Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Beis Shamai, someone who declares himself a Nazir from G'rogros or from a D'veilah (dried figs or from a cake of figs) is a Nazir.
What kind of a Nazir is he?

(b) What do Beis Hillel say?

(c) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees.
How does he interpret Beis Shamai?

(d) But how can that be, considering that he said that he is a Nazir?

3)

(a) What problem do we initially have with Beis Shamai's ruling 'Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros u'Min ha'Deveilah, Harei Zeh Nazir'?

(b) We answer that Beis Shamai holds like Rebbi Meir.
What does Rebbi Meir say about someone who declares 'Erech K'li Alai'? How does that explain Beis Shamai?

(c) And Beis Hillel hold like Rebbi Yossi.
What does Rebbi Yossi say about someone who declares 'Harei Alai Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim'? How does that explain Beis Hillel?

(d) Seeing as in Erchin, Rebbi Yossi holds '*Af* bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas', and the animal has the Kedushah of both an Olah and a Shelamim (as we explained), why is it that here, he goes after 'G'mar Devarav' *exclusively*, and the Noder is not a Nazir?

(a) How will we reconcile Rebbi Yehudah here (who maintains that Beis Shamai too, holds like Rebbi Yossi), with his own opinion in Temurah, where he argues with Rebbi Yossi and says 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' (declaring 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim' to be an Olah [and not a Shelamim])?

(b) And why do we prefer to establish Beis Hillel like Rebbi Yossi rather than like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, who hold 'Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah'?

(c) Seeing as Rebbi Meir holds (with regard to 'Erech K'li Alai') 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah', why will he agree with Beis Hillel in our Mishnah? Why does he not apply the same principle, and declare the Noder a Nazir?

(d) On what grounds do we repudiate the above interpretation of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel? Why ought the Nezirus not to be effective, even according to Beis Shamai?

(a) We still establish Beis Shamai like Rebbi Meir. But now we consider the Noder as having changed his mind when he said 'min ha'G'rogros', and Beis Shamai follow their own reasoning with regard to Hekdesh.
What do they say with regard to Hekdesh? How will that explain their opinion by Nazir?

(b) What is Beis Shamai's source for giving a Nazir the Din of Hekdesh in this regard?

(c) Why could we not have given Beis Shamai's reason as 'Ein Poschin ba'Charatah'?

(d) Why did we find it necessary to repeat that Beis Shamai holds like Rebbi Meir? Why did we not just reply that Beis Shamai, following their own reasoning, holds 'Ein She'eilah le'Hekdesh'?

(a) And we establish Beis Hillel like Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(b) Why is this necessary? Why could did we not simply establish Beis Hillel according to their reasoning, who say 'Yesh She'eilah le'Hekdesh'?

7)

(a) Rebbi Nasan disagrees with our Mishnah. In a Beraisa, he quotes Beis Shamai as saying (in the case of 'Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros') 'Nadur ve'Nazir'. In his opinion, they hold like both Rebbi Meir and like Rebbi Yehudah.
What does this mean? Which ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir?
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah?

(b) Beis Hillel (says Rebbi Nasan) hold 'Nadur ve'Eino Nazir'.
Like whom do *they* hold (see Rosh)?

(c) Alternatively, Beis Hillel hold 'Lo Nadur ve'Lo Nazir.
Like whom will they then hold?

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Menachos, someone who undertakes to bring a Minchah of barley or of 'Kemach', must bring one of wheat or of 'So'les respectively.
Why is that?

(b) What will the Noder have to bring if he undertakes to bring a Minchah ...

1. ... without oil and frankincense?
2. ... consisting of half an Isaron or of one a half Esronim of So'les?
   (An Isaron is a tenth of an Eifah).

(c) What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(d) Chizkiyah establishes the Tana Kama of this Mishnah like Beis Shamai. Which Beis Shamai is he referring to?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah even like Beis Hillel. Why might Beis Hillel, who say in our Mishnah 'Eino Nazir', agree with the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Menachos that his Neder is valid? What is the case, according to him?

(b) We conclude that Chizkiyah agrees with Rebbi Yochanan in this point, and what he said was that the Tana Kama confines his statement to someone who undertook to bring barley, but not lentils.
What exactly does this mean?

(c) How do we reconcile this with what Chizkiyah himself said previously, to establish the Mishnah like Beis Shamai, according to whom lentils (with regard to a Minchah) are no different than figs (to a Nazir)?

(d) What in the Lashon of the Mishnah convinced him to retract?

(a) What problem do we then have with Rebbi Yochanan, who now establishes the Mishnah even when he said 'lentils'?

(b) How do we in fact, reconcile what Rebbi Yochanan said before with what he is saying now?

(c) Then why was it not necessary for Chizkiyah to have retracted? How can we justify the Tana Kama's referring to a case of barley rather than to one of lentils?

Next daf