1)

TOSFOS DH Tanya Nami Hachi

úåñôåú ã"ä úðéà ðîé äëé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it is like Reish Lakish.)

ôéøåù ëøáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù.

(a)

Explanation: The Beraisa supports Reish Lakish.

2)

TOSFOS DH Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir v'Shama Chavero v'Shahah Kedei Dibur

úåñôåú ã"ä îé ùàîø äøéðé ðæéø åùîò çáéøå åùää ëãé ãáåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this supports Reish Lakish.)

ôé' ëãé ãáåø ãåå÷à åìà éåúø åàåîø îéã åàðé äåà àñåø ôéøåù äøàùåï ùðãø áðæéø åçáéøå îåúø

(a)

Explanation: He delayed precisely Kedei Dibur, but no longer, and said immediately va'Ani. He is forbidden, i.e. the first who vowed to be a Nazir, and his friend is permitted.

àìîà ãìà îöé ìàéúôåñé àìà ëùäï (äâäú áàøåú äîéí) ëåìí úåê ëãé ãáåø àáì äøáéòé ùùää àçø ëãé ãáåø ìà ëø"ì.

(b)

Inference: One can be Matfis only when all of them are Toch Kedei Dibur, but the fourth, who delayed after Kedei Dibur, cannot, like Reish Lakish.

3)

TOSFOS DH Leima Mesaye'a Lei Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéîà îñééò ìéä îé ùàîø äøéðé ðæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the support, and the rejection.)

îúðéúéï äéà åëå' å÷úðé åàðé åúå ìà ìøáé éäåãä ðùéàä îöé ìîéúðé åàðé åàðé àøáò ôòîéí

(a)

Explanation: This is our Mishnah, and it teaches "va'Ani", and no more. According to R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, it could have taught va'Ani va'Ani four times!

åà"ú åìøùá"ì ðîé ðéúðé åàðé åàðé ùìù ôòîéí

(b)

Question: Also according to Reish Lakish, [we can ask that] it could have taught va'Ani va'Ani three times!

åé"ì ãäëé ÷àîø áùìîà ìøùá"ì [ìà] àéöèøéëà ìéä ìîúðé àìà á' ôòîéí åàðé ìàùîåòéðï ãâí äùðé ðúôñ áøàùåï ùäåà úåê ëãé ãáåø åàò"â ãàîöòé îôñé÷ áãáåøå áéï øàùåï ìùìéùé

(c)

Answer: It means as follows. Granted, according to Reish Lakish, it needed to teach va'Ani only twice to teach that also the second is Matfis in the first, for he is Toch Kedei Dibur, and even though the middle one interrupted with his utterance between the first and the third;

åäåà äãéï ãâí ìùìéùé ùéàîø åàðé éúôéñ áøàùåï ãàéï ùåí ñáøà ìçì÷ áéï ùðé ìùìéùé ùùðéäí òåîãéí úåê ëãé ãáåø

1.

Similarly, also the third who will say va'Ani will be Matfis in the first. There is no reason to distinguish between the second and the third, for both of them are Toch Kedei Dibur.

àáì ìø' éäåãä ðùéàä àé àéúà ãøáéòé ðîé ðúôñ áøàùåï ìéúðé ãäà åãàé çãåù äåà

(d)

Distinction: However, according to R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, if it were true that a fourth can be Matfis in the first, this should be taught, for surely this is a Chidush;

åàéöèøéëà ìé' ìàùîåòéðï àò"â ãùäå ëáø (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) ëãé ãáåø ëéåï ùäåà ñîåê ìàìúø ìëãé ãáåø

1.

[The Tana] needs to teach us that even though they already delayed Kedei Dibur, since it is immediately after Kedei Dibur [Hatfasah works].

åîùðé àèå úðà ëé øåëìà ëå' ëìåîø àä"ð ãäåé îöé ìàéúðåéé àøáò ôòîéí åàðé åìà çù ìîðåú ëì îä ùäéä éëåì ìîðåú.

(e)

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers the Tana is not a peddler. I.e. even though he could have taught four times va'Ani, he was not concerned to list everything he could list.

4)

TOSFOS DH u'Meshani Ein Hachi Nami u'Mishum deka'Tani Seifa...

