Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah states 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder - ve'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah'.

(b) The Tana gives as an example of the former 'Hareini Nazir im Ochal, Hareini Nazir im Ochal'. Despite the fact that the same would have applied had he said 'Hareini Nazir, Hareini Nazir', the Tana did not state the more simple case - because the case that he did state balances with that of Shevu'ah, which can only appear as 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal'. Note, that this is also the answer given by the Gemara, according to those who cite this Kashya in the text, as we shall see shortly.

(c) The ramifications of the statement 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' are - that the Noder practices one thirty-day period of Nezirus, brings the relevant Korbanos and then practices a second period.

(d) The phrase means - that the second Nezirus is valid even as the first one is being practiced (only it is not possible to practice two Nezirus simultaneously). In fact, if that was not the case, then there is no way that the second Nezirus could take effect after the termination of the first one (seeing as he did not declare Nezirus then).

(a) 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' - cannot imply that if someone declared two Nedarim on a certain food which he subsequently eats, he receives two sets of Malkos, because never do we find two Malkos for one act that stems from one Pasuk.

(b) The reason for the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah' is - because having accepted the first Shevu'ah, he is already 'Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai'.

(c) We nevertheless say 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' - because of the Pasuk 'Nazir Lehazir', as we shall see shortly.

(a) According to some texts, we pose two Kashyos (on the example of 'Hareini Nazir im Ochal, Hareini Nazir im Ochal'): One of them is why the Tana needs to connect Nezirus to Achilah (which we already discussed in our Mishnah). The second Kashya is - having connected them, why does the Tana need to repeat the phrase? Based on the Sugya in Shevu'os, someone who eats a number of k'Zeisim, is Chayav for each k'Zayis. Consequently, one would be Chayav two (or more) Malkos, one for each k'Zayis that he ate (provided there is a warning for each k'Zayis, as we shall now see) even without accepting a second Nezirus.

(b) He would only receive two Malkos if there was a warning between the two k'Zeisim - just like we find with a Chiyuv Korban or Malkos, which require a specific break between each k'Zayis in order to receive a second Malkos.

(a) According to Rav Huna, 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' only pertains to a case where he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar' - because then, since the thirty-first day takes effect, the other twenty-nine days follow automatically.

(b) We do not say that, seeing as it is only the last day of his second Nezirus that is due to take effect, the Nezirus is Bateil - because of the ruling in Maseches Nazir, that if someone undertakes to be a Nazir for one day, he is obligated to keep a full thirty-day Nezirus.

(c) According to Shmuel - even if he says 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom', the second Nezirus will take effect after the termination of the first.

(a) According to Rav Huna, instead of continuing 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', the Tana of our Mishnah could just as well have said 'Ein Neder be'Soch Neder' (referring to when he accepted both periods of Nezirus to run concurrently) - Rav Huna has no way of explaining the fact that the Tana moved from Neder to Shevu'ah (unnecessarily) and we remain with a Kashya on him?

(b) We might ask the same Kashya on Shmuel: that instead of continuing 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', the Tana of our Mishnah could just as well have said 'Ein Neder be'Soch Neder' - with reference to when the Noder said 'Konem Alai Kikar Zeh, Konem Alai Kikar Zeh', in which case, the second Neder will not take effect (because it is only in the case of Nezirus, where the two Nedarim become effective at different times, that we hold 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder')?

(c) The reason that we do not ask on Shmuel is - because the Kashya on Rav Huna is not why the Tana moves from Neder to Shevu'ah (as we thought it was), but why the Tana states categorically 'Ein Neder be'Soch Neder' (before differentiating between Nedarim and Shevu'os), leading us to believe that there is no such thing as a Neder be'Soch Neder (even by Nezirus). And that is a Kashya that one cannot ask on Shmuel, because by giving the only example as the case of Nezirus, he has indicated that Konem is precluded from the principle.

