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.
Will she receive Malkos if her husband annulled her Neder, and she subsequently 'transgressed' without being aware that he had done so?

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan (who, we just saw, holds 'Meifer le'Mis'anah, ve'Ein Meifer le'she'Ein Mis'anah'), what Chidush ought the Tana to have added in the Beraisa?

(c) Rav Yosef answers 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in'.
What does he mean?

(d) On what grounds does Abaye object to Rav Yosef's answer? What should Rav Yosef rather have said?

(a) So how does Abaye amend Rav Yosef's answer?

(b) What are the ramifications of 'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in'?

(a) Which category of Nazir brings a Chatas ha'Of?

(b) 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah be'Nazir, ve'Hifrishah Behemtah ve'Achar-Kach Hafer Lah Ba'alah ... '.
Which Korban is the Tana referring to?

(c) Which of the two bird-offerings of a Tamei Nazir does he obligate her to bring, and from which does he exempt her?

(d) Why does the Tana find it necessary to mention that she already designated her Asham?

(a) Why does the previous Beraisa pose a Kashya on Abaye?

(b) What is Abaye's retort to this Kashya?

(c) So how does Abaye resolve the problem? Why does she bring specifically Chatas ha'Of, even though she is Patur from the 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, what do we now ask on Rebbi Yochanan ('Meifer le'Mis'anah ... ')?

(b) How do we in fact explain the Beraisa, based on a statement by Rebbi Meir?

(c) What does Rebbi Meir learn from the Pasuk in Koheles "ve'ha'Chai Yiten el Libo"?

(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. What other reason might there be for not doing so?

6)

(a) Our Mishnah states 'Konem she'Eini Neheneh li'Beri'os, 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.
Why is that?

(b) Assuming that 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos mi'Leket, Shikchah u'Pei'ah' is an additional concession, what do we infer from the Reisha, from the fact that her husband cannot annul the 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? What should the Tana otherwise have said?

(b) On what other grounds do we 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?

(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').
How can we infer from the Seifa that she cannot benefit from her husband?

(a) To reconcile the Reisha and the Seifa, Ula explains that a husband is not included in 'people'.
How then does he explain the Seifa? On what grounds will she be able to eat Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah?

(b) According to Rava, a husband is included in 'people'.
How does he interpret the corollary between the Reisha and the Seifa?

(c) How do we reconcile Rava with the case in the previous Mishnah: 'Peiros Chenvani she'Ein Parnasaso Ela Mimenu', where the Tana permits her husband to annul the Neder? Why do we not forbid him to do so on the grounds that she is able to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah, like we do here?

(a) Rav Nachman learns like Ula with regard to the She'eilah whether a husband is included in 'people'.
How does he explain the Seifa, which ascribes the reason why, to her option to eat from Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah?

(b) What would be the Din according to him, if her husband would be included in 'people', bearing in mind that she would be able to collect Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah.

(c) What is the Chidush in the Seifa? Why do we need to come on to the concession to eat Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah?

(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.
Why is that?

(b) What will the Din be according to him, in the reverse case, when someone joined the navy after the Neder was declared?

(c) Why will we have a problem if, as we just explained, the husband becomes part of 'the people' after he has divorced her?

(d) We might try and resolve this problem by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael.
What does Rebbi Yishmael hold?

(a) We refute this suggestion 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'.
Who must be the author of that Mishnah (and consequently of our Mishnah too)?

(b) So what have 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 the 'people' whom she forbade)?

(c) Consequently, we cannot rely on the Yerushalmi in this matter.
What is then the Halachah concerning someone who was not included in the Neder initially and became included only later, or vice-versa?

(d) How can Rebbi Akiva hold of two seemingly contradictory opinions? How can he burn his candle at both ends, so to speak?

Next daf