Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) R. ELIEZER ON RESOLVING DOUBTS

(a) Question (Abaye): There is a difficulty with saying that the Mishnah of doubts concerning Nezirus being resolved leniently follows R. Eliezer:

1. The latter part of that Mishnah says that with doubts concerning Bechoros, whether human or animal, kosher or treife, it is up to the Kohen to prove that it is a Bechor.
2. It also says that such animals are prohibited for their fleece or for work, which shows that we are being stringent!

(b) Answer (R. Zeira): One can't compare innate sanctity to that which is being attempted to being imposed by man.
(c) Question: If there is a difficulty, it is this:

1. (R. Meir) Fluids of doubtful status are rated as Tamei regarding themselves, but as Tahor regarding affecting other things.
2. R. Eliezer stated likewise.
3. But R. Eliezer surely cannot hold that they are rated as Tamei regarding themselves, as he states in a Beraisa that (Min HaTorah), they cannot become Tamei at all!
4. Proof of this is that Yosi b. Yoezer attested that the Ayil- locust is kosher, and that fluids of the Temple slaughterhouse are Tahor (as the Tumah is only d'Rabbanan, which wasn't extended to this case).
5. This is not difficult according to Shmuel, who explains it to mean that they are only Tahor regarding other things.
6. But according to Rav, who holds that they themselves are Tahor (i.e. Tumah is a Rabbinic decree that wasn't extended here), then since Min HaTorah fluids cannot be Tamei, why would R. Eliezer be stringent in cases of doubt?

(a) Resolution: The Mishnah about being lenient with cases of doubtful Nezirus follows R. Yehudah, whereas our Mishnah which is stringent follows R. Shimon, as per a Beraisa:

1. (R. Yehudah) If someone accepts Nezirus on condition that a pile contains 100 Kur, and it is found stolen or lost, it is not binding.
2. (R. Shimon) It is binding.

(b) Question: We see that R. Yehudah holds that a person would include doubtful cases:

1. (Mishnah) (R. Yehudah) If he did not specify what Terumah he meant, then it is binding in Judea, but not in the Galil, as the people there are not familiar with Terumah of the Lishchah.
2. The inference is that if they were to be familiar with it, it would be binding, even though it would still be doubtful as to what was intended!

(c) Answer #1 (Rava): With the pile, he holds a person would not include doubtful cases, as they are more stringent than if it was certain.

1. This is because a doubtful Nazir can never bring a Korban and shave.
2. Question: What if he said that he would be a lifelong Nazir?
3. Answer: It is still less stringent, as if his hair grows heavy, he can cut it and bring three Korbanos.
4. Question: What if he said that he would be a Nazir Shimshon (who can never cut his hair)?
5. Answer: A Nazir Shimshon was not included in this ruling.
6. Question: R. Ada bar Ahava said it was included!?
7. Answer: If so, this cannot be answered.

(d) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa of the pile is R. Yehudah citing R. Tarfon (and not his own view), as per a Beraisa:

1. (R. Yehudah citing R. Tarfon) In a case where two people accepted Nezirus in doubtful circumstances, neither is a Nazir, as Nezirus must be accepted with clear certainty.
2. Question: If so, why say that the pile was destroyed or stolen - it anyway wouldn't be binding!?
3. Answer: That was stated to show that even in such a case R. Shimon still holds that it is binding, as a person would include himself in doubt.

(a) In the Mishnah, R. Yehudah said that if he did not specify what Terumah he meant, then it is binding in Judea, but not in the Galil, as the people there are not familiar with Terumah of the Lishchah.
(b) The inference is that if they were familiar with it, it would be binding; i.e. we are stringent with doubt.
(c) Question: We see the opposite from the next section:

1. The Mishnah then says that if he did not specify what Cherem he meant, then it is permitted in Judea, but binding in the Galil, as the people there are not familiar with Cheramim of Kohanim.
2. The inference is that if they were familiar with it, it would not be binding; i.e. we are lenient with doubt!?

(d) Answer: The last part is the opinion of R. Elazar b. R. Tzadok in a Beraisa:

1. (R. Yehudah) Unspecified Terumah is binding in Judea.
2. (R. Elazar b. R. Tzadok) Unspecified Cherem is binding in the Galil.