1)

(a)The Seifa of the Mishnah in Taharos (that Rebbi Zeira just established like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds Stam Nedarim Lehakel) states 'Safek Bechoros, Echad Bechorei Adam, v'Echad Bechorei Behemah ... 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah'. The case of Safek Bechor is - when the mother gave birth to twins, one male and one female, and we do not know which one was born first.

(b)The Tana concludes 'va'Asurim b'Gizah va'Avodah' (le'Chumra). If not for Rebbi Zeira, we could reconcile this with the Mishnah in Taharos, which holds 'Stam Nedarim Lehakel' - by pointing out that this Tana is speaking about a person's property (which one is more prone to include in one's declaration, as we explained earlier); whereas the Mishnah in Taharos speaks about an Isur that pertains to one's personal self.

(c)Abaye now queries Rebbi Zeira from there - in that, we now see that one cannot differentiate between property and personal Isurim, in the way that he did!

(d)We reject Abaye's Kashya however - on the grounds that the question whether 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika' (whether a person incorporates a Safek in his declaration) or not is confined to Nedarim and related Isurim, Isurim which the person takes upon himself, but has nothing to do with Isurim which the Torah instigates. There, it is a matter of 'Sefeika d'Oraisa l'Chumra'.

2)

(a)Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa 'Safek Mashkin Litamei Tamei, Letamei, Tahor' - meaning that liquid that became Safek Tamei, is itself Tamei, but it is considered Tahor as far as rendering other things Tamei is concerned.

(b)The case of 'Safek Mashkin' is - when someone who was Tamei placed his hand close to the liquid and he is not sure whether he actually touched it or not.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer concurs with Rebbi Meir's opinion (although he lived long before him). In another Beraisa, he says that there is no Tum'as Mashkin at all (meaning min ha'Torah - so that whenever we find Tum'as Mashkin, it is only mid'Rabanan).

(d)And he substantiates this with Yosi ben Yo'ezer - who testified 'Eil Kamtza Dachan' (a type of locust known as 'Eil' is Kasher), and that the liquid in the slaughter-house in the Beis ha'Mikdash is Tahor (because when the Rabanan decreed Tum'ah on liquids, they precluded this particular liquid from the decree - which they could not have done had Tum'as Mashkin been d'Oraisa).

3)

(a)According to Shmuel, the 'Dachan' of Yosi ben Yo'ezer (and therefore the 'Tum'ah' of Rebbi Eliezer) refers exclusively to being Metamei others - whereas according to Rav, it also extends to its own status.

(b)According to Rebbi Zeira (who established the Mishnah in Taharos like Rebbi Eliezer), there is now a discrepancy between Rebbi Eliezer's ruling 'Safek Nezirus Lehakel' (even though Nezirus is d'Oraisa), and his ruling 'Safek Mashkin Litamei' (like Rebbi Meir), even though Tum'as Mashkin, in his opinion, is only mid'Rabanan. The contrast is unacceptable, in spite of the fact that Nezirus is self-instigated, whereas Tum'as Mashkin is not.

(c)There is no problem according to Shmuel - because he establishes Rebbi Eliezer by being Metamei others, but the liquid itself is Tamei d'Oraisa.

(d)We need to quote the Beraisa of Rebbi Meir in order to pose this Kashya on Rebbi Eliezer (who is stringent by Safek Tum'as Mashkin), rather than ask directly from the Seifa of the Mishnah in Taharos itself (which we already established like Rebbi Eliezer), which states 'Safek Mashkin Litamei Tamei, Letamei, Tahor' - because the Beraisa informs us specifically that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei'.

4)

(a)Without Rebbi Zeira, we would not have been able to point out a discrepancy in Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that Tum'as Mashkin is only mid'Rabanan, yet he holds that 'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei' - because Rebbi Eliezer might simply hold 'Sefeika d'Rabanan Lechumra.

(b)And if not for Rebbi Zeira - we would have reconciled Rebbi Eliezer's stringent ruling with regard to Safek Mashkin with his ruling 'Lo Hikdish es ha'Coy' (even though it is a Safek d'Oraisa), neither of which is man-instigated - by ascribing the latter to the fact that, in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, a Coy is a unique creature, which is neither a Behemah nor a Chayah.

5)

(a)The Kashya on Rebbi Zeira proves that the author of the Mishnah in Taharos cannot be Rebbi Eliezer. So we suggest that it may be Rebbi Yehudah - who says that someone who undertakes to be a Nazir if a certain pile of produce contains a hundred Kur, but when he comes to measure it, it is no longer there - is not a Nazir (because 'Safek Nezirus Lehakel' - 'Lo Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika').

(b)The Tana who argues with Rebbi Yehudah (and who will therefore be the author of our Mishnah, which holds 'Safek Nezirus Lehachmir') is - Rebbi Shimon.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah said in our Mishnah that 'Stam Terumah b'Galil Muteres, she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirin es Terumas ha'Lishkah'. We can infer from there - that if the Anshei Galil would acknowledge the Terumas ha'Lishkah, then the Neder would be effective (because 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika'), clashing with the Mishnah 'Stam Nezirus Lehakel' (which we just established like Rebbi Yehudah).

(d)We ask this Kashya from an inference from the Seifa of our Mishnah, and not directly from the Reisha 'Stam Terumah bi'Yehudah, Asurah' (which also implies 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'S'feika' - Lehachmir) - because we might otherwise have ascribed the Reisha (not to 'Safek Nedarim Lehachmir, but) to the fact that the Anshei Yehudah, who are more familiar with Terumas ha'Lishkah than with Terumas ha'Goren, do not refer to Terumas ha'Goren as 'Terumah' Stam. Consequently, the Noder was definitely referring to Terumas ha'Lishkah (and was not a Safek at all).