úåñôåú ã"ä åîùðé àä"ð åîùåí ã÷úðé ñéôà...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it taught about two who were Matfis.)

åà"ú ãäéà âåôà úé÷ùé ãìéúðé çã åàðé åñéôà ìéúðé äåúø äøàùåï äåúø äùðé äåúø äùðé ìà äåúø äøàùåï

(a)

Question: This itself we can ask! It should teach one "va'Ani", and in the Seifa teach "if the first was permitted, the second is permitted. If the second was permitted, the first is not permitted!

åé"ì ãìî"ã ì÷îï çã áçáøéä îúôéñ ð÷è ìîéã÷ îéðéä àçøåï äåà ãìéëà àçøéðé áúøéä àáì àîöòé ãàéëà àçøéðé áúøéä îéùúøé (äâäú áøëú øàù) àåúå ùàçøéå ëããéé÷ ì÷îï

(b)

Answer: According to the opinion that one is Matfis in his friend (the one who spoke before him), it mentioned (two who were Matfis) to infer that the last is one who has no one after him. However, the middle, who has someone after him, the one after him is permitted, like we infer below.

åìî"ã ãá÷îà îéúôñå úðé (äâäú áøëú øàù) àîöòé ìîéã÷ ëáñîåê øàùåï äåà ãùøé ùì àçøéå äà àîöòé ìà äåúø ùì àçøéå ãá÷îà îúôéñ.

1.

According to the opinion that they are Matfis in the first, the middle was taught to infer like below, that the first permits the one after him, but the middle one does not permit the one after him, for he was Matfis in the first.

5)

TOSFOS DH Chad b'Chavrei Matfis

úåñôåú ã"ä çã áçáøéä îúôéñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the two possibilities about whom they are Matfis in.)

ãäééðå ëì àçã áñîåê ìå åáúåê ëãé ãáåø ìçáéøå

(a)

Explanation: Each is Matfis in the one next to (just before) him, and Toch Kedei Dibur of his friend;

àå ãìîà á÷îà ùàîø äøéðé ðæéø îéúôñå ëåìí.

1.

Or, perhaps all are Matfis in the first, who said Hareini Nazir.

6)

TOSFOS DH Mitfesu v'Azlu l'Olam

úåñôåú ã"ä îéúôñå åàæìå ìòåìí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why they cannot all be Matfis in the first.)

åàôé' îàä åàé á÷îà îéúôéñ èôé îëãé ãáåø ìà äéä îéúôéñ ìøùá"ì ëãàéú ìéä

(a)

Explanation: Even 100 [can be Matfis]. If they are all Matfis in the first, more than Kedei Dibur could not be Matfis, according to Reish Lakish like he holds;

åìøáé éäåãä ðùéàä àôé' ã' ëéåï ãáñîåê ìëãé ãáåø ìàìúø.

1.

According to R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, even four [can be Matfis], since [the fourth] is immediately after Kedei Dibur.

7)

TOSFOS DH Ta Shma Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ú"ù îé ùàîø äøéðé ðæéø åëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the proof from here.)

ãàé ñ"ã çã áçáøéä îéúôéñ ìéúðé åàðé åàðé èåáà.

(a)

Explanation: If you will say that one is Matfis in his friend, it should teach more times "va'Ani va'Ani."

8)

TOSFOS DH mi'Chlal d'Ika Emtza'i Mishum Hachi ka'Tani va'Ani va'Ani

úåñôåú ã"ä îëìì ãàéëà àîöòé îù"ä ÷úðé åàðé åàðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Gemara infers the law of the middle person from our Mishnah.)

åìã÷ã÷ [ãàéëà] àîöòé ëîå ùîã÷ã÷ (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) åäåìê ìùúé ôðéí îúðéúéï.

(a)

Explanation: This is in order to infer that there is a middle person, [and his law is] like we proceed to deduce from our Mishnah in two [opposite] ways.

9)

TOSFOS DH Rishon Hu d'Sharu

úåñôåú ã"ä øàùåï äåà ãùøå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we infer that they are Matfis in the first.)

àåúí ùàçøéå ùîò îéðä á÷îà (äâäú áøëú øàù) îúôéñ îãìà ÷úðé äåúø àîöòé äåúø àçøåï.

(a)

Explanation: [The first] permits those after him. This teaches that they are Matfis in the first, since it did not teach that if the middle was permitted, the last is permitted.

