Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ACCEPTING TO BE AS ANOTHER NAZIR

(a) Support (for Reish Lakish - Beraisa): Reuven said I am a Nazir; Shimon heard, paused the time of speech, and said 'And I' - Reuven is a Nazir, Shimon is not.

1. The time of speech is the time for a Talmid to greet his Rebbi.

(b) Suggestion: The Mishnah also supports Reish Lakish.

1. (Mishnah): Reuven said 'I am a Nazir'; another heard, and said 'And I'; (another heard and said) 'And I'.

i. The Mishnah did not teach that more people can accept Nezirus after the time of greeting!

(c) Rejection: This is no support - is the Tana a peddler?! (A peddler announces everything he has; the Tana did not elaborate to teach every case).
(d) Question: If so - let the Tana only teach that one person said 'And I'!

1. Answer: In truth, he should have taught only one.

i. However, the end of the Mishnah teaches 'If the 1st annulled his Nezirus, the Nezirus of all of them is annulled; if the last annulled his Nezirus, he is not a Nazir, the rest of them are Nezirim' - implying, there is someone in the middle.
ii. Therefore, the beginning of the Mishnah teaches that 2 people said 'And I'.

(e) Question: Do (the 3rd, and subsequent people) accept to be as the 1st Nazir, or as the last person that spoke?

1. Question: What difference does this make?
2. Answer: Whether more people can accept (Nezirus) as the previous.

i. If each accepts as the last person to speak - there is no limit to how many can accept in this way!
ii. If each accepts as the 1st Nazir - they can only accept to be as him within the time of greeting.

(f) Answer #1 (Mishnah): Reuven said 'I am a Nazir'; another heard, and said 'And I'; (another heard and said) 'And I'.

1. We infer, no others can accept Nezirus in this way.
2. If must be, each accepts as the 1st - if each accepts as the previous, the Tana should have listed more!

(g) Rejection: This is no support - should the Tana say everything, as a peddler?!

1. Question: If so - let the Tana only teach that one person said 'And I'!
2. Answer: In truth, he should have taught only one.

i. However, the end of the Mishnah teaches 'If the 1st annulled his Nezirus, the Nezirus of all of them is annulled; if the last annulled his Nezirus, he is not a Nazir, the rest of them are Nezirim' - implying, there is someone in the middle.
ii. Therefore, the beginning of the Mishnah teaches that 2 people said 'And I'.

(h) Answer #2 (Mishnah): If the 1st annulled his Nezirus, the Nezirus of all of them is annulled.

1. We infer, if the middle one annulled his Nezirus, the Nezirus of the others is not annulled.
2. It must be, each accepts to be as the 1st.

(i) Rejection: Really, we can say that each accepts to be as the previous.

1. The Tana wanted to teach that the Nezirus of all the others is annulled, therefore he had to teach that the 1st annulled his Nezirus.
2. If the 2nd annulled his Nezirus, this would not annul the Nezirus of the 1st.

(j) Answer #3 (Mishnah): If the last one annulled his Nezirus, he is not a Nazir, the rest of them are Nezirim.

1. We infer, this only applies to the last; if the middle one annulled his Nezirus, this would annul the Nezirus of the one after him!
2. It must be, each accepts as the previous.

(k) Rejection: Really, we can say that each accepts to be as the 1st.

1. When the Mishnah says 'last', it means the middle!
2. Since the beginning of the Mishnah spoke of the 1st, the end of the Mishnah uses the language 'last'.

(l) Answer #4 (Beraisa): If the 1st annulled his Nezirus, the Nezirus of all of them is annulled; if the last annulled his Nezirus, he is not a Nazir, the rest of them are Nezirim; if the middle annulled his Nezirus, those after him are not Nezirim, those before him are Nezirim.

1. This shows that each accepts to be as the previous.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven said 'I am a Nazir'; Shimon heard, and said 'My mouth is as his mouth', or 'My hair is as his hair' - Shimon is also a Nazir.
(b) Question: Because he said 'My mouth is as his mouth', or 'My hair is as his hair', is he really a Nazir?

1. Contradiction (Beraisa): 'My hand is a Nezirah'; or, 'My foot is a Nezirah' - these words do nothing;
2. 'My head is a Nezirah'; or, 'My liver is a Nezirah' - he is a Nazir;
3. The rule is, if he accepted Nezirus on a part of the body which one cannot live without it, he is a Nazir.

(c) Answer (Rav Yehudah): He means, 'My mouth is as his mouth regarding wine; my hair is as his hair regarding cutting.'

(a) (Mishnah): Leah said, 'I am a Nezirah'; her husband heard and said 'And I' - he cannot annul her Nezirus.
(b) Question: When a husband annuls his wife's vow - does he uproot it retroactively, or cut it off from now on?

1. Question: What difference does this make?
2. Answer: If Leah said 'I am a Nezirah', Rachel heard and said 'And I'. Leah's husband heard about Leah's Nezirus and annulled it.

i. If the vow is uprooted, Rachel Nezirus is also uprooted.
ii. If the vow is cut off from now on, Leah is no longer a Nezirah, but Rachel still is.

(c) Answer #1 (Mishnah): Leah said, 'I am a Nezirah'; her husband heard and said 'And I' - he cannot annul her Nezirus.

1. If a husband cuts off a vow from now on - he should be able to annul her vow, and he will remain a Nazir!
2. It must be, he uproots it. (He cannot annul her Nezirus, since this would annul his own Nezirus, and this he cannot do).

(d) Rejection: Really, he cuts off a vow.

1. The reason he cannot annul her Nezirus is not because this would permit his own.
2. Rather, it is because by saying 'And I', he declared that he wants her Nezirus to stand.
3. If he annuls his confirmation of her Nezirus, he may then annul her Nezirus; if not, not.

(e) Answer #2 (Mishnah): Leah accepted Nezirus, and designated an animal for the sacrifice a Nazir brings; later, her husband annulled her Nezirus;

1. If it was his animal, it may graze with the flock (i.e. it has no Kedushah).
2. If it was her animal - if it was the sin-offering, it must die.

i. If a husband uproots a vow retroactively - even if it was her animal, it should have no Kedushah!
ii. It must be, a husband cuts off a vow.

(f) Rejection: Really, he uproots it.

1. Since she (does not - Tosfos (22A Ha) deletes this from the text) needs atonement, it is as a sin-offering that was not offered before its owner died.

i. We have a tradition from Moshe from Mount Sinai that such a sin-offering must die.

(g) Answer #3 (Mishnah): Leah accepted Nezirus, and drank wine or became Teme'ah - she receives 40 lashes.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If her husband did not annul her Nezirus - this is obvious!

2. Answer: Rather, it must be, he annulled her vow.

i. Suggestion: If annulment uproots - why is she lashed?
ii. Rather, it must be, annulment cuts off the vow.

(h) Rejection: Really, annulment uproots.

1. The beginning of the Mishnah is indeed obvious (he did not annul her vow); it was taught on account of the end of the Mishnah.
2. (Mishnah): If her husband annulled her vow, and she did not know, and she later drank wine or became Teme'ah, she does not receive 40 lashes.