Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov establishes 'bal Te'acher' with regard to Nezirus by someone who undertook to become a Nazir whilst standing in a graveyard. How would 'bal Te'acher' then apply?

(b) This answer goes well with the opinion of Resh Lakish, but not with that of Rebbi Yochanan.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) According to Mar bar Rav Ashi, even Resh Lakish concedes that the Nezirus begins immediately.
Then in which point does he argue with Rebbi Yochanan?

(a) How do we nevertheless establish Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's answer?

(b) What does Rav Ashi extrapolate from Rav Acha bar Ya'akov with regard to a Nazir who deliberately rendered himself Tamei?

(c) How many sets of Malkos will he now receive?

(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika establishes 'bal Te'acher' with regard to the Mitzvah of Tiglachas (shaving, which the Nazir had to do after he had brought all his Korbanos).
Is Rav Acha's answer confined to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, who holds that the Nazir is forbidden to drink wine until he has shaven, or will the Rabbanan, who permit him to drink wine immediately after bringing his Korbanos also agree with it?

(b) With which aspect of Nezirus does Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Mari establish the 'bal Te'acher' of Nezirus? When will he transgress according to him?

(c) What do we learn regarding 'bal Te'acher' from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Darosh Yidreshenu"?

(d) Then why do we need to learn 'bal Te'acher by the Chatas of Nazir from "Nazir Lahazir"?

(a) Why can the Chidush of Nazir not be that ...

1. ... one cannot donate a Chatas Nazir unless one is actually a Nazir?
2. ... someone who undertakes Nezirus only as far as eating grapes is concerned, becomes a Nazir in all regards (besides the fact that this is not a unanimous opinion [Rebbi Shimon in fact, argues])?

(b) So what is the (lenient) Chidush that causes the Chatas Nazir to require its own D'rashah for 'bal Te'acher'?

5)

(a) Alternatively, we reinstate the initial answer that one cannot donate a Chatas Nazir.
How do we now dispense with the Kashya that one cannot donate a Chatas Cheilev either?

(b) How will this go with Elazar ha'Kapar, in whose opinion a Nazir has sinned too, by abstaining from those things that the Torah permits, in which case his Chatas too, comes as a Kaparah?

(c) Why can we not learn 'bal Te'acher' by a Nazir from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' of Chatas Cheilev and Shelamim?

(a) So we try to learn it from a Chatas Yoledes, which is not brought as a Kaparah, and yet is subject to 'bal Te'acher'.
Will this go even like Rebbi Shimon, in whose opinion a Yoledes brings a Chatas because she sinned, by swearing that she would have no more children?

(b) In which way is a Chatas Yoledes, which is subject to 'bal Te'acher' different, even though it too, can also not be donated?

(c) In that case, what makes the Chatas Yoledes different that the Chatas Nazir, seeing as the latter too, permits the Nazir to drink wine?

(a) The Tana also learned from the Hekesh (between Nezirus and Neder) that a father can annul his daughter's Nedarim and a husband, his wife's.
Why does the Torah need a special Hekesh? Why can we not simply learn it from a 'Mah Matzinu'?

(b) Why did we not ask this Kashya above, with regard to learning Yados from the Hekesh?

(c) Seeing as 'S'tam Nezirus Sh'loshim Yom', why do we not learn from the Hekesh that 'S'tam Nedarim Sh'loshim Yom', too?

(a) In describing Yados, the Tana of our Mishnah writes 'Mudrani Mimcha, Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach, Asur'.
What does Shmuel mean when he says 'be'Chulan, ad she'Yomar she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach'?

(b) What do we think the Din would then be if one were to say 'Mudrani Mimcha' or 'Mufreshani Mimcha' or 'Meruchkani Mimcha' on its own?

(c) Then what is the problem with the Beraisa 'Mudar Ani Mimcha, Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha, Harei Zeh Asur; she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach, Harei Zeh Asur'? Why is this Kashya justified on the Beraisa more than on the Mishnah?

(d) How do we initially resolve the Kashya?

(a) And how do we explain the second Beraisa, which inverts the order 'she'Ani Ochel Lach she'Ani To'em Lach, Harei Zeh Asur; Mudrani Mimcha, Mufreshani Mimcha, Meruchkani Mimcha, Harei Zeh Asur'?

(b) Besides the fact that both Beraisos are teaching us the same thing, what is the problem with this explanation?

(c) How would we explain the second Beraisa without any problem were it not for Shmuel?

(a) So we conclude that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina.
How do we initially interpret Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina regarding someone who says 'Mufreshani Heimech' (or one of the other two Leshonos)? What is his reason?

(b) How does Shmuel now explain the Beraisos?

(c) So what makes Shmuel establish our Mishnah as one case (when the Noder said them both) and not individually, like in the Beraisa?

(a) We asked on Shmuel, thinking that the Tana of our Mishnah separated 'Mudrani Mimcha' and 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' into two Nedarim.
What is the problem with the suggestion that 'she'Ani Ochel Lach' should be a Yad le'Neder?

(b) We establish the case when he did not, in fact, mention 'Konem'. How *do* we then know that he meant to forbid his friend's food on himself, and not to obligate himself to eat from the other person?

(c) That is all well and good if the wording in our Mishnah is 'she'Ani Ochel Lach'. But if the correct wording is 'she'Eini Ochel Lach', we have a problem.
Which problem?

(d) We conclude that in fact, he did mention 'Konem' in his wording.
What now makes it a Yad le'Neder and not a Neder itself?

Next daf