10)

TOSFOS DH Acharon Hu d'Leika Acharini Basrei

úåñôåú ã"ä àçøåï äåà ãìéëà àçøéðé áúøéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we infer that each is Matfis in the one before him.)

äìëê ëùäåúø äåà ëåìï àñåøéï àáì ìàîöòé ãàéëà àçøéðé áúøéä ìà îöé ìîéúðé äåúø äåà ëåìï àñåøéí ãùì àçøåï ðîé äåúø.

(a)

Explanation: Therefore, when he is permitted, all [the others] are forbidden. However, the middle, who has someone after him, we could not teach that when he is permitted, all are forbidden, for also the last is permitted!

11)

TOSFOS DH Shma Minah Chad b'Chavrei Matfis

úåñôåú ã"ä ù"î çã áçáøéä îéúôéñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the inference, and the rejection.)

îãìà úðà äåúø äàîöòé äåà îåúø åëåìï àñåøéï

(a)

Explanation: Since it did not teach that if the middle was permitted, he is permitted and all [others] are forbidden, [this shows that one is Matfis in the one who spoke before him].

åîùðé ãàçøåï äééðå àîöòé åàééãé ãúðà øàùåï úðà ìéùðà ãàçøåï åäà ðîé ãäåà àçøåï ìøàùåï.

1.

We reject this. "Last" means the middle. Since [above] the Tana taught first, here he taught last. Also, he is last with respect to the first.

12)

TOSFOS DH Ta Shma d'Tanya b'Hedya v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä úà ùîò ãúðéà áäãéà åëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the proof is from the Seifa.)

äåúø àîöòé äéîðå åìîèä îåúø àìîà çã áçáøéä îéúôéñ.

(a)

Explanation: If the middle was permitted, from him and below are permitted. This shows that one is Matfis in his friend [who spoke before him].

13)

TOSFOS DH d'Amar Pi k'Fiv mi'Yayin

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàîø ôé ëôéå îééï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when one becomes a Nazir through mentioning a part of the body.)

ëìåîø áîúðéúéï ùàðé äåàéì åùîò çáéøå ùðãø åãàé ÷àîø äëé ìòðéï àéñåø ééï

(a)

Explanation: Our Mishnah is different. Since his friend vowed, surely he said so regarding the Isur of wine;

àáì ááøééúà ã÷àîø îòöîå áìà ùîéòä ãçáéøå ðæéø ìàå ëìåí äåà ëéåï ãàéï äðùîä [úìåéä áå]

1.

However, in the Beraisa, he says by himself, without hearing that his friend is a Nazir. His words have no effect, since he mentioned a part of the body not vital to life.

åôé ëôéå îééï îäðé àôéìå ìøáé ùîòåï ãàîø ìòéì (ãó â:) òã ùéæéø îëåìï äëà îåãä ãìà âøò îéãåú

(b)

Explanation (cont.): "My mouth is like his mouth from wine" helps even according to R. Shimon, who said above (3b) that one must vow to refrain from all [three Isurei Nezirus]. Here he agrees, for this is no worse than a Yad;

åëï îäøéðé îñìñì åîëìëì ãô"÷ (ìòéì ãó á.) ãäåé ðæéø

1.

Similarly, when he said 'I will curl my hair' or 'I will grow hair' (2a), he is a Nazir.

åà"ú ëé àîø ðîé éãé ðæéø [ðéîà] ãä"÷ éãé ëéãå îìäèîàåú ìîúéí åøâìé ëøâìå îìäëðñ ááéú ä÷áøåú

(c)

Question: Also when he said "my hand is a Nazir", we should say that he means "my hand is like his hand from becoming Tamei to Mesim", and ["my foot is a Nazir" means] "my foot is like his foot from going to a cemetery"!

åé"ì ãàä"ð ãàé ùîò ìçáéøå ùðãø áðæéø åàîø éãé ëéãå îäðé

(d)

Answer: Indeed, this is correct! If he heard that his friend vowed to be a Nazir, and he said "my hand is like his hand", it helps!

åä"ð úðéà áúåñôúà (ô"â) áøéùà ãáøééúà áäãéà éãé ëéãå øâìé ëøâìå äøé æä ðæéø.

1.

