1)

VOWS OF KUSIM

(a)

Question: What do we learn from "Ish Ki Yafli Neder b'Erkecha"?

1.

The Torah calls Erchin a Neder, to equate Erchin to Nedarim.

2.

(Beraisa): "Ish" teaches that Kusim may vow Korbanos like Yisrael.

3.

(Summation of question): What does "Ish Ki Yafli" teach? ("Bnei Yisrael" teaches that Kusim cannot be Ma'arich. Surely, the Hekesh to Nedarim teaches that Erchin apply to Kusim, i.e. Yisraelim can be Ma'arich a Kusi. Above, we expounded this from "Ish"!)

(b)

Answer: It includes a Mufla Samuch l'Ish (someone close to adulthood. If he understands vows, he can be Ma'arich.)

(c)

Question: This is like the opinion that vows of a Mufla Samuch l'Ish are valid mid'Oraisa;

1.

According to the opinion that Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Rabanan, what does the verse teach?

(d)

Answer: It includes a Kusi Mufla Samuch l'Ish (his vows of Erchin are valid mid'Oraisa).

(e)

This is like the following opinion:

1.

(Beraisa): Bnei Yisrael have Erchin values (if one is Ma'arich a Yisrael, this is valid); Kusim do not.

2.

Suggestion: Perhaps Kusim cannot be Ma'arich!

3.

Rejection: "Ish" teaches that they can.

(f)

Question: According to the other opinion (brought on 61b), what does the verse teach?

1.

(Beraisa): Bnei Yisrael can vow to give Erchin; Kusim cannot;

2.

Suggestion: Perhaps Kusim have no Erchin (values)!

3.

Rejection: "Ish" teaches that they have Erchin.

4.

Summation of question: Even a month old baby has an Erech (so we cannot say that the verse teaches that a Kusi Mufla Samuch l'Ish has an Erech). What does "Yafli" teach?

(g)

Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): It teaches that vows of an adult Kusi are valid only if he understands vows.

(h)

Question: It says "Yafli" also regarding Nezirus. What does this teach?

1.

Nezirus is equated to vows. We could have learned from "Yafli" written regarding Erchin!

(i)

Answer #1: It teaches (regarding Nezirus) about Yados (incomplete expressions of acceptance) that are ambiguous.

1.

(Abaye): Ambiguous Yados are valid Yados.

2.

(Rava): They are not valid.

(j)

Version #1 (our text) Question: This answers for Abaye (we need a source that Yados Nezirus must be clear, unlike other Yados), but not for Rava!

(k)

Version #2 (Rosh) Question: This answers for Rava (this is the source that Yados must be clear. Alternatively, it teaches that ambiguous Yados help for Nezirus), but not for Abaye!

(l)

Answer #2: "Yafli" teaches R. Tarfon's law.

1.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (If people accepted Nezirus on Tnai, e.g. contingent on the identity of an approaching man,) R. Tarfon says, none of them are Nezirim, for Nezirus requires Hafla'ah (explicitness).

(m)

Question: This answer works for R. Tarfon, but not for Chachamim!

(n)

Answer #3: "Yafli" teaches like R. Eliezer.

1.

(Mishnah): Annulment of vows has no solid source in the written Torah;

2.

R. Eliezer says, it has a solid source. "Yafli" is written twice;

i.

Once teaches that a vow cannot be annulled without regret. The other teaches that it can be annulled through regret.

62b----------------------------------------62b

2)

VOWS OF A WIFE AND A SLAVE

(a)

(Mishnah): Vows of slaves have a stringency that does not apply to vows of women: one can annul his wife's vows, but not his slave's vows.

(b)

A husband's annulment is permanent. If a master annulled his slave's vow, when the slave becomes free, he must fulfill his vow.

(c)

(Gemara - Beraisa) Question: Why can a master force his slave to transgress Nezirus, but not vows or Erchin?

1.

Presumably, we learn that he can force his slave to transgress Nezirus from "to put an Isur on his own soul." This excludes a slave, who does not own his own soul;

2.

This verse was written regarding vows. It should apply to vows!

(d)

Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): The case is, a cluster of grapes is in front of the slave;

1.

If he vowed not to eat it, (this will not make him weak, for) he can eat other grapes, so the master cannot force him to transgress;

2.

If he accepted Nezirus, all grapes are forbidden to him, therefore, the master can force him (lest he become weak).

(e)

Objection: The Beraisa says (Stam) that one cannot force his slave to transgress a vow, i.e. even if there are no other grapes around, and he will become weak if he doesn't eat these!

(f)

Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, he vowed not to eat a Chartzan (grape peel or pit).

1.

Such a vow will not weaken him. Nezirus forbids him to eat all produce of the vine!

(g)

Objection: If there is nothing else around to eat, keeping his vow will cause him to become weak!

(h)

Answer #3 (Abaye): The Beraisa says that the master must force the slave to transgress Nezirus (if not, the slave must observe Nezirus). The slave is not bound by his (other) vows and oaths even if the master does not force him.

1.

It says regarding oaths "to harm or benefit" - just like benefiting is optional, also harming;

2.

An oath to harm another (e.g. the master) is invalid. (We learn from oaths to vows, but not to Nezirus.)

3)

A SLAVE WHO FLED

(a)

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If a slave (who accepted Nezirus) fled from his master, he may not drink wine;

(b)

R. Yosi says, he drinks.

(c)

(Gemara) Suggestion: The Tana'im argue about Shmuel's law:

1.

(Shmuel): If one declares his slave to be ownerless, the slave becomes a free convert and does not need a document of freedom. (We are thinking that when the slave flees, the master despairs of getting him back, which makes him Hefker.)

2.

R. Meir holds like Shmuel, and R. Yosi disagrees.

(d)

Rejection: Really, both hold like Shmuel (but they hold that the master does not despair);

1.

R. Yosi says that he drinks so that he will be strong when he will return;

2.

R. Meir forbids him to drink, in order that he will suffer, and he will want to return (expecting that his master will force him to drink).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF