NAZIR 62 (4 Nisan 5783) - This Daf has been dedicated by Reb Eliyahu Berlin of Neveh Yaakov in memory of his dear wife, Liba Sheindel bas Elimelech Hacohen z'l, on the day of her Yahrzeit.

1)

TOSFOS DH Le'asuyei Oved Kochavim Gadol...

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàéúåéé òåáã ëåëáéí âãåì...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this teaches about Nedarim of Nochrim.)

åäùúà äåé ìàúåéé ëîå ìîòåèé ãàùîåòéðï ãäéëà ãäòåáã ëåëáéí àéðå éåãò ìäôìåú àéï ðãøå ðãø àò"â ãâãåì äåà

(a)

Explanation: Now, "to include" is like "to exclude." The verse teaches that when a Nochri does not know Lehaflos (to Whom we vow), his Neder is invalid, even if he is an adult;

îä ùàéï ëï áéùøàì ãâãåì ðãøå ðãø àôéìå àéðå éåãò ìäôìåú

1.

This is unlike a Yisrael. An adult Yisrael, his vow is valid even if he does not know Lehaflos.

åà"ú åäà âáé òøëéï ÷ééîéðï åàôé' òåáã ëåëáéí âãåì éåãò ìäôìåú àéï îòøéëéï

(b)

Question: We discuss Erchin. Even if an adult Nochri knows Lehaflos, he cannot be Ma'arich!

åéù ìåîø ãàí àéï òðéï ìòøëéï úðäå òðéï ìðãøéí.

(c)

Answer: Im Eino Inyan for Erchin, Tenehu Inyan for Nedarim.

2)

TOSFOS DH Ish Ki Yafli... Le'asuyei Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos

úåñôåú ã"ä àéù ëé éôìéà... ìàéúåéé éãéí ùàéï îåëéçåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether we can resolve our text.)

äàé ìàéúåéé ðîé äåé ëîå ìîòåèé åëããøùéðï áô"÷ ãðãøéí (ãó ä:) éãéí ùàéï îåëéçåú ìà äåééï éãéí [îàéù] ëé éôìéà

(a)

Explanation: Also this "to include" is like "to exclude", like we expound in Nedarim (5b) that Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is not a Yad from "Ish Ki Yafli";

îä òé÷ø ðæéøåú áäôìàä àó éãåú áäôìàä

1.

Just like the primary [vow] of Nezirus requires Hafla'ah (a clear acceptance), also Yados require Hafla'ah.

ãàéúîø éãéí ùàéï îåëéçåú àáéé àîø ìà äåééï éãéí åøáà àîø äåééï éãéí ëê ëúåá áñôøéí

(b)

Citation (of our Gemara): Abaye says, Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is not a Yad. Rava says, Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is a Yad. This is the text in Seforim.

1.

Note: The text in our Seforim is opposite, like R. Tam says below.

åàåîø ø"ú ãâéøñà äôåëä äéà åîùåáùú åëâéøñ' (äâäú ùìîé æéø) ãøéù îñ' ðãøéí (ãó ä:) âøñéðï äëà (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) ãâøéñ àéôëà øáà àîø ìà äåééï éãéí àáéé àîø äåééï éãéí

(c)

Correction (R. Tam): The text is reversed and errant. Here the text should say like the text in Nedarim (5b), opposite [to Seforim here]. Rava says, it is not a Yad. Abaye says, it is a Yad.

ãàé ìàå äëé àéï ìééùá îä ùâøéñ áñôøéí äëà äðéçà ìøáà àìà ìàáéé îàé àéëà ìîéîø

(d)

Proof: If not, we cannot resolve what it says in Seforim here "this is fine for Rava. However, according to Abaye, how can we answer?"

åìîàï ãâøéñ áîéìúéä ãøáà ìà äåééï éãéí ðéçà åëããøùéðï ô"÷ ãðãøéí îëé éôìéà ãéãéí ùàéï îåëéçåú ìà äåééï éãéí

1.

According to the text in which Rava says that it is not a Yad, this is fine, like we expound in Nedarim from Ki Yafli, that Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos are not Yadayim.

åøéá"à îééùá âéøñú äñôøéí ãäëà åëé éôìéà éúéøà ãëúéá á' ôòîéí ÷ãøéù åòì æä ÷àîø åàéï îéòåè àçø îéòåè àìà ìøáåú

(e)

Rebuttal (Riva): We can resolve the text of Seforim. Ki Yafli is extra, for it is written twice, to expound it. We say in such a case that an exclusion following an exclusion is to include;

åäùúà ìàéúåéé äåé ìøáåú

(f)

Support #1: Now, "Le'asuyei" is [like its simple meaning,] to include.