Source: A Tosefta (3:3) teaches explicitly in the Reisha, that if he said "my hand is like his hand", or "my foot is like his foot", he is a Nazir.

21b----------------------------------------21b

14)

TOSFOS DH Yadi Nezirah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä éãé ðæéøä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos shows how this is like our Mishnah.)

åä"ä áîúðéúéï àé ìà àîø (äâäú àåøç îéùåø) ôé ëôéå àìà ôé ðæéø åùòøé ðæéø ìà àîø ëìåí ãàéï äðùîä úìåéä áå.

(a)

Explanation: The same applies in our Mishnah. If he did not say "my mouth is like his mouth", rather, "my mouth is a Nazir" or "my hair is a Nazir", his words have no effect, for these are not vital to life.

15)

TOSFOS DH Ba'al Mi'akar Ka Akar

úåñôåú ã"ä áòì îéò÷ø ÷à ò÷ø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the two possible ways Hafarah works.)

äðãø îòé÷øà ëùîôø ìàùúå åäåé ëàéìå ìà çì îòåìí ëîå çëí ùòå÷ø äðãø îòé÷øå

(a)

Explanation: [He uproots] the vow from its source. It is as if it never took effect, just like a Chacham who uproots the vow from its source.

àå îéâæ âééæ îäôøä åàéìê äåà ãîúáèì äðãø åòã ääôøä äéä î÷åééí.

1.

Or, perhaps he cuts it off. It is Batel from Hafarah and onwards. Until Hafarah, it existed.

16)

TOSFOS DH Iy Amrinan Mi'akar Akar Chavertah Nami Mishterai

úåñôåú ã"ä àé àîøéðï îéò÷ø ò÷ø çáéøúä ðîé îéùúøàé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses consequences of how Hafarah works.)

ùäøé äåà ëàéìå ìà çì äðãø îòåìí

(a)

Explanation: [If he uproots it, also her friend is permitted, for] it is as if the vow never took effect;

åàé àîøéðï îéâæ âééæ äéà îéùúøàé åçáéøúä àñåøä ìôé ùäéúä äøàùåðä áëì ãéï ðæéøåú òã ääôøä åùôéø îéúôéñ áä ùðéä åäôøú äøàùåðä àéðä îåòìú ìùðéä

1.

If we say that he cuts, she is permitted and her friend is forbidden, for the first [who vowed] had all laws of Nezirus until Hafarah, and the second made proper Hatfasah in her. Hafarah of the first does not help for the second.

åðäé ãìâáé çëí äåúø äðãø äøàùåï äåúøå ëåìí äééðå îùåí ãçëí òå÷ø äðãø îòé÷øå åðîöà ëàéìå ìà çì îòåìí

2.

Granted, regarding [Heter through] a Chacham, if the first was permitted, all of them are permitted, for a Chacham uproots the vow from its source. It is as if it never took effect;

àáì áòì ùîéôø áìà çøèä àéðå òå÷ø äðãø îòé÷øå àìà îéâæ âééæ

i.

However, a husband annuls without regret. He does not uproot the vow from its source, rather, he cuts off. It is as if it never took effect;

åä"ä ãîöé ìîéîø ãðô÷à îéðä àí ùúúä áééï åðèîàä åâìçä áîæéã åàç"ë äéôø ìä ãàé îéò÷ø ò÷ø àéðä ìå÷ä åàé îéâæ âééæ ìå÷ä

(b)

Observation: We could have said that this affects if she drank wine, became Tamei or shaved b'Mezid, and afterwards he annulled her. If he uproots, she is not lashed. If he cuts, she is lashed.

åëï ìòðéï àí ðèîàä áùåââ åàç"ë äéôø àé îéò÷ø ò÷ø ìà úáéà òåìú äòåó åàùí åàé îéâæ âééæ îáéàä òåìú äòåó åàùí ùäøé çì äðæéøåú òã òúä.

(c)

Observation: Similarly, this affects if she became Tamei [even] b'Shogeg, and afterwards he annulled her. If he uproots, she does not bring Olas ha'Of and Asham. If he cuts, she brings Olas ha'Of and Asham, for Nezirus took effect until now.

1.

Note: Tosfos did not mention Chatas ha'Of, for we said (19a) that R. Yishmael holds that he uproots, and even so she brings Chatas ha'Of.

