Previous daf

1)

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Nazir Lehazir"?

(b) Why do we need a Pasuk? What would we otherwise have said?

(c) How does Rav Hamnuna try to prove Rav Huna wrong from this Beraisa? Why can we not be speaking when he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'?

(d) How do we reconcile Rav Huna with the Beraisa? In which case do we need a Pasuk?

(a) If not for "Nazir Lahazir", what would we have thought the Din will be if someone accepts two terms of Nezirus simultaneously?

(b) What is the Pasuk then coming to teach us?

(c) On what grounds does the Mishnah (of 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder') not lend itself to the explanation of some commentaries, who establish it even by 'Konem Alai Kikar Zeh, Konem Alai Kikar Zeh'?

(a) From where do we know that a Neder forbidding something on himself, overrides a Shevu'ah that he will eat it?

(b) Will a Neder to forbid something take effect on something that is already forbidden through a Shevu'ah?

(c) Is the reverse also true? Will a Shevu'ah ...

1. ... permitting something, override a Neder forbidding it?
2. ... forbidding something, take effect on something that is already forbidden through a Neder?

(d) In the same way as Nedarim take effect on Shevu'os (due to the fact that they add an Isur Cheftza), why should Shevu'os not take effect on Nedarim (seeing as they add an Isur Gavra)?

(a) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that the Chumra of Shevu'os over Nedarim (referred to by the Beraisa) is the fact that they take effect even on abstract things?

(b) Then what *is* the Chumra of Shevu'os?

(a) What does Rava extrapolate from the Tana's Lashon 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, Eino *Chayav* Ela Achas'?

(b) What else could the Tana otherwise have said?

(a) According to the second Lashon, we extrapolate from the Tana 'Chiyuva Hu de'Leka, Ha Shevu'ah Ika'.
What are the ramifications of this inference?

(b) We try to bring a support for Rava from the Beraisa that we learned above (that if someone undertook two Nezirus, and, after keeping the first one and separating his Korban, he had the first Nezirus annulled, he has fulfilled the second Nezirus with the first one). What is the proof from there? How do we know that the Tana is not speaking when he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar'?

(c) How do we refute this proof? What would the Din then be if he were to make two *Shevu'os* simultaneously and nullify one of them?

(d) Why must those who attempt to prove Rava from there hold like Rav Huna?

7)

(a) Why does 'Harei Alai ke'Basar Mali'ach' imply the salted meat of Kodshim?

(b) Besides the salted meat of Kodshim and the wine of drink-offerings, what else do 'ke'Basar Mali'ach' and 'ke'Yayin Nesech' respectively, imply?

(c) What will be the Din if the Noder ...

1. ... subsequently explains that he had referred to the meat or the wine of Avodas-Kochavim?
2. ... says nothing?

(d) What are the two implications of ...

1. ... 'Harei Alai ke'Cherem'?
2. ... 'Harei Alai ke'Ma'aser'?
3. ... 'Harei Alai ki'Terumah' (according to Rebbi Meir)?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Meir.
Why does Rebbi Yehudah say 'S'tam T'rumah be'Galil Muteres'?

(b) The Tana of the Seifa, whom we shall later establish as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, states 'S'tam Charamim bi'Yehudah Mutarin'.
Why is that? What does he hold?

(c) Then why does he go on to say 'be'Galil Asurin'?

(a) How does Rebbi Zeira reconcile our Mishnah (which holds 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir' with the Mishnah in Taharos, which says 'Safek Nezirus Lehakel'?

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa, someone who is Makdish a Beheimah or a Chayah, means to include a Coy.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) Rebbi Zeira connects the Machlokes in the Beraisa to the Machlokes between our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Taharos, despite the fact that they are different.
What is the basic difference between the cases?

Next daf