Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MISHNAH: NEDARIM FALLING ON NEDARIM

(a) A Neder can take effect on top of another Neder, but not a Shevuah on a Shevuah.
(b) For example, if he says "I will be a Nazir if I eat" twice, then he must accept a period of Nezirus for each act of eating.
(c) But if he said "I make a Shevuah that I will not eat" twice, then he is only liable once, no matter how many times he eats.

(a) (Rav Huna) It is only if he said "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir tomorrow" that both take effect, since there will be an extra day.
(b) (Shmuel) Even if he said "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir today," both are effective.
(c) Question: According to Rav Huna, why didn't the Mishnah specify that a Neder can only take effect on top of another Neder if he says it in a certain way?
(d) Answer: This remains a difficulty.

3) QUESTIONS ON RAV HUNA

(a) Question: There is a proof against Rav Huna:

1. The Mishnah said that a Neder can take effect on top of another Neder, but not a Shevuah on a Shevuah.
2. If the Nedarim are that he said, "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir tomorrow," then the parallel with Shevuos is that he said "I won't eat figs," and then "I won't eat grapes" - but there is no reason why that shouldn't work!
3. So the case of Shevuos must be that he said "I won't eat figs," and then "I won't eat figs," where the second oath is ineffective.
4. The parallel with Nedarim is that he said "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir today," and the Mishnah says that both are effective.

(b) Answer: The Mishnah's case is where he said "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir tomorrow," and the parallel to Shevuos is where he said "I won't eat figs," and then "I won't eat figs and grapes," where the second oath is ineffective.
(c) Question: We see that in such a case the second oath would be effective:

1. (Rabbah) In such a case, if he ate figs, designated a Korban, and then ate grapes, he doesn't designate another Korban, but only because it is only half of the subject of the oath.
2. However, the second oath is effective, since there it covers additional subjects!

(d) Answer: Rav Huna does not hold of Rabbah's view.
(e) Question: There is a proof against Rav Huna:

1. (Mishnah) If someone accepted two periods of Nezirus, observes the first, designates a Korban, and then requests release on the first, then the second Nezirus is considered as having already been done.
2. It can't refer to where he said "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir tomorrow," as then the second should not be considered as having already been done, since there should be an extra day.
3. So it must mean that he said "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir today," and we see that both are effective!

(f) Answer: It does refer to where he said "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir tomorrow," and the second is only considered as having been done with the addition of an extra day.
(g) Alternate answer: It refers to where he accepted them simultaneously.