NEDARIM 83 (30 Av) - Today's study material has been dedicated by Al and Sophie Ziegler of Har Nof, Yerushalayim, in honor of the Yahrzeit of Al's father, Bernard B. Ziegler - Binyamin Baruch ben Avraham (and Miryam), which occurs on 30 Menachem Av.

1)

(a)The Tana in a Beraisa states that if a woman who has undertaken to be a Nazir, drinks wine or renders herself Tamei for a dead person, she receives Malkus. Will she receive Malkus if her husband annulled her Neder, and she subsequently 'transgressed' without being aware that he had?

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan (who, we just saw, holds 'Mefer l'Mis'anah, v'Ein Mefer l'she'Ein Mis'anah'), what Chidush ought the Tana to have added in the Beraisa?

(c)Rav Yosef answers 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in'. What does he mean by that?

(d)On what grounds does Abaye object to Rav Yosef's answer? What should Rav Yosef rather have said?

1)

(a)The Tana in a Beraisa states that if a woman who has undertaken to be a Nazir drinks wine or renders herself Tamei for a dead person, she receives Malkus. If her husband annulled her Neder, and she subsequently 'transgressed' without being aware that he had - she will not receive Malkus (even though she is considered a sinner).

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan (who, we just saw, holds 'Mefer l'Mis'anah, v'Ein Mefer l'she'Ein Mis'anah') - the Tana ought to have added that, even though her husband annulled her Neder, she will receive Malkus should she eat the pits or the skin of grapes (since not eating them does not constitute Inuy Nefesh.

(c)Rav Yosef answers 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in' - by which he means that, since there is no such thing as Nezirus without a prohibition on the pits and skins of grapes, these are an intrinsic part of the Nezirus, and the husband's Hafarah automatically covers them too.

(d)Abaye objects to Rav Yosef's answer - on the grounds that the Lashon infers that although there is no Nezirus la'Chatza'in, the Korbanos of Nezirus can be brought la'Chatza'in. Otherwise, Rav Yosef should have said 'Ein Chatza'in bi'Nezirus'.

2)

(a)So how does Abaye amend Rav Yosef's answer?

(b)What are the ramifications of 'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in'?

2)

(a)So Abaye amends Rav Yosef's answer to read - 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in, v'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in'.

(b)The ramifications of 'Ein Korbanos la'Chatza'in' are - that if the husband annulled his wife's Nezirus after fifteen of the thirty days had elapsed, she is Patur from bringing any of the Korbanos.

3)

(a)Which category of Nazir brings a Chatas ha'Of?

(b)We have learned in a Beraisa 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah b'Nazir, v'Hifrishah Behemtah v'Achar Kach Hafer Lah Ba'alah ... '. Which Korban is the Tana referring to?

(c)Which of the two bird-offerings of a Tamei Nazir does he obligate her to bring, and from which one does he exempt her?

(d)Why does the Tana find it necessary to mention that she already designated her Asham?

3)

(a)A Nazir who becomes Tamei brings a Chatas ha'Of.

(b)We have learned in a Beraisa 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah b'Nazir, v'Hifrishah Behemtah v'Achar Kach Hafer Lah Ba'alah ... '. The Korban that the Tana is referring to is - the Asham Nazir that a Tamei Nazir is obligated to bring after he becomes Tahor.

(c)The bird-offering that the Tana obligates her to bring is - the Chatas ha'Of, and he exempts her from the Olas ha'Of.

(d)The Tana finds it necessary to mention that she already designated her Asham - as an additional Chidush, to teach us that although she had already designated it before the Hafarah, once the husband is Meifer, she becomes Patur from the Olas ha'Of.

4)

(a)Why does the previous Beraisa pose a Kashya on Abaye?

(b)What is Abaye's retort to this Kashya?

(c)So how does Abaye resolve the problem? Why does she bring specifically Chatas ha'Of, even though she is Patur from the other Korbanos?

4)

(a)The previous Beraisa poses a Kashya on Abaye - because, according to him, since she is exempt from the Olas ha'Of, she ought to be exempt from the Chatas ha'Of, too.

(b)Abaye retorts - that if, as you suggest, we will say 'Yesh Korban la'Chatzi Nezirus, why does the Tana not obligate her to bring three Korbanos (either the Asham plus the two bird-offerings that a Tamei Nazir is obligated to bring, or the Korban Chatas, Olah and Shelamim, that even a Tamei Nazir will have to eventually bring.

