Previous daf

1)

(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah in Taharos (that we just established like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds S'tam Nedarim Lehakel) states 'Safek Bechoros, Echad Bechorei Adam, ve'Echad Bechorei Beheimah ... 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah'. The case of Safek Bechor is - when the mother gave birth to twins, one male and one female, and we do not know which one was born first.

(b) The Tana concludes 'va'Asurim be'Gizah va'Avodah' (le'Chumra). We could reconcile this with the Mishnah in Taharos that holds 'S'tam Nedarim Lehakel' - by pointing out that this Tana is speaking about a person's property (which one is more prone to include in one's declaration, as we explained earlier); whereas the Mishnah in Taharos speaks about an Isur that pertains to oneself.

(c) Abaye asks from this Seifa on Rebbi Zeira, who established the Mishnah in Taharos like Rebbi Eliezer - because, according to him, we can no longer differentiate between property and personal Isurim, as we explained earlier.

(d) We reject Abaye's Kashya - on the grounds that the question whether 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika' (whether a person incorporates a Safek in his declaration) or not is confined to Nedarim and related Isurim, Isurim which the person takes upon himself, but has nothing to do with Isurim which the Torah instigates. There, it is a question of 'S'feika d'Oraysa le'Chumra', 'S'feika de'Rabbanan le'Kula'.

(a) Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa 'Safek Mashkin Litamei Tamei, Letamei, Tahor' - meaning that liquid that became Safek Tamei, is itself Tamei, but it is considered Tahor as far as rendering other things Tamei is concerned.

(b) The case of 'Safek Mashkin' is - when someone who was Tamei placed his hand close to the liquid and he is not sure whether he actually touched it or not.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer concurs with Rebbi Meir (although he lived long before him). In another Beraisa he says that there is no Tum'as Mashkin at all (meaning min ha'Torah - so that whenever we find Tum'as Mashkin, it is only mi'de'Rabbanan).

(d) He substantiated it with the testimonial of Yossi ben Yo'ezer - who testified 'Eil Kamtza Dachan' (a type of locust known as 'Eil' is Kasher), and that the liquid in the slaughter-house in the Beis Hamikdash is Tahor (because when the Rabbanan decreed Tum'ah on liquids, they precluded this particular liquid from the decree - which they could not have done had Tum'as Mashkin been d'Oraysa).

(a) According to Shmuel, the 'Dachan' of Yossi ben Yo'ezer (and therefore the 'Tum'ah' of Rebbi Eliezer) refers exclusively to being Metamei others - whereas according to Rav, it also extends to its own status.

(b) According to Rebbi Zeira (who established the Mishnah in Taharos like Rebbi Eliezer), there is now a discrepancy between Rebbi Eliezer's ruling 'Safek Nezirus Lehakel' (even though Nezirus is d'Oraysa), and his ruling 'Safek Mashkin Litamei' (like Rebbi Meir), even though Tum'as Mashkin, in his opinion, is only mi'de'Rabbanan. The contrast is unacceptable, in spite of the fact that Nezirus is self-instigated, whereas Tum'as Mashkin is not.

(c) There is no problem according to Shmuel - because he establishes Rebbi Eliezer by being Metamei others, but the liquid itself is Tamei d'Oraysa.

(d) We need to quote the Beraisa of Rebbi Meir in order to pose this Kashya on Rebbi Eliezer (who is stringent by Safek Tum'as Mashkin), rather than ask directly from the Seifa of the Mishnah in Taharos itself (which we already established like Rebbi Eliezer), which states 'Safek Mashkin Litamei Tamei, Letamei, Tahor' - because the Beraisa informs us *specifically* that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei'.

(a) Without Rebbi Zeira, we would not have been able to point out a discrepancy in Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that Tum'as Mashkin is only mi'de'Rabbanan, yet he holds that 'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei' - because Rebbi Eliezer might simply hold 'S'feika de'Rabbanan Lechumra.

