Previous daf

1)

(a) Some define 'Kinuyim' as expressions used by the Nochrim.
How do others define it?

(b) According to the latter interpretation, Yados are more obvious than Kinuyim. Seeing as it is the way of the Tana to open with the more obvious case, how will we then explain the fact that our Tana seems to open with Kinuyim rather with Yados ?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish ki Yafli Lindor Neder *Nazir Lehazir* la'Hashem"?

(b) How do we learn Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim from the same Pasuk?

(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.
To which kind of Neder does ...

1. ... 'bal Yachel' apply?
2. ... 'bal Te'acher' apply?

(d) Can a father annul the Neder Nezirus of his daughter, and a husband, that of his wife?

(a) Why do we need a Hekesh to teach us 'Yados Nedarim ki'Nedarim'? Why can we not 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')?

(b) Then why does the Torah use the double expression "Lindor Neder"?

(c) Does this opinion hold 'Dibrah Torah ki'L'shon B'nei Adam' even when there is an alternative way of explaining the Pasuk?

(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).
Then what will they learn from "Nazir Lehazir"?

(a) Why, when we thought that "Lindor Neder" was eligible for a Derashah like "Nazir Lehazir", did we ask 'Hekeisha Lamah Li', and not 'Lindor Neder Lamah Li' (like we ask after we discover that it is not)?

(b) Does the principle 'Milsa de'Asya ... Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' also extend to a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

5)

(a) 'Melamed she'ha'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus'.
What is the case?

(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'.
How will we reconcile this with the Sugya in the second Perek, which assumes that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' is unanimous?

(c) If on the other hand, we take the Gemara in the second Perek literally (that it really is unanimous), bearing in mind that this opinion already uses "Nazir Lehazir" for Yados, from where will they learn 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus'?

(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 ... ').
Why do they discard the source from "Nazir Lehazir"?

(b) What do those who do learn Yados from "Nazir Lehazir" learn from "ke'Chol ha'Yotze mi'Piv Ya'aseh"?

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learned earlier that 'Bal Yachel' pertains to Nezirus, too.
What is the problem with that?

(b) Why do we initially decline to explain that one transgresses both 'bal Yochal' as well as 'bal Yachel' or 'bal Yishteh'?

(c) Why can we not establish 'bal Te'acher' when the person says 'Harei Alai Liheyos Nazir' (like 'bal Te'acher' of Korbanos)?

(d) Rava suggests that 'bal Yachel' will apply when he says 'le'che'she'Ertzeh'.
On what grounds do we reject Rava's suggestion?

(a) So how does Rava establish the case?

(b) How is this different than someone who says 'Harei Alai Liheyos Nazir', where 'bal Te'acher' does not apply, as we just explained?

(c) This case is very similar to a man who says to his wife 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Misasi'.
What is the Din there? What is the difference between that case and ours?

(a) Seeing as we learn 'bal Te'acher' by Nezirus from 'bal Te'acher' by Neder, how do we account for the fact that by Neder one transgresses only after three Regalim, whereas here one transgresses immediately?

(b) How else might Rava have established the case by Nezirus to conform exactly with the case of Korbanos?

(c) Then why did he decline to do so?

Next daf