Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) QUESTIONS ON RAV HUNA

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

1. The Pasuk of "Nazir LeHazir" teaches us that Nedarim can take effect on top of Nedarim.
2. One might have thought otherwise, as with Shevuos, which are more stringent, a Shevuah still cannot take effect over another.
3. It can't refer to where he said "I will be a Nazir today," and then "I will be a Nazir tomorrow," as we wouldn't need a Pasul to teach us that it works.
4. 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!

(b) Answer: It refers to where he accepted them simultaneously.
(c) Question: How is a Shevuah more stringent than a Neder?

1. It can't be in that it takes effect even on something that is not tangible, as one could counter that Neder is more stringent in that it is effective even on a mitzvah!

(d) Answer: It is more stringent in that the Torah says "He shall not be held guiltless."

(a) The Mishnah said that 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.
(b) (Rava) If he requests release on the first, then the second Shevuah takes effect.

1. This is deduced from the Mishnah saying "that he is only liable once," indicating that the second liability is simply lacking room; when the first is released, it has room.

(c) A different version: He is not liable for the second, but it is a Shevuah.

1. The Halachic significance of this is for Rava's ruling that if he requests release on the first, then the second Shevuah takes effect.

(d) Suggested proof: (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.
(e) Rejection: That is no proof, as it might refer to where he accepted them simultaneously.

3) MISHNAH: STRINGENCIES IN UNSPECIFIED NEDARIM

(a) (R. Meir) Unspecified Nedarim are interpreted stringently, but if explained, they are interpreted leniently.
(b) For example, a person who said that something should be as salted meat or as wine of libation;

1. If he referred to a Korban, it is binding; if he referred to idolatry, it is not binding (as it is Davar Ha-Assur); if he did not specify, then it is binding.

(c) If he said that something should be as Cherem;

1. If he referred to a Cherem to Hashem, it is binding; if he referred to a Cherem for the Kohanim, it is not binding; if he did not specify, then it is binding.

(d) If he said that something should be as Ma'aser;

1. If he referred to Ma'aser Behemah, it is binding; if he referred to Ma'aser of produce, it is not binding; if he did not specify, then it is binding.

(e) If he said that something should be as Terumah;

1. If he referred to Terumah of the Lishchah, it is binding; if he referred to Terumah of produce, it is not binding; if he did not specify, then it is binding.

(f) (R. Yehudah) If he did not specify what Terumah he meant, then it is binding in Judea, but not in the Galil, as the people there are not familiar with Terumah of the Lishchah.
(g) If he did not specify what Cherem he meant, then it is permitted in Judea, but binding in the Galil, as the people there are not familiar with Cheramim of Kohanim.

(a) Question: How can our Mishnah rule that we resolve them stringently - a Mishnah states that doubts concerning Nezirus are to be resolved leniently!?
(b) Suggested answer (R. Zeira): Our Mishnah follows the Rabbanan, whereas that Mishnah follows R. Eliezer:

1. (Beraisa) (Rabbanan) If someone consecrates his wild and domestic animals, it includes the Koy.
2. (R. Eliezer) It doesn't include the Koy.
3. The former, holding that a person intends to include doubtful cases with his property, holds that the same is true with himself.
4. The latter, holding that a person does not include doubtful cases with his property, holds that this is all the more true with himself.