åëï îùîò áîñ÷ðà ãîñé÷ àçã äôìàä ìàéñåø åàçã äôìàä ìäéúø åø' éäåãä îùåí øáé èøôåï îäôìàä éúéøà ãøéù

(g)

Support #2: The conclusion connotes like this. We conclude that one Hafla'ah teaches about Isur (how Nedarim cannot be annulled), and one Hafla'ah teaches about Heter (how Nedarim can be annulled). R. Yehudah in the name of R. Tarfon expounds an extra Hafla'ah.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ish (part 2)

úåñôåú ã"ä àéù (çì÷ á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos references where this Mishnah was taught.)

àéï àçã îäí ðæéø

(a)

Citation of Gemara: Not one of them is a Nazir.

ìòéì áô' áéú ùîàé (ãó ìã.) úðï ìä.

(b)

Reference: This Mishnah is taught above (34a).

4)

TOSFOS DH Ki Yafli Ki Yafli Beis Pa'amim

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé éôìéà [ëé éôìéà á' ôòîéí]

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out where they are written.)

àçã áôøùú ðæéø åàçã áôøùú ðãøéí

(a)

Explanation: One is in Parshas Nazir, and one is in Parshas Nedarim.

åîéäå àéù ìà ãøéù

(b)

Implied question: Why doesn't he expound "Ish"?

åùîà àééãé ãàéöèøéê ìîéëúá ëé éôìéà ëúéá ðîé àéù.

(c)

Answer: Perhaps since the Torah needed to write Ki Yafli, it wrote also "Ish" (so we need not expound "Ish").

62b----------------------------------------62b

5)

TOSFOS DH Gabei Nedarim d'Chi Mitsar b'Hai...

úåñôåú ã"ä âáé ðãøéí ãëé îéúñø áäàé...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Nezirus is different.)

ãñáøà äåà ìäòîéã îéòåèà ãîé ùðôùå ÷ðåéä ìå äéëà (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãîéúñø áëåìäå åîúåê ëê îéëçù åàéï ëì ëê áòì ëç (äâäú éòá"õ) ëãé ìòùåú îìàëä

(a)

Explanation: It is reasonable to establish the exclusion "one whose owns his own Nefesh" in a case (i.e. Nezirus) that he is forbidden to all of them, for through this he becomes weak, and he does not have so much strength to do Melachah;

åãéï äåà ùéàîø ìðå äëúåá ùéòëá òìéå îé ùðôùå ÷ðåéä ìå.

1.

It is proper that the Torah tell us that his owner can prevent him [from this].

6)

TOSFOS DH Yatza Lehara l'Acherim she'Ein ha'Reshus b'Yado

úåñôåú ã"ä éöà ìäøò ìàçøéí ùàéï äøùåú áéãå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the master need not protest.)

åìëê ìðãøéí àôé' áìà îçàú äøá ìà çì äðãø ëìì ãäééðå äøòú àçøéí ùîëçéù ëçå åàéðå çæ÷ ìîìàëä

(a)

Explanation: Therefore, regarding Nedarim, even without the master's protest, the vow does not take effect at all, for this is harming others. His strength weakens, and he is not strong for Melachah;

ãéìôéðï ðãøéí îùáåòåú ãëúéá áäï ìäøò àå ìäéèéá

1.

We learn Nedarim from Shevu'os, about which it says "Lehara Oh Leheitiv."

àáì ðæéøåú àéï ìä÷éùï ìðãøéí åôéøù ä"ø éöç÷ îùåí ãàîø áô"÷ (ìòéì ãó â:) ãðæéøåú çì åàôé' òì ãáø ùàéï äøùåú áéãå ëâåï ãàîø ùáåòä ùàùúä åçæø åàîø äøéðé ðæéø

(b)

Distinction: However, we do not equate Nezirus to Nedarim [even though it says "Neder Nazir Lehazir"!] Rabbeinu Yitzchak explained that this is because it says above (3b) that Nezirus takes effect even on something not in his Reshus, e.g. he swore that he will drink [wine], and then said Hareini Nazir;

ëããøùéðï ìàñåø ééï îöåä ëééï äøùåú àìîà äðæéøåú çì òì ãáø ùàéï äøùåú áéãå

1.