17)

TOSFOS DH Ela Shma Minah Ba'al Mi'akar Akar

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ù"î áòì îéò÷ø ò÷ø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the inference.)

åáäúøúä äåà îåúø ëîåúä ãìà çì äðãø îòåìí åìëê àéðå îéôø ãàéðå îéôø ìòöîå àìà àçøéí îåçìéï ìå

(a)

Explanation: Through her Heter, he is permitted like her, for her vow never took effect. Therefore, he cannot annul, for he cannot annul for himself. Rather, others permit him.

åö"ò ãìà ãîé ìàçøéí ãëéåï ãøùàé ìäôø ìàùúå

(b)

Question: This is unlike others [who cannot annul for themselves - Orach Mishur], since he is allowed to annul his wife!

åúéøõ äø"ø àìéäå ãä"ô àà"á îéò÷ø ò÷ø àéðå éëåì ìäôø ãôùéèà ã÷ééí ìä ùàí ìà ÷ééí ìä ìà äéä ãéáåøå ùåí ãáø

(c)

Answer (R. Eliyahu): The Gemara means that if you will say that he uproots, we understand why he cannot annul. It is obvious that he was Mekayem her [vow]. If he was not Mekayem, his words [Hatfasah in her] mean nothing;

àà"à îéâæ âééæ à"ë àéðå úìåé áãáåøå åëéåï ùàéï úìåé áãáåøå îîéìà äåé îåôø.

1.

However, if you will say that he cuts off, [her Nezirus] does not depend on his words [of Hatfasah in them. It is valid even if he annuls afterwards]. Since it does not depend on his words, he can annul. (Birkas Rosh - R. Eliyahu explains that the Gemara rejects that even so, since he wanted to her vow to be Kayam for a moment, this is like Kiyum.)

18)

TOSFOS DH k'Man d'Amar Kayam Leichi Dami...

úåñôåú ã"ä ëîàï ãàîø ÷ééí ìéëé ãîé...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why She'elah helps.)

áëîå (äâäú áøëú øàù) ùàîø ÷ééí ìéëé ãàîú äåà ãðùàìéï òì ää÷îä ãäëé àîø øáé éåçðï áðãøéí (ãó ñè.).

(a)

Explanation: This is as if he said [your vow] is affirmed for you. The truth is, one can permit Kiyum through She'elah, for R. Yochanan said so in Nedarim (69a).

19)

TOSFOS DH ha'Ishah she'Nadrah b'Nazir v'Hifrishah Behemtah

úåñôåú ã"ä äàùä ùðãøä áðæéø åäôøéùä áäîúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Hafarah uproots the Kedushah.)

çèàú òåìä åùìîéí àí ùìå äéúä äáäîä ôé' îáäîåú ùì áòìä úöà åúøòä áòãø ëìåîø çåìéï äéà ëéåï ùäéôø ìä áòìä

(a)

Explanation: [She separated] a Chatas, Olah and Shelamim. If it was his, i.e. from her husband's animals, it grazes with the flock, i.e. it is Chulin, since her husband annulled her;

åëãîôøù ì÷îï (ãó ëã.) ãëé [î÷ðä] ìä áòìä îéìúà ãöøéê ìä ëìåîø àí ìà äéôø ìä ùöøéëä ì÷øáðåú ðæéø

1.

This is like we explain below (24a) that her husband is Makneh to her what she needs, i.e. if he does not annul her, she needs Korbanos Nazir;

áîéìúà ãìà öøéëä ëâåï ùäéôø ìä áòìä åàéðä öøéëä ì÷øáðåú ðæéø ìà î÷ðé ìä.

2.

Something she does not need, e.g. if her husband annuls her, and she does not need Korbanos Nazir, he is not Makneh to her.

20)

TOSFOS DH v'Iy Salka Daitach Ba'al Mi'akar Akar Teipuk l'Chulin

úåñôåú ã"ä åàé ñ"ã áòì îéò÷ø ÷à ò÷ø úéôå÷ ìçåìéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why even her animal should become Chulin.)

ãò÷ø äðãø îòé÷øå åìà çì äðãø îòåìí

(a)

Explanation: He uprooted the vow from its source. The vow never took effect.

