Previous daf

1)

(a) Some define 'Kinuyim' as expressions used by the Nochrim - others, as expressions invented by the Chachamim to avoid saying the Name of Hashem to make a Neder (because the Torah writes "Korban la'Hashem". Consequently, afraid that a person may just think of the Pasuk and say 'la'Hashem' on its own) - they invented alternative Leshonos.

(b) According to the latter interpretation, Yados are more obvious than Kinuyim. Our Tana seems to open with Kinuyim rather with Yados (in spite of what we just explained, that it is the way of the Tana to open with the more obvious), only because we amended the Mishnah and added 've'Chol Yados, ki'Nedarim' *after* 'Kol Kinuyei Nedarim ki'Nedarim'. But according to those who explain Kinuyim as being Leshanos which the Chachamim invented, what is to stop us from putting Yados *before* Kinuyim?

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ish ki Yafli Lindor Neder *Nazir Lehazir* la'Hashem" - that 'Yados Nezirus ki'Nezirus'.

(b) We learn Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim from the same Pasuk - by virtue of the Hekesh of Neder to Nezirus.

(c) We also learn from this Hekesh that the La'avin of bal Yachel and bal Te'acher apply to Nezirus like they apply to Neder.

1. ... 'bal Yachel' applies - to Nidrei Isur.
2. ... 'bal Te'acher' applies - to Nidrei Hekdesh.

(d) A father may annul the Neder *Nezirus* of his daughter, and a husband, the Nezirus of his wife - just like he can annul their *Nedarim* on the day that he hears them, because we learn this from the same Hekesh.

(a) We need a Hekesh to teach us 'Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim'. We cannot learn it from the fact that the Torah uses a double expression by Neder "Lindor Neder" (just like it uses a double expression by Nezirus, from which we learn 'Yados Nezirus ki'Nezirus') - because "Lindor Neder" (where the verb is written first) is not irregular, like "Nazir Lehazir" (where the verb is mentioned last).

(b) The Torah uses the double expression "Lindor Neder" - because 'Dibrah Torah ki'L'shon B'nei Adam'.

(c) This opinion holds 'Dibrah Torah ki'L'shon B'nei Adam' even when there is an alternative way of explaining the Pasuk (because otherwise, everyone will agree that the Torah does indeed speak in human terms).

(d) Those who maintain that when there is an alternative way of explaining the Pasuk, the Torah does not speak like human beings, will learn the Hekesh from Neder to Nazir (and not vice-versa, as we learned earlier). From "Nazir Lehazir" - they learn that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' (that one Nezirus will take effect on top of another Nezirus), as we shall see.

(a) When we thought that "Lindor Neder" was eligible for a Derashah like "Nazir Lehazir", we asked 'Hekeisha Lamah Li', and not 'Lindor Neder Lamah Li' (like we do after we discover that it is not) - because of the principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra', which extends also to a Hekesh.

(b) The principle 'Milsa de'Asya ... Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' - also extends to a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (according to the Ran - see Hagahos ha'Rav Renshberg).

5)

(a) 'Melamed she'ha'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' - speaks when someone accepts one Nezirus today and another tomorrow (or any time within thirty days). He becomes obligated to keep two periods of thirty days each.

(b) We suggest that those who hold 'Dibrah Torah ki'L'shon B'nei Adam', and who also learn Yados Nezirus from "Nazir Lehazir', will hold 'Ein Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus. We can reconcile this with the Sugya in the second Perek, which assumes that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' is unanimous - by establishing that Sugya like those who hold 'Lo Dibrah Torah ki'L'shon B'nei Adam'.

(c) If on the other hand, we take the Gemara in the second Perek literally (that it really is unanimous), then, seeing as this opinion already uses "Nazir Lehazir" for Yados - they will learn 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' from the word "Lehazir", when the Torah should have rather written "Lizor", leaving us with two D'rashos from the one word.

(a) In Eretz Yisrael, they also cited two possible sources for Yados Nedarim, "Lindor Neder" and "ke'Chol ha'Yotze mi'Piv Ya'aseh" (depending on whether 'Dibrah Torah ... ' or 'Lo Dibrah ... '). They discard the source from "Nazir Lehazir" - because they do not like the idea of learning two D'rashos from "Lehazir".

(b) Those who do learn Yados from "Nazir Lehazir" - learn from "ke'Chol ha'Yotze mi'Piv Ya'aseh" that 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar Kulo' (either he remains obligated to fulfill the entire Neder, or he is absolved; there is no such thing as having to fulfill half the Neder that he made).

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learned earlier that 'Bal Yachel' pertains to Nezirus, too. The problem with that is - that the moment he utters the Neder of Nezirus, he is subject to the La'av of 'bal Tochal' or 'bal Tishteh', so how can the La'av of 'bal Te'acher' take effect, too?

(b) We initially decline to explain that one transgresses both 'bal Yochal' as well as 'bal Yachel' or 'bal Yishteh' - because we think that, just as bal Te'acher of Neder takes effect on its own, so too, that of Nezirus.

(c) Nor can we establish 'bal Te'acher' when the person says 'Harei Alai Liheyos Nazir' (like 'bal Te'acher' of Korbanos) - because, unlike 'bal Te'acher' by Korbanos, which are still missing the Ma'aseh of sanctification, Nezirus is not. Consequently, as soon as one undertakes to be a Nazir, there is nothing to prevent the Nezirus from taking effect immediately.

(d) Rava suggests that 'bal Yachel' will apply when he says 'le'che'she'Ertzeh'. We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that, in that case, as long as he doesn't want to become a Nazir, there is no reason to transgress.

(a) So Rava establishes the case - when he promises not to leave this world before he has undertaken to be a Nazir, which in itself, does not constitute immediate Nezirus, but does force him to declare his Nezirus immediately.

(b) This is different than someone who says 'Harei Alai Liheyos Nazir', where 'bal Te'acher' does not apply, as we just explained - because whereas there, his Nezirus takes immediate effect, here, what takes immediate effect is the obligation to declare himself a Nazir, but not the Nezirus itself.

(c) This case is very similar to a man who says to his wife 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Misasi' - in which case, (assuming that she is a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen) she is forbidden to eat Terumah immediately, for lack of knowledge when that moment arrives. The difference between that case and here however, is that, whereas *here*, he transgresses 'bal Te'acher' immediately, should he fail to declare himself a Nazir (to ensure that he manages to complete his Nezirus before his death), *there* she will only have transgressed if her husband actually died before she ate.

(a) Despite the fact that we learn 'bal Te'acher' by Nezirus from 'bal Te'acher' by Neder, (where one transgresses only after three Regalim) by Nezirus, one transgresses immediately - because, even though in both cases, the Neder takes effect immediately, whereas by Neder, there is nothing in his undertaking that suggests that he brings the Korban immediately, there is in the undertaking of the Nazir.

(b) Rava might have established the case by Nezirus when he undertakes to begin his Nezirus within two years, in which case he would transgress 'bal Te'acher' after three Regalim from the last possible moment (just like he would be if he undertook to bring a Korban then).

(c) He declines to do so however - because he is looking to establish the case by 'Harei Alai' (and not by 'Ehei').