Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana in a Beraisa states that if a woman who has undertaken to be a Nazir drinks wine or renders herself Tamei for a dead person, she receives Malkos. If her husband annulled her Neder, and she subsequently 'transgressed' without being aware that he had done so - she will nevertheless not receive Malkos (even though she is considered a sinner).

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan (who, we just saw, holds 'Meifer le'Mis'anah, ve'Ein Meifer le'she'Ein Mis'anah') - the Tana ought to have added that, even though her husband annulled her Neder, she will receive Malkos should she eat the pits or the skin of grapes (since not eating them does not constitute Inuy Nefesh.

(c) Rav Yosef answers 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in' - meaning that, since there is no such thing as Nezirus without a prohibition on the pits and skins of grapes, these are an intrinsic part of the Nezirus, and the husband's Hafarah automatically covers them too.

(d) Abaye objects to Rav Yosef's answer - on the grounds that the Lashon infers that although there is no Nezirus la'Chatza'in, the Korbanos of Nezirus can be brought la'Chatza'in. Otherwise, Rav Yosef should have said 'Ein Chatza'in bi'Nezirus'.

(a) So Abaye amends Rav Yosef's answer to read - 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in, ve'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in'.

(b) The ramifications of 'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in' are - that if the husband annulled his wife's Nezirus after fifteen of the thirty days had elapsed, she is Patur from bringing any of the Korbanos.

(a) A Nazir who becomes Tamei brings a Chatas ha'Of.

(b) 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah be'Nazir, ve'Hifrishah Behemtah ve'Achar-Kach Hafer Lah Ba'alah ... '. The Korban that the Tana is referring to is the Asham Nazir that a Tamei Nazir is obligated to bring after he becomes Tahor.

(c) The bird-offering that the Tana obligates her to bring is - the Chatas ha'Of, and he exempts her from the Olas ha'Of.

(d) The Tana finds it necessary to mention that she already designated her Asham - as an additional Chidush, to teach us that although she had already designated it before the Hafarah, once the husband is Meifer, she becomes Patur from Olas ha'Of.

(a) The previous Beraisa poses a Kashya on Abaye - because, according to him, since she is exempt from the Olas ha'Of, she ought to be exempt from the Chatas ha'Of, too.

(b) Abaye's retort to this Kashya is - that if, as you suggest, we will say 'Yesh Korban la'Chatzi Nezirus, why does the Tana not obligate her to bring three Korbanos (either the Asham plus the two bird-offerings that a Tamei Nazir is obligated to bring, or the Korban Chatas, Olah and Shelamim, that even a Tamei Nazir will have to eventually bring.

(c) To resolve the issue - Abaye exploits the fact that it is specifically the *Chatas* that she has to bring. The Chatas ha'Of of a Nazir enjoys the unique leniency that it can be brought on a Safek (a leniency that no other Chatas shares). Consequently, it is possible to add the leniency of permitting it to be brought for a Chatzi Nezirus (but not her other Korbanos, which are like any other Korbanos).

(a) In a similar Beraisa to the previous one, the Tana issues the same ruling. Assuming that Tum'ah is not considered Inuy Nefesh, we now ask on Rebbi Yochanan ('Meifer le'Mis'anah ... ') - why do we not accept the Hafarah of the Neder on wine (which constitutes Inuy Nefesh), but not that of the Neder on Tum'as Nefesh (which does not)?

(b) Based on a statement by Rebbi Meir - we explain that the Tana accepts the Hafarah regarding Tum'as Meis too, because, seeing as there is a great benefit to be obtained from participating in the burial of the dead, as we shall now see, Tum'as Meis, like drinking wine, constitutes Inuy Nefesh.

(c) Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Chai Yiten el Libo" - that to the extent that one eulogizes a dead person, cries for him and participates in his burial, others will do the same for him.

(d) We might not answer here like Rav Yosef answered above ('Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in') because we want to point out there is Tza'ar by Tum'as Meis, as we just explained. Or it might be - because unlike the other branches of Nezirus, it is possible to become a Nazir without adopting the prohibition of Tum'ah (in the case of a Nezir Shimshon, who is forbidden to drink wine, but not to become Tamei Meis).

