Chatas, Olah and Shelamim respectively?

(b) What is the time-period for eating ...

1. ... regular Shelamim?
2. ... Shalmei Nazir?

(c) What are the two other differences between regular Shelamim and Shalmei Nazir?

(d) If the Chatas belongs to the woman (i.e. if it was purchased from her money), it must die.
Is someone Chayav a Korban Me'ilah for benefiting from it?

(a) In the previous case, the Olah and the Shelamim are brought as Nedavos. Will Rebbi Yishmael, who learned above that the Olah in the case of a Nazir Tamei is not brought, agree with this?

(b) The Shelamim are only eaten for one day.
Will this be the case even assuming that the Tana holds that a husband uproots the Neder retroactively?

(c) Why are the breads that normally accompany the Shelamim not brought here?

(d) If she already designated them however, they will require redemption, irrespective of whether a husband uproots his wife's Neder retroactively or only from now on.
Assuming the latter, on what basis will one be permitted to redeem the bread at all?

(a) What is the "Zero'a Besheilah"? What normally happens to it?

(b) When we will later say 'Shalmei Nazir she'Shachtan she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan' (such as the one under discussion) 'Ein Lo Zero'a', we may mean that it is not waved (though it is certainly forbidden to a Zar).
What else might we mean?

(c) Does this also pertain to the case in our Mishnah?

(a) Unspecified money goes to the Yam ha'Melach, and so does the money that is specified for her Chatas.
May one derive benefit from it?

(b) Why is one not obligated to bring a Korban Me'ilah if one does?

(c) What is the status of the Olah that she purchases with the money that was specified for her Olah?

(d) What are the specifications ofs the Shelamim that she purchases with the money for her Shelamim (regarding the time-limit to eat it, and whether it requires bread)?

(a) On what grounds does the Tana differentiate between whether the animal is his or hers?

(b) Rav Chisda establishes the author of our Mishnah as the Rabbanan, of Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say about a poor married woman who is married to a wealthy man and who is obligated to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid (which depends on one's financial status)?

(c) Does this mean that she is permitted to volunteer as many Korbanos as she wishes and that her husband is obligated to bring them on her behalf?

(d) Rava disagrees with Rav Chisda.
On what grounds does he establish our Mishnah even like Rebbi Yehudah?

7)

(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Yehudah agrees that, according to the Rabbanan (who hold that a husband is not obligated to bring his wife's Korbanos at all) our Mishnah would be superfluous. Consequently, the author must be Rebbi Yehudah. But seeing as, in his opinion, a husband is obligated to bring his wife's Korbanos, why does the Tana say 'Teitzei ve'Tir'eh be'Eider' (even as regards a Chatas)?

(b) On what grounds did Rav Chisda not establish our Mishnah like the Rabbanan, when the husband was Makneh his animals for her use (should he not annul her Neder)?

(c) Here too, Rava disagrees.
On what grounds does he now establish our Mishnah even like the Rabbanan?

(d) Why are we forced to say that her husband was Makneh her his animals at an earlier date for when she will need them, and not after she declared her Neder Nezirus?

8)

(a) To reconcile our Mishnah, which says 'Im she'Lah Haysah ... ' with the principle 'Mah she'Kansah Ishah Kansah Ba'alah', we establish it in a case of 'Kamtzah me'Isasah'.
What does this mean?

(b) To reconcile our Sugya with the Sugya in Kesuvos, which maintains 'Moser Mezonos le'Ba'alah', we establish our case when her husband had already said to her 'Tze'i Ma'aseh Yadayich bi'Mezonosayich', to which she had agreed, and she then produced more than she would have received from her husband. How else might we reconcile the two Sugyos?

(c) And how else might we answer the initial Kashya from 'Mah she'Kansah Ishah, Kansah Ba'alah'?

(d) Is this answer the Halachah?

(a) There are four cases (all Mishnahs) where the ram of the Shalmei Nazir does not require bread. One of these is 'she'Lah' (our Mishnah). The next is 'she'Lo', which deals with a case where a father declared a Neder Nezirus on behalf of his son.
May one person be Madir Nezirus on behalf of another?

(b) What is the significance of the continuation of the Mishnah 'Gilach O she'Gilchuhu Kerovav'?

(c) What is now the case of 'she'Lo' where he brings a Shelamim but not the bread?

(d) What happens to the money of the Chatas and of the Olah?

(a) The third case is that of 'she'le'Achar Misah'.
Why is there no Me'ilah regarding the unspecified money of a Nazir?

(b) Nevertheless, the Tana says 'Lo Nehenin'.
Is this min ha'Torah or mi'de'Rabbanan?

(c) Should the Nazir die, leaving over unspecified money, it goes to Nedavah.
What is 'Nedavah'?

(d) What happens to the money if it was specified (for a Chatas, an Olah and a Shelamim)?

(a) The fourth case is that of 'she'le'Achar Kaparah'.
What is the case?

(b) What did Shmuel now ask Avuhah bar Ihi to explain to him (before sitting down)?

(c) He answered him (or Shmuel said it himself) by comparing 'she'le'Achar Kaparah' to 'she'le'Achar Misah'.
What does this mean?

(a) We ask why Chazal only quoted four cases where the Shelamim are brought without the bread, when really there are five. The fifth case is that of Shalmei Nazir she'Shachtan she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan'. This might mean one that was Shechted she'Lo Lishmah.
What else might it mean?

(b) Is the Korban Kasher? Has the owner fulfilled his obligation?

(c) Why is no bread brought with the Korban, and the Dinim of Zero'a not applied?

(d) What is the source of the Din of eating Shalmei Nazir for only one day?

Next daf