This is like we expound, to forbid wine of a Mitzvah like optional wine. This shows that Nezirus takes effect even on something not in his Reshus;

åìëê éçåì ðîé ðæéøåú äòáã ëì æîï ùìà éîçä äàãåï

2.

Therefore, Nezirus takes effect also on the slave, as long as the master does not protest.

àáì åãàé àí îéçä ìòðéï æä ðãøåù ìàñåø àéñø òì ðôùå îé ùðôùå ÷ðåéä ìå ùúåòéì îçàú äøá

(c)

Limitation: However, surely if [his master] protests, regarding this we expound "Le'esor Isar Al Nafsho" - one whose owns his own Nefesh, to teach that the master's protest helps;

åàí àéðå òðéï ìðãøéí ùäøé àéðå öøéê ìîçåú úðäå òðéï ìðæéøåú

1.

Im Eino Inyan for Nedarim, for the master need not protest, Tenehu Inyan for Nezirus.

åäà ã÷àîø àáì ìà ìòøëéï ìà äåé ãåîéà ãàáì ìà ìðãøéí àìà ùìà úåòéì îçàú äøá ìòøëéï ëìì

(d)

Observation: The Beraisa said "but not for Erchin." This is unlike "but not for Nedarim." Rather, the master's protest does not help for Erchin at all;

ëé äåà [îä] îôñéã àí àîø äòáã òøëé òìé åìëùéùúçøø àå éúðå ìå îúðä òì îðú ùàéï ìøáå øùåú áå éùìí ìä÷ãù.

1.

This is because the master does not lose at all if the slave said "my Erech is Alai" and when he is freed, or when the give a gift to him on condition that his master has no authority in it, [the slave] will pay Hekdesh.

7)

TOSFOS DH Leima bedi'Shmuel ka'Mipalgei

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéîà áãùîåàì ÷îéôìâé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina.)

ãäùúà ÷ñ"ã ëéåï ùäòáã áøç îëðâã ôðéå îñúîà ðúééàù äéîðå äàãåï åäééðå äô÷ø

(a)

Explanation: Now we are thinking that since the slave fled from his master, presumably the master despaired from him, and he is Hefker;

ø"î àéú ìéä ãùîåàì ãàîø àéðå öøéê âè ùéçøåø åìëê ìà éùúä ùòúä àéðå áøùåú øáå åìà úåòéì ìå òåã îçàúå

1.

R. Meir holds like Shmuel, who holds that he does not need a Get Shichrur (document of freedom). Therefore, he cannot drink [wine], for he is not in his master's Reshus, and his [master's] protest does not help any longer;

åø' éåñé ìéú ìéä ãùîåàì åëéåï ãìà éöà ìçéøåú úåòéì ìå îçàúå

2.

R. Yosi holds unlike Shmuel. Since he did not go free, his [master's] protest does help.

8)

TOSFOS DH Leima (part 2)

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéîà (çì÷ á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives reasons why the master would want the slave to drink, or not.)

ãë"ò àéú ìäå ãùîåàì

(a)

Citation of Gemara: All hold like Shmuel.

ãîô÷éø òáãå éöà ìçéøåú åàéï öøéê âè ùéçøåø åäàé òáã ùáøç îëðâã ôðéå ìà àééøé áùðúééàù åìà çùáéðï ìéä äô÷ø

(b)

Explanation: [All hold that] one who was Mafkir his slave, he goes free, and he does not need a Get Shichrur. This slave who fled from his master, we do not discuss when the master despaired, so we do not consider him to be Hefker;

ø"î ñáø ìà éùúä ñáø ãàéï äàãåï î÷ôéã àí éöèòø åéúëçù ëùàéðå àöìå ëé äéëé ãðéäåé ìéä öòø åðäãø ìâáéä ùò"é ëï éùåá àöìå ëãé ìùúåú áééï

1.

R. Meir holds that he may not drink. He holds that the master is not upset if [the slave] is pained and gets weak when he is not by him, so that [the slave] will be pained and return to him. Through this, he will return to him, in order to drink wine;

åø' éåñé ñáø éùúä ÷ñáø àéï ðåç ìå ìøáå ùéîðò îï äééï ãìéëçåù çéìéä åìà éäéä ëì ëê áòì ëç åøàåé ìîìàëä ëùéùåá àöìå.

2.

R. Yosi holds that he drinks. The master is not pleased that he refrain from wine and get weak, and he will not have so much strength and be proper for labor when he returns to him.