åäåé ëàãí äîôøéù áäîúå ìðæéøåú åðùàì ìçëí åäúéøå ãúðï (ì÷îï ãó ìà.) ãðô÷à ìçåìéï.

1.

This is like one who separates an animal for Nezirus, and asked a Chacham and permitted it. A Mishnah (below, 31a) says that it becomes Chulin.

21)

TOSFOS DH v'Hainu Taima d'Kivan d'Tzerichah Kaparah

úåñôåú ã"ä åäééðå èòîà ãëéåï ãöøéëä ëôøä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Chatas must die.)

òì ùöéòøä òöîä îï äééï åëøáé àìòæø ä÷ôø ãàîø ãðæéø çåèà äåà äåä ìéä ëçèàú (ðøàä ùæä âéøñú úåñôåú ëá. ã"ä äà) ùîúå áòìéä

(a)

Explanation: [She needs Kaparah] for paining herself [through refraining] from wine, like R. Elazar Hakapar, who says that a Nazir is a sinner. It is like a Chatas whose owner died;

àò"â ãäôø ìä ìòðéï àéñåø, éù (äâäú áøëú øàù) òì äáäîä ãéï çèàú àí äáäîä [ùìä] äéà ãâîøä åî÷ãéù ìä.

1.

Even though he annulled her regarding Isur, the animal has the status of a Chatas if it was her animal, for she resolved to be Makdish it.

22)

TOSFOS DH Heichi Dami Ileima d'Lo Hefer Lah Ba'al

úåñôåú ã"ä äéëé ãîé àéìéîà ãìà äéôø ìä áòì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we must say that he annulled her.)

ëìì öøéëà ìîéîø ãìå÷ä ãäà ðæéøä äéà åôùéèä äåà ãìå÷ä

(a)

Explanation: [If her husband did not annul her] at all, need we teach that she is lashed?! She is a Nezirah. Obviously she is lashed!

àìà ôùéèà ãäéôø ìä äáòì àçø ùðèîàä åàçø ùùúúä åàôéìå äëé ìå÷ä ãáääéà ùòúà ãùúúä áééï äåé ðæéøä åù"î äáòì îéâæ âééæ.

1.

Rather, obviously her husband annulled her after she became Tamei and after she drank, and even so she is lashed, for at the time she drank wine she was a Nezirah. This shows that a husband cuts off.

23)

TOSFOS DH l'Olam Mi'akar Akar

úåñôåú ã"ä ìòåìí îéò÷ø ò÷ø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the rejection.)

åîééøé ùìà äéôø

(a)

Explanation: [Really, he uproots.] The case is, he did not annul;

åã÷àîøú öøéëà ìîéîø

(b)

Implied question: You said that there is no need to teach this!

îùåí ñéôà ãàéöèøéê ìéä ìîéúðé àéðä ñåôâú úðé øéùà àâá ñéôà ãñåôâú

(c)

Answer: Because the Seifa needs to teach that she is not lashed, for parallel structure the Reisha teaches that she is lashed.

åñéôà àéöèøéëà ìéä ìîéúðé ìàôå÷é îãøáé éäåãä ãàîø ãëé ðîé äéôø ìä áòìä åùúúä ééï ìå÷ä îëú îøãåú

1.

The Seifa needs to teach [that she is not lashed] to teach unlike R. Yehudah, who says that even when he annulled her and she drank wine, she is lashed mid'Rabanan.

åàí úàîø îàé àéøéà äéôø ìä åàçø ëê äéúä ùåúä ìàùîåòéðï ùúúä åðèîàä åàç"ë (ùúúä) äéôø ìä [ãàéðä] ñåôâú ëéåï ãîéò÷ø ò÷ø

(d)

Question: Why do we discuss when he annulled her, and afterwards she drank? Let it teach us when she drank and became Tamei, and afterwards he annulled her, that she is not lashed, because he uproots!

åé"ì ãîùåí øáé éäåãä ð÷è äëé ãàôéìå áäéôø åàç"ë ùúúä ñåôâú îëú îøãåú àò"â ãëáø äéôø ëéåï ãìàéñåøà ðúëååðä.

(e)

Answer: [It discusses this case] due to R. Yehudah. Even when he annulled, and afterwards she drank, she is lashed mid'Rabanan, even though he already annulled, because she intended for Isur.