Previous Daf

NAZIR 22

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) We already cited the Beraisa that discusses what the Din will be if a husband of a Nezirah annuls her Nezirus after she becomes Tamei Mes. Her Chatas ha'Of - is brought, whereas her Olas ha'Of - is not reverts to Chulin.
(b) We only asked why the Nezirah brings her Chatas ha'Of, and not her Olas ha'Of, and not why she does not bring her Asham (even though it has the same Din as the Olas ha'Of in this regard) - because the Olas ha'Of is mentioned in the same Pasuk as the Chatas ha'Of.

click for question
2)
(a) To reconcile this with the side of the She'eilah which holds that a husband uproots his wife's Nedarim retroactively, we establish the Beraisa - like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar ...
(b) ... and her Chatas comes to atone for abstaining from what the Torah permits ...
(c) ... and the reason that, in the Beraisa on the previous Amud, where the husband of a Nezirah Tehorah annulled her Nezirus, and where we compared her Chatas to a 'Chatas she'Mesah Ba'alehah' without citing Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar is - because, despite the fact that that answer too, is based on the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, it differs from his case, inasmuch as there, the animal is not ultimately brought (whereas in our case, it is).
(d) We could also reconcile the two Beraisos by amending the Beraisa currently under discussion, to read - 'v'Keivan d'Lo Tzerichah Kaparah, Havah lei k'Chatas she'Meisu Ba'alehah', not because of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar at all, but because, having designated the animal, it became sanctified, and the Hafarah renders it similar to a Chatas whose owner died, in which case it must die (presumably mid'Rabanan).

click for question
3)
(a) We finally resolve our She'eilah from a Beraisa, where the Tana says that a man who annulled his wife's Nezirus after her friend heard her and said 'va'Ani' - that she is permitted but her friend remains forbidden (even though she linked her own Nezirus to that of her friend) ...
(b) a proof - that a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim from now on and not retroactively (otherwise, her friend's Neder would not remain a Nazir either).
(c) We reconcile this with the Sugya above, where we proved from the Beraisa which obligated the Nezirah to bring her Chatas but not her Olah, that a husband uproots a Neder retroactively - by turning this point into a Machlokes Tana'im, in that the previous Beraisa goes according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, and this Beraisa, like the Rabanan.

click for question
4)
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon in the current Beraisa - if the friend says 'Hareini Kamosech' - she too, becomes permitted together with the Noderes.
(b) The Ri (in Tosfos) reconciles Rebbi Shimon with the Mishnah in the first Perek, which based on the principle 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in', rules that someone who undertakes Nezirus for one day only, remains a Nazir for thirty days - by citing a Tosefta, which explains that the Lashon of Rebbi Shimon implies that the Nezirus of the second woman is totally conditional to that of the first one (and should not be viewed in the light of half a Nezirus).
(c) According to the Ri, Rebbi Shimon is coming to explain the Tana Kama, not to argue with him. According to Rabeinu Peretz - Rebbi Shimon compares the case of 'va'Ani' to that of 'Hareini Kamosech', in which point he argues with the Rabanan, who do not.

click for question
5)
(a) Rami bar Chama asked - whether someone who declared 'Harei Alai ki'Besar Zevach Shelamim' had in mind ...
1. ... 'b'Ikra (or 'me'Ikara) Matfis' - which means after the designation of the Shelamim (but before the Zerikas ha'Dam when it was forbidden to eat. This is the equivalent of 'me'Ikara' [its original status]).
2. ... or 'bi'Tzenana Matfis' (from the word 'Tzonan' meaning after its Isur has cooled down) - which means after the Zerikah, when it is permitted.
(b) Mar Zutra Brei d'Rav Mari resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from the previous Beraisa - that the Noderes must have had in mind 'be'Ikra', because otherwise, the Nezirus of her friend would become annulled together with hers.
(c) We differentiate between the two cases however - inasmuch as the Tana may well hold there 'be'Tzinenah Matfis', and the Noder really had in mind the Shelamim after the Zerikah, seeing as it is still considered a Shelamim in various regards (e.g. eating it outside Yerushalayim); whereas here, if we were to hold 'b'Tzinenah Matfis', once the husband has annulled the Neder, there would be nothing left on which to take effect.
(d) The final word in the Sugya on this matter is - that the Beraisa certainly resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah.