6)

(a) Our Mishnah states 'Konem she'Eini Neheneh li'Beri'os ('people'), Eino Yachol Lehafer'. The Tana (Rebbi Yossi) goes on to permit the woman who declared the Neder to benefit from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah - because, since the Torah in Kedoshim wrote an extra "Ta'azov" (and not a Lashon of Nesinah), we learn that there is no Mitzvah to give them to the poor, only to leave them in the field. Consequently, the owner has no 'Tovas Hana'ah' (financial rights to give them to whoever he pleases) in them.

(b) Assuming that 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos mi'Leket, Shikchah u'Pei'ah' is an additional concession, we infer from the Reisha, from the fact that her husband cannot annul the Neder - that she is permitted to benefit from him, which means that he is not included in the 'people' (whom she mentioned in her Neder).

(a) What leads us to believe that the Seifa of our Mishnah is an additional concession, and not the main reason for the husband's prohibition to annul her Neder is - the Lashon 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos ... '. What the Tana should otherwise have said is - 'Mipnei she'Yecholah Lehanos'.

(b) We also initially reject the suggestion that a husband is included in 'people', and that he cannot annul her Neder on the sole basis of her option to eat from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah - because why should her husband in conjunction with 'people' be any worse than a storekeeper from whom she purchases regularly, where the Tana permitted her husband to annul her Neder (even though there too, she is able to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah).

(c) From the Seifa, which permits her to eat from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah, we infer exactly the opposite (that her husband is included in 'people') - because otherwise, how could a woman who is fed by her husband, collect Leket ... ?

(a) To reconcile the Reisha and the Seifa, Ula explains that a husband is not included in 'people'. The Seifa - which permits her to eat from Leket ... , speaks, he says, when the husband is a poor man.

(b) According to Rava, a husband is included in 'people' - and the Seifa, which says 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos be'Leket ... , is explaining why it is that her husband cannot annul her Neder.

(c) In the case in the previous Mishnah: 'Peiros Chenvani she'Ein Parnasaso Ela Mimenu', the reason that the Tana permits her husband to annul her Nedarim, and does not forbid it (on the grounds that she is able to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah, like we do here) is - because the Tana is speaking in the winter, when there is no Leket ... to collect.

(a) Rav Nachman learns like Ula with regard to the She'eilah whether a husband is included in 'people'. He explains the Seifa, which ascribes the reason why, to her option to eat from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah - to after he has divorced her.

(b) According to him, if her husband would be included in 'people', despite the fact that she would be able to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah - the Neder would be considered Inuy Nefesh, and he would be permitted to annul it.

(c) The Chidush in the Seifa - is that, once he divorces her, her husband becomes included in 'people' and she is permitted to eat from Leket ... .

(a) Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Yerushalmi in a case of 'Nadar mi'Yordei ha'Yam' ve'Na'aseh mi'Yoshvei Yabashah'. According to Rebbi Akiva, a sailor at the time of the Neder, who left the navy is included in the prohibition - because we go after the time when the Neder is declared (as opposed to after the time that it takes effect).

(b) According to him, in the reverse case, someone who joined the navy after the Neder was declared - will not be included in the Neder.

(c) We will have a problem if, as we just explained, the husband becomes part of 'the people' after he has divorced her - because that is not in keeping with the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, like whom the Halachah is.

(d) We might try and resolve this problem by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael - who holds that we go, not after the time that the Neder was declared, but after the time that it takes effect.

(a) We refute the suggestion (establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael) however, on the basis of a Mishnah later 'Amrah Hareini Nezirah le'Achar Sheloshim Yom, Af-al-Pi she'Nis'es be'Toch Sheloshim Yom, Ein Yachol Lehafer', because, at the time when the Neder was declared, she was not yet his wife - like Rebbi Akiva (who will also then be the author of *our* Mishnah too).

(b) We now proved from Rav Nachman, who interprets our Mishnah 'Nisgarshah, Yecholah Lehanos' (because she is forbidden to benefit from her husband since he became part of 'people') - that, according to the Bavli, even Rebbi Akiva agrees that we do not go after the time of the Neder with regard to people who were not initially included and became included afterwards.

(c) Consequently, we cannot rely on the Yerushalmi in this matter. The Halachah therefore is - that whether someone was not included in the Neder initially and became included only later, or vice-versa - he is in fact, included.

(d) Rebbi Akiva holds of both opinions, even though they seem to contradict each other - because, according to the Bavli, he holds that we go after Lashon B'nei Adam (as opposed to the Yerushalmi, which bases the Machlokes on Pesukim) and Lashon B'nei Adam incorporates both in the Neder.

Next daf