6)

(a) 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder' and 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah' must of course speak in equivalent cases. Assuming that 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar' is equivalent to 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Anavim' - we initially believe the equivalent case of 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom' to be 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim'.

(b) This poses a Kashya on Rav Huna - because our Mishnah cannot be the former (since there is no reason why, in the case of 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar', the second Shevu'ah should not be effective). Consequently, it must the latter 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim'. Neder be'Soch Neder will then constitute 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom', a Kashya on Rav Huna, who maintains there 'Ein Neder be'Soch Neder.

(c) Rav Huna resolves this Kashya - by establishing the case of 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah' when he said 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim va'Anavim', which he considers the equivalent of 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'.

(d) The basic difference between our initial interpretation of 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', and that of Rav Huna is - that whereas the former followed the Din (i.e. in the case of 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar', the second Nezirus, which begins only after the termination of the first, is totally independent of it, and is therefore similar to 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Anavim'), the latter follows the Lashon (i.e. according to the Noder's words, the second term of Nezirus begins already on the second day of the first term, so that they intermingle, and is therefore similar to 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim va'Anavim').

(a) Rabah says that someone who swears first that he will not eat figs and then that he will not eat figs and grapes, should he eat figs, separate a Korban for having contravened the first Shevu'ah, and then eat grapes - he is Patur from bringing a Korban for eating grapes, because it is a Chatzi Shiur (he only contravened half of the second Neder).

(b) We can infer from there - that the second Neder is valid (because he holds 'Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah' [or 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah'] with a Kollel - since it is valid on the figs, it is also valid on the figs).

(c) Rav Huna holds 'Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah' even with a Kollel.

(a) The problem with the previous explanation in Rav Huna is that just as in the case of 'Ein Shevu'ah be'Soch Shevu'ah', the second Shevu'ah cannot take effect, due to the fact that he has already sworn on figs, so too, should the second Nezirus not take effect during the first twenty-nine days, since he has already accepted them in his first Nezirus. We resolve this problem - by establishing the case of 'Te'einim va'Anavim' to mean figs and grapes together (which were not included in the first Shevu'ah).

(b) Rabah now holds - that, since the Shevu'ah is valid with regard to the grapes, it is also valid with regard to the figs (not because of 'Kolel').

(c) Rav Huna disagrees with Rabah - because, since the Shevu'ah cannot be valid with regard to the figs, it is not valid with regard to the grapes either (since he did not swear on the grapes by themselves).

(d) In fact, in the equivalent case ('Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'), the Tana rules 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder'. If not for the time factor, we would say there too 'Ein Neder be'Soch Neder' - because, just as in the case of the figs and the grapes, the Noder intended twenty-nine of the days of both sets of Nezirus to run concurrently (because we go after the Lashon, as we explained earlier).

(a) The Beraisa says that someone who, after declaring two sets of Nezirus, counted the first one, separated his Korban and then had the first Neder annulled - has fulfilled his second Neder with the first one (meaning that he is Patur from keeping the second Neder).

(b) We think that the Tana must be speaking when he undertook to keep the two sets of Nezirus concurrently - because otherwise, why would he have fulfilled the (entire) second set when he annuls the first?

(c) This Beraisa poses a problem on Rav Huna, in spite of Rava, who will teach us later that, despite the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah', the moment he has the first Shevu'ah annulled, the second one takes effect immediately - because we do not yet know about Rava's Chidush.

(a) In answer to the previous Kashya on Rav Huna, we establish the Beraisa when he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar', and Rav Huna will explain the statement 'Alsah Lo Sh'niyah ba'Rishonah' (which bothered us earlier) - with reference to the first twenty-nine days only (leaving him obligated to fulfill the thirtieth).

(b) Alternatively, the Tana speaks when he said neither 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar' nor 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom' - but when he accepted the two sets of Nezirus simultaneously ('Harei Alai Sh'nei Neziros').

(c) In this last case, both sets of Nezirus would take effect simultaneously - because there is no reason for one of them to take effect before the other.