POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nazir 11
1) NEZIRUS FROM ONE CUP
(a) (Mishnah): They mixed a cup of wine for a man; he said,
'I am a Nazir from it' - he is a Nazir.
2) ONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO OBSERVE ALL PROHIBITIONS OF A NAZIR
(b) There was a case of a woman that was drunk. They mixed a
cup of wine for her; she said, 'I am a Nazir from it' -
Chachamim said, she only intended to forbid that cup with
(c) (Gemara) Question: The case brought opposes the Mishnah!
1. The beginning of the Mishnah says, he is a Nazir; in
the case brought, she is forbidden to drink that
cup, but permitted to drink others!
(d) Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated; it means, 'They mixed
a cup of wine for a man; he said, 'I am a Nazir from it'
- he is a Nazir; if he was drunk, he is not a Nazir.
1. The reason is, it is as if he forbade that cup as a
2. Suggestion: If so, he should have said so!
3. Answer: He reasoned, if I forbid just that cup, they
will bring me another and annoy me; rather, I will
say something which will cause them to desist.
4. There was a case of a woman ...
(a) (Mishnah): 'I am a Nazir on condition that I can drink
wine and become Tamei' - he is a Nazir, with all the
(b) 'I knew about Nezirus, but I did not know that a Nazir is
forbidden to drink wine' - he is forbidden; R. Shimon
says, he is permitted;
(c) 'I knew that a Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, but I
thought that Chachamim will permit me because I cannot
live without wine, or because I bury the dead' - he is
permitted; R. Shimon says, he is forbidden.
(d) (Gemara) Question: R. Shimon should also argue in the 1st
(e) Answer #1 (R. Yehoshua Ben Levi): Indeed, he also argues
in the 1st case.
(f) Answer #2 (Ravina): He does not argue, because the man
stipulates contrary to Torah, and such a stipulation is
1. R. Yehoshua Ben Levi holds, when he said 'on
condition', he is delimiting what he is accepting
(as opposed to accepting Nezirus and stipulating
that he will have a leniency).
(g) A Beraisa supports Ravina.
(h) (Beraisa): 'I am a Nazir on condition that I can drink
wine and become Tamei' - he is a Nazir, with all the
prohibitions, because he stipulated contrary to Torah,
and such a stipulation is void.
(i) (Mishnah): 'I knew that a Nazir is forbidden to drink
(j) Question: In the previous case, Chachamim said that he is
forbidden, and R. Shimon said that he is permitted!
(k) Answer #1: The opinions should be switched - (Chachamim
say) he is forbidden, R. Shimon says he is permitted.
(l) Answer #2: There is no need to switch the opinions.
3) ONE WHO ACCEPTS SACRIFICES OF A NAZIR IN ADDITION TO BEING A NAZIR
1. In the previous case, he did not accept all
prohibitions of a Nazir. Chachamim say, acceptance
of 1 prohibition suffices to make him a full Nazir;
R. Shimon says, unless he accepts all prohibitions,
he is permitted.
2. In this case, he accepted all the prohibitions, and
seeks annulment of 1 of them.
(m) Answer #3: The Tana'im argue regarding vows in situations
of coercion, as Rav Asi and Shmuel argue.
i. According to Chachamim, just as acceptance of 1
prohibition makes him a full Nazir, annulment
of 1 prohibition permits him.
ii. According to R. Shimon, just as he is not a
full Nazir unless he accepts all prohibitions,
he is permitted unless he annuls all the
1. (Mishnah): Chachamim permitted 4 categories of vows:
vows of persuasion; vows of exaggeration; vows
through oversight; and coerced vows.
(n) Chachamim hold as Shmuel (he is permitted immediately),
and R. Shimon holds as Rav Asi (he is forbidden until he
asks a Chacham).
2. (Rav Asi): One who took one of these vows must ask a
Chacham to annul it.
3. Shmuel: The Tana says, Chachamim permitted these
vows - you cannot say, one must ask a Chacham!
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven said 'I am a Nazir, and it is upon me
to bring sacrifices of a Nazir'; Shimon heard this, and
said 'I also, and it is upon me to bring sacrifices of a
Nazir' - if they are clever, each brings the sacrifices
of the other; if not, each must bring (his own sacrifices
and) the sacrifices of another Nazir.
(b) (Gemara) Question: If Shimon heard and said 'I also' -
does this refer to both things Reuven said, or on just
1. Question: If it only refers to one - to the 1st, or
(c) Answer (Mishnah): 'I also, and it is upon me to bring
sacrifices of a Nazir' - from the fact that he had to say
'And it is upon me' in addition to 'I also', we see that
'I also' only refers to one.
(d) Question: Does it refer to the 1st or the 2nd?
(e) Answer: We also learn this from the Mishnah - since he
had to repeat the 2nd, 'I also' refers to the 1st.
(f) Question (Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Perhaps it
really refers to both - 'And it is upon me' merely
clarifies what he accepted!
1. Support for this is the continuation of the Mishnah
(12B) - 'It is upon me to bring sacrifices of a
half-Nazir'; Shimon heard this, and said 'I also,
and it is upon me to bring sacrifices of a
(g) Answer (Rava): If 'I also' always only refers to 1, the
Mishnayos are understandable.
i. There, Shimon only heard one thing - clearly,
'And it is upon me' merely clarifies what he
1. Our Mishnah must teach 'And it is upon me' (without
this, Shimon only accepted Nezirus); the next
Mishnah repeats 'And it is upon me' for parallel
2. But if 'I also' refers to both things - there was no
need to teach 'And it is upon me', in either