Previous daf

1)

(a) We have already discussed the Halachah that permits a man to 'shave' on his father's Nezirus (i.e. to use the Ma'os S'tumin that his deceased father designated for his Nezirus for his own). This only applies when he declared his own Nezirus during his father's lifetime. Should he do so after his father's death, and then wish to use the money - it goes to Nedavah (Note: that Tosfos learns the entire Sugya the other way round).

(b) The author of our Mishnah is - Rebbi Yossi.

(c) The Din in our Mishnah is confined to a son - but not to a daughter.

(a) The reason that Rebbi Yochanan gives to answer why the Halachah in our Mishnah is confined to a son and not to a daughter - is because 'Halachah Hi be'Nazir'.

(b) We ask 'P'shita' in spite of having just asked for the reason - because it was Rebbi Yochanan who initially asked 'Mai Ta'ama' before going on to answer his own Kashya, and it is we (Ravina and Rav Ashi) who now query both Rebbi Yochanan's question and answer.

(c) The significance of the Kashya 'P'shita' is - that seeing as a daughter does not inherit when there are sons, why should we even think that a daughter might have the equivalent Din to a son?

(d) The answer lies - in a case where the father died leaving only a daughter. Perhaps what Chazal meant by son was 'heir', in which case an only daughter will have the same Din as an only son regarding a Nazir.

3)

(a) We ask whether the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Yossi or not. What makes us think that they do is - the fact that Rebbi Yossi's name is quoted in our Mishnah.

(b) On the assumption that they do - we then ask whether they argue on the Reisha, maintaining that even if the son declared his Nezirus after his father's death, he may also use his father's Ma'os S'tumin (according to Tosfos, even if he was already a Nazir in his father's lifetime), or whether they argue in the Seifa, and disagree with the entire Halachah.

(c) We resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, where various Tana'im argue with Rebbi Yossi - maintaining that the son can use his father's Ma'os S'tumin under all circumstances (like the first side of the She'eilah).

(a) Rabah asks whether, if the deceased father left behind two sons, the Halachah permits whichever son shaves first to use all of his father's money. The reason for the alternative (that each son may use half their father's money) - is because the Halachah was stated as a Din in Yerushah (where brothers inherit equally).

(b) Based on the same S'vara, Rava asks whether if one of the sons was a Bechor, he would be able to use two thirds of the money - or whether, they would both have equal rights) like two brothers who were not firstborn.

(c) Rava would not have asked this She'eilah according to the first side of Rabah's She'eilah - in which case it would have been obvious that both brothers would have equal rights (and it is only if the Din of Yerushah is prevalent in the first case, that he asks whether we apply it in the second case too).

(d) Assuming the first side of Rava's She'eilah, when he then asks whether this is confined to Chulin, or whether it applies even to Hekdesh, he means to ask - whether the firstborn has a right to the double portion of his father's Ma'os S'tumin only if he declared 'Ma'os Eilu li'Nezirus' (which is a Lashon Chulin), or whether it applies even if he said 'Harei Eilu le'Korbanos Nezirus' (a Lashon of Hekdesh), seeing as either way, he would acquire it for the same purpose (to shave and become permitted to drink wine ... .).

(a) He then asks - whether the son may shave even if one of them is a Stam Nazir and the other one, a N'zir Olam.

(b) This She'eilah might even apply in a case where both the father and the son are Nezirei Olam (because the Halachah may have been confined to S'tam Nezirus). On the other hand (seeing as both father and son declared the same form of Nezirus), it may be obvious that it does not (due to the fact that the She'eilah is what the Din will be when the two Nezirus differ, but not when they are the same) Tosfos.

(c) Rav Ashi's final set of She'eilos pertains to - where one of them is a Nazir Tahor, and the other, a Nazir Tamei (who actually brings different Korbanos); whether the son, who is a Tahor Nazir who brings *animals*, may use all of the money of his father, who had designated money for his *birds* (adding the rest from his own pocket); or whether he may use some of the money from the animal Korbanos which his father (who had been a Tahor Nazir) had designated, for his own bird Korbanos (seeing as he is a Tamei Nazir).

(d) This She'eilah assumes - that as far as the previous She'eilah is concerned (where one of them is a 'Stam Nazir and the other, a N'zir Olam - whose Korbanos are the same), the son is permitted to use the money that his father designated.

6)

(a) Beis Shamai say 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh', Beis Hillel - Eino Hekdesh.

(b) Rebbi inserted this Mishnah here - because he will shortly deal with the case of Nezirus be'Ta'us.

(c) The Tana proceeds to list three cases. Beis Shamai say that if someone who declared 'Shor Shachor she'Yeitzei mi'Beisi Rishon, Harei Hu Hekdesh, ve'Yatza Lavan' - it is Hekdesh.

(d) In the case of ...

1. ... 'Dinar Zahav' - the Noder declared that the golden Dinar that would come to his hand first would be Hekdesh, but the coin was a silver one.
2. ... 'Chavis shel Yayin' - he declared that the first barrel of wine that came to his hand would be Hekdesh, but the first barrel was one of oil.

Next daf