click for question
6)
(a) Despite the fact that the Sugya in Nedarim establishes Rami bar Chama's She'eilah after the blood has already been sprinkled and the Shelamim is permitted, we can resolve it from the above Beraisa, which speaks when the friend said 'va'Ani' whilst the Noderes was still a Nezirah - because clearly, Rami bar Chama himself disagrees with the Sugya in Nedarim, establishing it in a case when the blood had not yet been sprinkled.
(b) Others explain the Sugya differently. According to them, Mar Zutra Brei d'Rav Mari proves from Rami bar Chama that the Beraisa might even hold that a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively (like the previous Sugya concluded). The friend nevertheless remain Asur after the husband annulled the Nezirus - because, when she said 'va'Ani' she had in mind to be like the Noderes up to the time that her husband annulled her Nezirus (irrespective of what happened to her after that).
(c) There are however, numerous problems with this explanation. The first of these emanates from the words of Rami bar Chama himself - who does not resolve his She'eilah (as this explanation suggests he does).
(d) Another problem is the Sugya above, which discussed the ramifications of the She'eilah whether the husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively, or only from now on - the ramifications of which are whether her friend who said 'va'Ani' becomes permitted too, or not (disproving this interpretation of Rami bar Chama, which forbids her either way).

click for question
7)
(a) If the friend said 'b'Ikvech', she might mean that she wants to be like her friend ultimately turns out to be (a Nezirah if her husband does not annul her Nezirus, but permitted, if he does) or she might mean - that she wants to be a Nazir like her ('be'Ikrah' or 'b'Kula Milsa' similar to Rami bar Chama's She'eilah).
(b) We attempt to prove from our Mishnah 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah b'Nazir v'Shama Ba'alah va'Amar 'va'Ani', Eino Yachol Lehafer' - that 'be'Ikvah' implies 'be'Ikra' (because otherwise [if it meant 'v'Kula Milsa'], why would the husband not be permitted to annul her Nezirus, permitting her whilst remaining himself forbidden)?
(c) We attempt to prove our point from there, despite the fact that the husband said 'va'Ani' and not 'be'Ikvech' - because 'va'Ani' of the husband, who is empowered to annul his wife's Nedarim, implies as much Kula Milsa as 'be'Ikvech of someone else.
(d) We refute the proof from there however, on the grounds that, even if 'va'Ani' of the husband (and 'be'Ikvech' of anybody else) would imply Kula Milsa, the husband would not be permitted to annul his wife's Nezirus after having said 'va'Ani' - because 'va'Ani' is considered a Hakamah (as we explained earlier), after which, he will only be permitted to annul the Nezirus if he first annuls his Hakamah.

click for question
8)
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that, if a man says to his wife 'Hareini Nazir v'At, v'Amrah Amen, Mefer es she'Lah, v'Shelo Kayam'. We have a problem from a Beraisa, which states 'Sheneihem Asurin'. The Seifa of the Beraisa, with regard to where she did not say 'Amen' - says 'Sheneihem Mutarin'.
(b) The Tana's reason ...
1. ... in the Reisha is - because a husband uproots his wife's Neder retroactively, and annulling her Neder would incorporate annulling his own Neder too.
2. ... in the Seifa is - because he linked his own Nezirus to hers, and, seeing as she did not accept the Nezirus, his Nezirus is not effective either.
(c) Rav Yehudah amends the Beraisa, adding a (middle) section to read like our Mishnah. There are now three sections in the Beraisa. The Reisha, which rules that if he did not annul her Neder, both are forbidden, does not teach us anything - and the Chidush of the Beraisa lies in the Seifa, which permits him to annul her Neder, whilst his own Neder remains intact, because this Tana holds that the husband annuls his wife's Nedarim from now on (and not retroactively).

click for question
9)
(a) Abaye slightly amends the Reisha of the Beraisa to read - 'Ratzah At' (or 've'Im At' [without adding anything else to it]) ...
(b) ..., linking his Neder with hers, where the Mishnah says 've'At' (implying that he accepts Nezirus anyway, and is asking her whether she wants to do likewise).
(c) According to the Beraisa - he cannot annul her Neder without annulling his, whereas according to the Mishnah - he can.

Next Daf