(b) And if not for Rebbi Zeira - we would have reconciled Rebbi Eliezer's stringent ruling with regard to Safek Mashkin with his ruling 'Lo Hikdish es ha'Coy' (even though it is a Safek d'Oraysa), neither of which is man-instigated - by ascribing the latter to the fact that, in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, a Coy is a unique creature, which is neither a Beheimah nor a Chayah.

(a) We have established that the author of the Mishnah in Taharos cannot be Rebbi Eliezer. So we suggest that it may be Rebbi Yehudah - who says that someone who undertakes to be a Nazir if a certain pile of produce contains a hundred Kur, but when he comes to measure it, it is no longer there - is not a Nazir (because 'Safek Nezirus Lehakel' - 'Lo Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika').

(b) The Tana who argues with Rebbi Yehudah (and who will therefore be the author of our Mishnah, which holds 'Safek Nezirus Lehachmir') is - Rebbi Shimon.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah said in our Mishnah that 'S'tam T'rumah be'Galil Muteres, she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirin es T'rumas ha'Lishkah'. We can infer from here - that if the Anshei Galil would acknowledge the T'rumas ha'Lishkah, then the Neder would be effective (because 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'S'feika'), clashing with the Mishnah 'S'tam Nezirus Lehakel' (which we just established like Rebbi Yehudah).

(d) We ask this Kashya from an inference from the Seifa of our Mishnah, and not directly from the Reisha 'S'tam Terumah bi'Yehudah, Asurah' (which also implies 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'S'feika' - Lehachmir) - because we *could* ascribe the Reisha (not to 'Safek Nedarim Lehachmir, but) to the fact that the Anshei Yehudah, who are more familiar with T'rumas ha'Lishkah than with Terumas ha'Goren, do not refer to T'rumas ha'Goren as 'T'rumah' Stam. Consequently, the Noder was definitely referring to Terumas ha'Lishkah (and was not a Safek at all).

6)

(a) Rava answers that generally, Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika' (S'tam Nedarim Lehakel), but Nezirus is different - because as a result of the Safek, he will be unable to terminate his Nezirus when it reaches its final stage, due to his being unable to bring his Korbanos.

(b) The Korban that creates the problem - is the Chatas, which cannot be brought as a Safek.

(c) A Safek Nazir would bring his Shelamim and Olah (even though he may not be a Nazir) - by stipulating that if he is a Nazir, then what he is bringing is his Korbenos Nazir, and if he is not, then the same Korbanos will be Nedavos.

(d) Despite the Gemara in Nazir (that a Nazir who shaved on any one of his three Korbanos has fulfilled his duty), we do not declare him a Nazir, allowing him to bring his Olah and Shelamim with the above stipulation - because the Gemara speaks Bedieved, but not Lechatchilah.

(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah asked Rava what the Din would be in the equivalent case of a Safek Nazir who undertook to be a Nazir Olam (whose Nezirus does not terminate, and who will therefore not need to bring the Korbanos). Rava replied - that the problem will nevertheless arise, when his grows very long, and he will be allowed to trim it slightly, after which he brings the three Korbanos.

(b) And when he asked Rava the same She'eilah about a Safek Nezir Shimshon, to whom the above concession will not apply - he replied that there was no such Beraisa, in which case, Rebbi Yehudah's lenient ruling will not apply (because in such a case, Nezirus is no different than other areas of Halachah, where Rebbi Yehudah concedes 'Stam Nezirus Lehachmir).

(c) Rav Huna bar Yehudah retorted - that he had heard from Rav Ada bar Ahavah that such a Beraisa (which repeated Rebbi Yehudah's lenient ruling even by 'Nezirus Shimshon') did indeed exist.

(d) To which Rava replied 'I Tanya, Tanya'. According to this Tana, we will be forced to say that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Stam *Nedarim* Lehakel' - and that he argues with the Tana in our Mishnah who, also quoting Rebbi Yehudah, forbids S'tam Nedarim (from the inference of 'she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirin T'rumas ha'Lishkah').