(c)To resolve the issue - Abaye stresses the fact that it is specifically the Chatas that she has to bring, in that a Chatas ha'Of of a Nazir enjoys the unique leniency that it can be brought on a Safek (a leniency that no other Chatas shares). Consequently, it is possible to add the leniency of permitting it to be brought for a Chatzi Nezirus (but not her other Korbanos, which are no different than any other Korbanos).

5)

(a)In a similar Beraisa to the previous one, the Tana issues the same ruling. Assuming that Tum'ah is not considered Inuy Nefesh, what do we now ask on Rebbi Yochanan ('Mefer l'Mis'anah ... ')?

(b)How do we in fact, explain the Beraisa, based on a statement by Rebbi Meir?

(c)What does Rebbi Meir learn from the Pasuk in Koheles "v'ha'Chai Yiten el Libo"?

(d)We might not answer here like Rav Yosef answered above ('Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in') because we want to point out that there is Tza'ar by Tum'as Mes. What other reason might there be for not doing so?

5)

(a)In a similar Beraisa to the previous one, the Tana issues the same ruling. Assuming that Tum'ah is not considered Inuy Nefesh, we now ask on Rebbi Yochanan ('Mefer l'Mis'anah ... ') - why do we not accept the Hafarah of the Neder on wine (which constitutes Inuy Nefesh), but not that of the Neder on Tum'as Nefesh (which does not)?

(b)Based on a statement by Rebbi Meir - we explain that the Tana accepts the Hafarah regarding Tum'as Mes too, because, seeing as there is a great benefit to be obtained from participating in the burial of the dead, as we shall now see, Tum'as Mes, like drinking wine, constitutes Inuy Nefesh.

(c)Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk "v'ha'Chai Yiten el Libo" - that to the extent that one eulogizes a dead person, cries for him and participates in his burial, others will do the same for him.

(d)We might not answer here like Rav Yosef answered above ('Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in') because we want to point out that there is Tza'ar by Tum'as Mes, as we just explained. Or it might be - because unlike the other branches of Nezirus, it is possible to become a Nazir without adopting the prohibition of Tum'ah (in the case of a Nezir Shimshon, who is forbidden to drink wine, but not to become Tamei Mes).

83b----------------------------------------83b

6)

(a)Our Mishnah forbids a husband to annul the Neder of his wife 'Konam she'Eini Neheneh li'Beri'os'. On what grounds does the Tana (Rebbi Yosi) go on to permit the woman to benefit from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah?

(b)Assuming that 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos mi'Leket, Shichechah u'Pe'ah' is an independent concession (not like we learned in the Mishnah), what do we extrapolate from the Reisha, from the fact that her husband cannot annul the Neder?

6)

(a)Our Mishnah forbids a husband to annul the Neder of his wife 'Konam she'Eini Neheneh li'Beri'os (the people)'. The Tana (Rebbi Yosi) goes on to permit the woman to benefit from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah - because, since the Pasuk in Kedoshim adds an extra "Ta'azov" (rather than a Lashon of Nesinah), we learn that there is no Mitzvah to give them to the poor, only to leave them in the field. Consequently, the owner has no 'Tovas Hana'ah' (rights to give them to whoever he pleases) in them, in which case they are completely Hefker.

(b)Assuming that 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos mi'Leket, Shichechah u'Pe'ah' is an independent concession (not like we learned in the Mishnah), we extrapolate from the Reisha, from the fact that her husband cannot annul the Neder - that she is permitted to benefit from him, which means that he is not included in the 'people' (whom she mentioned in her Neder).

7)

(a)What leads us to believe that the Seifa of our Mishnah is an additional concession, and not the main reason for the husband's prohibition to annul her Neder? What should the Tana otherwise have said?

(b)On what other grounds do we initially reject the suggestion that a husband is included in 'people', and that he cannot annul her Neder on the sole basis of her option to eat from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah?

(c)From the Seifa, which permits her to eat from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah, we extrapolate exactly the opposite (that her husband is included in 'people'). How can we infer from the Seifa that she cannot benefit from her husband?

7)

(a)What leads us to believe that the Seifa of our Mishnah is an additional concession, and not the main reason for the husband's prohibition to annul her Neder is - the Lashon 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos ... '. What the Tana should otherwise have said is - 'Mipnei she'Yecholah Lehanos'.

