Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Nazir Lehazir" - 'Nezirus Chal al ha'Nezirus'.

(b) If not for the Pasuk - we would have thought that if by Shevu'ah, which is more stringent than Nedarim, we say 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah', then we should certainly say it by Nedarim.

(c) Rav Hamnuna tries to prove Rav Huna wrong from this Beraisa - by virtue of the fact that the Tana must be speaking when the Noder said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom' (because in case of 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar', why would one need a Pasuk to teach us that the second Nezirus will take effect)?

(d) We reconcile Rav Huna with the Beraisa - by establishing the Beraisa when the Noder undertook the two sets of Nezirus simultaneously?

(a) If not for "Nazir Lahazir", we would have thought that, if someone accepts two terms of Nezirus simultaneously - he keep *one* set of Nezirus lasting sixty days, in which case he brings one set of Korbanos at the end.

(b) The Pasuk comes to teach us - that he keeps *two* sets of Nezirus lasting thirty days each, each with its own Korbanos.

(c) The Mishnah (of 'Yesh Neder be'Soch Neder') does not lend itself to the explanation of some commentaries, who establish it even by 'Konem Alai Kikar Zeh, Konem Alai Kikar Zeh' - because then, why does the Tana present a case of Nezirus, and not one of Konem?

(a) A Neder forbidding something on himself, overrides a Shevu'ah that he will eat it - because a Shevu'ah to eat something turns it into a Mitzvah, and we have already learned that a Neder takes effect on a Mitzvah.

(b) A Neder to forbid something - will take effect on something that is already forbidden through a Shevu'ah, because it creates a new Isur Cheftza that was not there before.

(c) The reverse is not true. A Shevu'ah ...

1. ... permitting something - does (obviously) not override a Neder forbidding it.
2. ... forbidding something - does not take effect on something that is already forbidden through a Neder.

(d) Even though Nedarim take effect on Shevu'os (due to the fact that they add an Isur Cheftza), Shevu'os do not take effect on Nedarim - because, besides creating an Isur Cheftza, a Neder also creates the La'av of "Lo Yacheil Devaro", which is an Isur Gavra, in which case the Shevu'ah does not add anything.

(a) We reject the suggestion that the Chumra of Shevu'os over Nedarim (referred to by the Beraisa) is the fact that they take effect even on abstract things - because in that case, Nedarim also have a Chumra over Shevu'os, inasmuch as they take effect on a Mitzvah.

(b) The Chumra of Shevu'os - is the unique expression that the Torah uses in Yisro "Lo Yenakeh" (which actually indicates that Shevu'os are the most stringent of all regular La'avin).

(a) Rava extrapolates from the Tana's Lashon 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, Eino *Chayav* Ela Achas' - that although there is no Chiyuv for contravening the second Shevu'ah, the Shevu'ah is nevertheless valid (inasmuch as it will take effect should the first one be annulled).

(b) The Tana might otherwise have said - 'Chayav Achas' or 'Einah Ela Achas'.

(a) According to the second Lashon, we extrapolate from the Tana 'Chiyuva Hu de'Leka, Ha Shevu'ah Ika' - implying Rava's Chidush (that the second Shevu'ah is valid, even though it cannot take effect).

(b) We try to bring a support for Rava from the Beraisa that we learned above (that if someone undertook two Nezirus, and, after keeping the first one and separating his Korban, he had the first Nezirus annulled, he has fulfilled the second Nezirus with the first one). The proof from there presumes that he undertook the two sets of Nezirus to run concurrently - because, if the Tana was speaking when he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir le'Machar', then how could he fulfill the second Nezirus with the first one (seeing as the second Nezirus extends for one extra day)?

(c) We refute the proof for Rava from there however - by establishing the Beraisa when the Noder undertook two periods of Nezirus simultaneously. If he were to make two *Shevu'os* simultaneously and nullify one of them - the second one would not come into effect?

(d) Those who attempted to prove Rava from the Beraisa must hold like Rav Huna - because according to Shmuel, if someone says 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom', the second Nezirus is valid anyway (and one would not need to come on to Rava's Din).

7)

(a) 'Harei Alai ke'Basar Mali'ach' implies the salted meat of Kodshim - because of the Pasuk in Vayikra "Al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach".

(b) Besides the salted meat of Kodshim and the wine of drink-offerings, 'ke'Basar Mali'ach' and 'ke'Yayin Nesech' respectively - also imply the meat and wine of idolatry.

(c) If the Noder ...

1. ... subsequently explains that he had referred to the meat or the wine of Avodas-Kochavim - then his Neder will be void.
2. ... says nothing - then it is valid, because of the principle 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir'.

(d) The two implications of ...

1. ... 'Harei Alai ke'Cherem' are - Chermei Gavohah (of Hashem - in which case it goes to the Beis Hamikdash) or Chermei Cohanim.
2. ... 'Harei Alai ke'Ma'aser' are - Ma'aser Beheimah or Ma'aser Dagan (in which case it is not a Davar ha'Nadur).
3. ... 'Harei Alai ki'Terumah' (according to Rebbi Meir) are - Terumas ha'Lishkah (in which case it is a Davar ha'Nadur) or Terumah Gedolah.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Meir. He says 'S'tam T'rumah be'Galil Muteres' - because he holds that the men of Galil, who lived far from Yerushalayim, were not familiar with the T'rumas ha'Lishkah (i.e. most of the Terumah that they dealt with was T'rumas ha'Goren). They would not therefore refer to it as 'Terumah', but as 'Terumas ha'Lishkah'.

(b) The Tana of the Seifa, whom we shall later establish as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, states 'S'tam Charamim bi'Yehudah Mutarin' - because he holds 'S'tam Nedarim Lehakel'.

(c) He nevertheless goes on to say 'be'Galil Asurin' - because the residents of Galil in his opinion, wee not familiar ith Chermei Kohanim (since there were not so many Cohanim among them). Consequently, they would not refer to Chermei Cohanim as 'Charamim' S'tam, but as 'Chermei Cohanim'.

(a) Rebbi Zeira reconciles our Mishnah (which holds 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir' with the Mishnah in Taharos, which says 'Safek Nezirus Lahakel' - by establishing the former like the Rabbanan, and the latter like Rebbi Eliezer.

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer in the Beraisa, someone who is Makdish a Beheimah or a Chayah means to include a Coy (an animal that is a Safek Beheimah, Safek Chayah). According to the Rabbanan - he does not.

(c) Rebbi Zeira connects the Machlokes in the Beraisa to the Machlokes between our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Taharos, despite the fact that they are different - inasmuch as the Machlokes in the Beraisa concerns the Noder's property, whereas the Machlokes between the two Mishnahs is personal (and the Noder is therefore less likely to incorporate cases of Safek in his Neder).