6)

(a)Rava answers that generally, Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika' (Stam Nedarim Lehakel), but Nezirus is different - because as a result of the Safek, he will be unable to terminate his Nezirus when it reaches its final stage, due to his being unable to bring his Korbanos.

(b)The Korban that creates the problem - is the Chatas, which cannot be brought as a Safek.

(c)A Safek Nazir would otherwise bring his Shelamim and Olah (even though he may not be a Nazir) - by stipulating that if he is a Nazir, then his Korbanos should be Korbenos Nazir, and if he is not, then they will be Nedavos.

(d)Despite the Gemara in Nazir (that a Nazir who shaved on any one of his three Korbanos has fulfilled his duty), we do not declare him a Nazir, allowing him to bring his Olah and Shelamim with the above stipulation - because the Gemara speaks b'Di'eved, but not l'Chatchilah.

7)

(a)Rav Huna bar Yehudah asked Rava from the equivalent case of a Safek Nazir who undertook to be a Nazir Olam (whose Nezirus does not terminate, and who will therefore not need to bring the Korbanos), and who is nevertheless included in the lenient ruling of the Beraisa. Rava replied - that the problem will nevertheless arise, when his hair grows very long, and he will be allowed to trim it slightly, after which he becomes obligated to bring the three Korbanos.

(b)And when he asked Rava the same Kashya from a Safek Nezir Shimshon, who is not allowed to cut his hair at all, and who is also included in the Beraisa, he replied - that the Beraisa does not incorporate a Nazir Shimshon, in which case, Rebbi Yehudah's lenient ruling will not apply (because in such a case, Nezirus is no different than other areas of Halachah, where Rebbi Yehudah concedes 'Stam Nezirus Lehachmir).

(c)Rav Huna bar Yehudah - cited Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who quoted a Beraisa which repeated Rebbi Yehudah's lenient ruling even by 'Nezirus Shimshon'.

(d)To which Rava replied 'I Tanya, Tanya'. According to this Tana, we will be forced to say that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Stam Nedarim Lehakel' - and that he argues with the Tana in our Mishnah who, also quoting Rebbi Yehudah, holds Stam Nedarim Lehachmir (from the inference of 'she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirin Terumas ha'Lishkah').

8)

(a)Rav Ashi tries to establish the Beraisa of Safek N'zir Shimshon ('Hareini Nezir Shimshon Im Yesh bi'Kri ha'Zeh Me'ah Kur, v'Halach u'Matzah she'Nignav ... Rebbi Yehudah Matir v'Rebbi Shimon Oser') like Rebbi Tarfon - who says that the Nezirus requires Hafla'ah (it must be absolutely clear when it is declared - and not a Safek).

(b)The Tana nevertheless needs to present a case when the produce was stolen (despite the fact that, according to Rebbi Tarfon, the same would apply even if it was still there) - to teach us that Rebbi Shimon's opinion ('Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika') extends even to a case where the object is no longer there.

(c)Basically, it would have been preferable to present a case when the produce was still there, to teach us the extent of Rebbi Yehudah's lenient ruling - because of the principle 'Ko'ach d'Heteira Adif' (the Tana prefers to teach us the power of the one who is lenient).

(d)He did not so - because, once we know that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Lo Nitnah Nezirus Ela l'Hafla'ah', it makes no difference whether the object is there or not. Whereas, by presenting a case where the produce was stolen, he is teaching us two Chidushim: 1. that Rebbi Shimon does not require Hafla'ah (which would apply even if the produce was still there) and 2. that he holds 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika'(which we know from the fact that it was not).

9)

(a)We infer from the Reisha of our Mishnah (Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Stam Terumah ... b'Galil Muteres she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirin es Terumas ha'Lishkah') that 'Stam Nedarim Lehachmir', and from the Seifa ('Stam Charamim ... uva'Galil Asurin, she'Ein Anshei ha'Galil Makirin es Chermei ha'Kohanim') - that if they would acknowledge it, that even in Galil, Stam Charamim would be permitted, because 'Stam Charamim Lehakel'.

(b)Abaye reconciles the two inferences - by establishing the Seifa like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok.

10)

(a)We explained earlier that the Reisha does not necessarily clash with the Seifa, because we might attribute it to the fact that the Anshei Yehudah do not refer to Terumas ha'Goren as Terumah Stam - in which case there is no Safek). Alternatively, we might attribute the Seifa to the fact - that the Anshei Yehudah were more familiar with Chermei Kohanim, since there were many Kohanim among them.

(b)The first answer maintains that, in principle, S'feika l'Kula (like the Seifa), whereas the second answer holds in principle, Sefeika l'Chumra (like the Reisha).

(c)Regarding ...

1. Stam Charamim, Rebbi Yehudah will hold - that if someone was Matfis an object 'like a Stam Cherem' in Yehudah, it is forbidden (not like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok).

2. Stam Terumah, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok will hold - that Stam Terumah in Yehudah is permitted (not like Rebbi Yehudah).

11)

(a)We just established that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Stam Nedarim Lehachmir' and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, 'Stam Nedarim Lehakel'. The reason, apart from the possibility that the Tana is simply not particular, that Rebbi Yehudah presents specifically the case of Terumah, and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, that of Charamim is - because that is the way that the Tana'im heard their respective opinions from their respective Rebbes, that is the way they taught them and that is the way the Tana ultimately presents them.

(b)And in the previous Sugya, we established the Mishnah 'Stam Nezirus Lehakel' like Rebbi Yehudah, rather than like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok - because Rebbi Yehudah speaks specifically by Nezirus.

(c)The Halachah regarding Stam Nedarim is - 'Stam Nedarim Lehachmir', because it is the ruling of a Stam Mishnah.