(a) Rav Ashi tries to establish the Beraisa of Safek Nezir Shimshon ('Hareini Nezir Shimshon Im Yesh bi'Kri ha'Zeh Mei'ah Kur, ve'Halach u'Matza she'Nignav ... Rebbi Yehudah Matir ve'Rebbi Shimon Oser') like Rebbi Tarfon - who says that the Nezirus requires Hafla'ah (it must be absolutely clear when it is declared - and not a Safek).

(b) The Tana nevertheless needs to present a case when the produce was stolen (despite the fact that, according to Rebbi Tarfon, the same would apply even if it was still there) - to teach us that Rebbi Shimon's opinion ('Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika') extends even to a case where the object is no longer there.

(c) Basically, it would have been preferable to present a case when the produce was still there, to teach us the extent of Rebbi Yehudah's Chidush - because of the principle 'Ko'ach de'Heteira Adif' (it is always easy to say 'No'; whereas to permit something requires careful thought. Consequently, the Tana always prefers to stress the opinion of the one who is more lenient, in this case, Rebbi Yehudah.

(d) He did not so - because, once we know that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Lo Nitnah Nezirus Ela le'Hafla'ah', it makes no difference whether the object is there or not. Whereas, by presenting a case where the produce was stolen, he is teaching us *two* Chidushim: 1. that Rebbi Shimon does not require Hafla'ah (which would apply even if the produce was still there) and 2. that he holds 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika'(which we know from the fact that it was not).

(a) We infer from the Reisha of our Mishnah (Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'S'tam T'rumah ... be'Galil Muteres she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirin es T'rumas ha'Lishkah') that 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir', and from the Seifa ('S'tam Charamim ... u've'Galil Asurin, she'Ein Anshei ha'Galil Makirin es Chermei ha'Cohanim') - that if they would acknowledge it, that even in Galil, S'tam Charamim would be permitted, because 'S'tam Charamim Lehakel'.

(b) We reconcile the two inferences - by establishing the Seifa like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok.

(c) We have already explained why the Reisha ('S'tam T'rumah bi'Yehudah Asurah') does not necessarily clash directly with the Seifa ('S'tam Charamim bi'Yehudah Mutarin' - 'S'feika Lehakel'), because we might ascribe the Reisha to the fact that the Anshei Yehudah do not refer to T'rumas ha'Goren as T'rumah S'tam (in which case there is no Safek). Even if this were not so (and the reason in the Reisha was 'Safek Nedarim Lehachmir') - we might ascribe the Seifa to the fact that the Anshei Yehudah were more familiar with Chermei Cohanim, since there were many Cohanim among them, so that they did not tend to refer to Chermei Gavo'ah as Charamim S'tam (so as to avoid clashing with the Reisha).

(d) Regarding ...

1. S'tam Charamim, Rebbi Yehudah will hold - that if someone was Matfis an object 'like a S'tam Cherem' in Yehudah, it is forbidden (not like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok).
2. S'tam T'rumah, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok will hold - that S'tam T'rumah in Yehudah is permitted (not like Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) We just established that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir' and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, 'S'tam Nedarim Lehakel'. The reason that Rebbi Yehudah presents specifically the case of T'rumah, and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, that of Charamim is - either because the Tana was not particular ('La'av Davka'), or because that is the way that the Tana'im heard their respective opinions from their respective Rebbes, that is the way they taught them and that is the way the Tana ultimately presents them.

(b) And in the previous Sugya, we established the Mishnah 'S'tam Nezirus Lehakel' like Rebbi Yehudah, rather than like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok - because Rebbi Yehudah speaks specifically by Nezirus.

(c) The Halachah regarding S'tam Nedarim is - 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir', because it is the ruling of a S'tam Mishnah.