Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TRANSFERRING LAWS FROM NEDER TO NAZIR (Cont.)

(a) Answer #3 (R. Acha bar Yaakov): Bal T'acher applies in a case where he accepted Nezirus in a cemetary.

1. Question: How will Bal T'acher apply here according to the view that the Nezirus takes effect immediately, even in a cemetary?
2. Question #2: Even the other view does not dispute that it takes effect immediately, only whether he is liable for Malkus!?
3. Answer: He transgresses Bal T'acher for delaying Tahor Nezirus.
4. (R. Ashi) It follows that a Nazir who makes himself Tamei likewise transgresses Bal T'acher.

(b) Answer #4 (R. Acha b. R. Ikka): It applies where he delayed his haircut.

1. This is true even according to the view that it is not critical for the Nezirus, as it is still a mitzvah.

(c) Answer #5 (Mar Zutra b. R. Mari): It applies where he delayed his Korbanos.

1. Question: That is learned from the standard Pasuk for Bal T'acher of Korbanos (so we wouldn't need the Hekesh for it)!?
2. Answer: One wouldn't know to learn Bal T'acher for Nazir from there, as it is a novel case.
3. Question: How is it novel? It can't be because it cannot be the subject of Hatfasah, as neither can Chatas Cheilev, and that still has Bal T'acher!?
4. Answer: It is novel in that one becomes a full Nazir even if only vowing to abstain from grapeskins.
5. Question #1: How will we explain it according to the view that one does not become a full Nazir in such a case?
6. Question #2: That law is a stringency (which makes it all the more likely to be subject to Bal T'acher)!?

7. Answer: It is novel in that if he has his hair cut before bringing all three Korbanos, he is released from the Nezirus.
8. Alternate answer: It is novel in that it cannot be the subject of Hatfasah.

i. The fact that neither can Chatas Cheilev, and yet that still has Bal T'acher, would be explained as due to it serving as atonement.

9. Question: Chatas Yoledes does not serve as atonement and yet still has Bal T'acher!?
10. Answer: Chatas Yoledes permits her to eat the neccesary Kodshim (and it is therefore expected that it would have a time limit).

(d) Question: Why did the Hafarah of the father and husband with Nazir have to be learned from Nedarim with a Hekesh - why not use a Mah Matzinu?
(e) Answer: One might think that this ability only exists with Nedarim which are of unlimited duration.

(a) (Shmuel) The vows of Mudrani, Mufreshani and Meruchkani of the Mishnah only work in conjunction with him saying "on my eating of yours" or "on my tasting of yours."
(b) Question: We find a Beraisa that splits them up, saying that each is binding!?
(c) Answer: It means that the first phrases are binding in a case where he said the latter qualifications.

1. Question: Another Beraisa first lists the latter qualifications as binding, then the former!?
2. Answer: It means that the qualifications are binding in a case where he already said the other phrases.
3. Question: But that would be the same as the other Beraisa!?
4. Question #2: Why state the word "binding" with both types?

(d) New answer: Shmuel meant that only with the latter qualifications is the proclaimer forbidden from benefiting from the subject, but the subject may benefit from him; otherwise, they are mutually prohibited.