Previous daf

1)

(a) We attempt to prove Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a (who requires 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of 'Shalom Alechah Rebbi' plus) wrong, from our Mishnah, which lists twice 'va'Ani' - implying that the maximum number of people who can join the list is three (as we shall see shortly), because 'Toch K'dei Dibur' comprises the three words and no more.

(b) One cannot however, ask on Resh Lakish, that the Tana ought to have added one 'va'Ani' - because the main purpose of the Tana is to teach us that the second one too, can connect with the first (which is certainly 'Toch K'dei Dibur' [and it is obvious that the third person is able to connect with him too], and) not to teach us the limits of 'Toch K'dei Dibur' (which contains no Chidush) Tosfos.

(c) We refute the disproof from our Mishnah against Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a - on the grounds that 'the Tana is not a peddler, who needs to list everything'.

(d) The reason that the Tana mentions even the second 'va'Ani', is because he talks about 'Rishon' and 'Acharon', insinuating that there is a middle one.

(a) We have assumed until now that all subsequent Nodrim (who say 'va'Ani') actually connect with the initial Noder. The alternative would be - that each one connects to the one before him.

(b) The ramifications of this She'eilah are - regarding more than three people who say 'va'Ani' (according to the second side of the She'eilah, even if there are a hundred, the Neder of each one is effective, provided he declared 'va'Ani' 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the one before him.

(c) There is no proof from our Mishnah, which only lists 'va'Ani' twice that each one is connected to the original Noder - because 'the Tana is not a peddler, who needs to list everything' (as we explained above).

(d) Despite the fact that the Tana holds that each Noder is connected to the previous one, he says ...

1. ... 'Hutar ha'Rishon, Hutru Kulan' (not to imply that if the second one were to annul his Neder, the Neder of those following him would remain intact, but) because he wants to say 'Hutru Kulan', which would not be the case if he referred to the middle one.
2. ... 'Hutar ha'Acharon, ha'Acharon Mutar' (implying that only the third one is permitted, but not those that follow him) - because in fact, the third one is the last one, and there is nobody that follows him.

(a) On the other hand, even if the Tana would holds that all the Nodrim are connected to the first one, he says with regard to the last one 'Hutar ha'Acharon ... ' (not to imply that if the middle one would annul his Neder, all the subsequent ones would be permitted too [a proof for the second side of the She'eilah], but) - because 'Acharon' actually refers to the middle one (since it is the one after the first one).

(b) The Tana refers to the middle one as 'Acharon' - to balance 'Rishon' mentioned in the Reisha.

(c) We finally cite a Beraisa, which learns specifically like the first side of the She'eilah - by adding 'Hutar Emtza'i, Heimenu u'le'Matah Mutar, Heimenu u'le'Ma'alah, Asur'.

4)

(a) The Beraisa makes a distinction between someone who says 'Yedei Nezirah, ve'Raglei Nezirah' and one who says 'Roshi Nezirah, Keveidi Nezirah'. The former is not a Nazir, the latter is - because in the former case, the limb that he declared a Nazir is one which is not crucial to life, whereas in the latter case, it is.

(b) Rav Yehudah explains that, when our Mishnah says 'Pi ke'Fiv ve'Sa'ari ke'Sa'aro' - it is not referring to the declaration of Nezirus on that limb, but that his mouth should be forbidden to drink wine or that his hair should grow, like that of a Nazir.

(a) We ask - whether a husband's Hafarah of his wife's Nedarim works retroactively (like that of a Chacham), or whether he only annuls it from now on.

(b) The ramifications of this She'eilah are - when a man annulled his wife's Nezirus after her friend had heard her and said 'va'Ani'.

(c) Another ramification will be when a Nezirah drank wine or made herself Tamei Meis before her husband annulled her Nezirus (Tosfos).

(d) Despite the fact that a Chacham uproots the Neder retroactively, a husband might not be able to do so - because, whereas a Chacham relies on the remorse of the Noder (who is sorry for ever having declared the Neder, a husband does not (Tosfos).

(a) We initially try and prove that a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively from the fact that, in our Mishnah, when a woman declared a Neder Nezirus and, after saying 'va'Ani', her husband annuled her Neder, his annulment is void (because he is not empowered to annul his own Nedarim, as we explained earlier). In fact, though, it would not be effective even if it worked only from now on - because 'va'Ani' is a Hakamah, after which, Hafarah is no longer effective.

(b) It will be effective however - if the husband first annuls his Hakamah.

(a) The Beraisa discusses the Korbanos of a Nezirah whose husband has annulled her Nezirus. Assuming that the animal which she designated as her Chatas was ...

1. ... his - after her husband annulled her Nezirus, it should be allowed to graze until it obtains a blemish, after which he may redeem it (because he only designated it should she need it - nevertheless, the Rabbanan required redemption, so that people should not say that Hekdesh can go out to Chulin without redemption.
2. ... hers - it must die.

(b) We try and resolve our She'eilah from here - because if a husband would uproot his wife's Neder retroactively, there would appear to be no logical reason for her Chatas to have to die.

(c) We refute the proof however, on the basis of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar - who says the Chatas also comes to atone for her having abstained from that what the Torah permits, a sin which requires atonement even after her Nezirus has been annulled. Consequently, the Chatas retains its identity, even after the Hafarah.

(d) The Chatas cannot be sent in a field to graze, so that, when it obtains a blemish, the owner will be able to redeem it - because of the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai 'Chatas she'Meisu Ba'alehah (to which this is similar, seeing as she requires a Kaparah [like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar], but cannot receive it) Tamus'.

(a) We attempt to resolve our She'eilah from the next Mishnah, which sentences a Nezirah who drank wine or made herself Tamei Meis to Malkos, ostensibly, despite the fact that her husband had annulled her Nezirus - in which case, in which case the Hafarah must take effect from now on (and not retroactively).

(b) We do not at first want to establish the Beraisa when her husband had not yet annulled her Nezirus - because that would be so obvious there would appear to be no point in mentioning it.

(a) We nevertheless establish the Beraisa when her husband had not yet annulled her Nezirus - because of the Seifa, which goes on to teach us that if he did, and she, unaware of the fact that he had, 'contravened' her Neder Nezirus, she does not receive Malkos.

(b) The Tana find it necessary to teach us that she does not receive Malkos in this case - because we might otherwise have thought that she would receive Malkos de'Rabbanan for her evil intentions (which indeed, Rebbi Yehudah holds).

(c) He could have taught us a bigger Chidush still - that even if she would have drunk wine or made herself Tamei Meis *before* her husband annulled her Nezirus, she would not receive Malkos (seeing as we are currently holding that her husband annuls her Nedarim retroactively). He chose to present the Chidush the way he did - because of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that she does indeed receive Makas Mardus (even if it was *after* his annulment that she 'contravened' her Neder).