(b)We also initially reject the suggestion that a husband is included in 'people', and that he cannot annul her Neder on the sole basis of her option to eat from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah - because why should her husband in conjunction with 'people' be any worse than a storekeeper from whom she purchases regularly, where the Tana permitted her husband to annul her Neder (even though there too, she is able to collect Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah).

(c)From the Seifa, which permits her to eat from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah, we extrapolate exactly the opposite (that her husband is included in 'people') - because otherwise, how could a woman who is fed by her husband, collect Leket ... (seeing as she is not poor)?

8)

(a)To reconcile the Reisha and the Seifa, Ula explains that a husband is not included in 'people'. How then does he explain the Seifa? On what grounds will she be able to eat Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah?

(b)According to Rava, a husband is included in 'people'. How does he interpret the corollary between the Reisha and the Seifa?

(c)How do we reconcile Rava with the case in the previous Mishnah: 'Peiros Chenvani she'Ein Parnasaso Ela Mimenu', where the Tana permits her husband to annul the Neder? Why do we not forbid him to do so on the grounds that she is able to collect Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah, like we do here?

8)

(a)To reconcile the Reisha and the Seifa, Ula explains that a husband is not included in 'people'. And the Seifa - which permits her to eat from Leket ... , speaks when the husband is a poor man.

(b)According to Rava, a husband is included in 'people' - and the Seifa, which says 'vi'Yecholah Hi Lehanos b'Leket ... , is merely explaining why it is that her husband cannot annul her Neder.

(c)In the case in the previous Mishnah: 'Peiros Chenvani she'Ein Parnasaso Ela Mimenu', the reason that the Tana permits her husband to annul her Nedarim, and does not forbid it (on the grounds that she is able to collect Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah, like we do here) is - because the Tana is speaking in the winter, when there is no Leket ... to collect.

9)

(a)Rav Nachman learns like Ula (that a husband is not included in 'people'). How does he explain the Seifa, which ascribes the reason fort this, to her option to eat from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah?

(b)What would be the Din according to him, if her husband would be included in 'people', bearing in mind that she would be able to collect Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah?

(c)What is the Chidush in the Seifa? Why do we need to come on to the concession to eat Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah?

9)

(a)Rav Nachman learns like Ula with regard to the She'eilah whether a husband is included in 'people'. And he establishes the Seifa, which ascribes the reason for this to her option to eat from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah - to where he has already divorced her.

(b)According to him, if her husband would be included in 'people', despite the fact that she would be able to collect Leket, Shichechah and Pi'ah - the Neder would be considered Inuy Nefesh, and he would be permitted to annul it.

(c)The Chidush in the Seifa - is that, once he divorces her, her husband becomes included in 'people' and she is permitted to eat from Leket, Shichechah and Pi'ah.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Yerushalmi in a case of 'Nadar mi'Yordei ha'Yam v'Na'aseh mi'Yoshvei Yabashah'. According to Rebbi Akiva, a sailor at the time of the Neder, who left the navy, is included in the prohibition. Why is that?

(b)What will the Din be according to him, in the reverse case, where someone joined the navy after the Neder was declared?

(c)Why will we have a problem if, as we just explained, the husband becomes part of 'the people' after he has divorced her?

(d)We might try and resolve this problem by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael. What does Rebbi Yishmael say?

10)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Yerushalmi in a case of 'Nadar mi'Yordei ha'Yam' v'Na'aseh mi'Yoshvei Yabashah'. According to Rebbi Akiva, a sailor at the time of the Neder, who left the navy, is included in the prohibition - because we go after the time when the Neder is declared (as opposed to after the time that it takes effect).

(b)Consequently, in the reverse case, someone who joined the navy after the Neder was declared - will not be included in the Neder.

(c)We will have a problem if, as we just explained, the husband becomes part of 'the people' after he has divorced her - because that is not in keeping with the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, like whom the Halachah is.

(d)We might try and resolve this problem by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael - who holds that we go, not after the time that the Neder was declared, but after the time that it takes effect.

11)

(a)We refute this suggestion however, on the basis of a Mishnah later 'Amrah Hareini Nezirah l'Achar Sheloshim Yom, Af-al-Pi she'Nises b'Toch Sheloshim Yom, Ein Yachol Lehafer'. Who must be the author of that Mishnah (and consequently of our Mishnah too)?

(b)So what have we now proved from Rav Nachman, who interprets our Mishnah 'Nisgarshah, Yecholah Lehanos' (because she is forbidden to benefit from her husband since he became part of the 'people' whom she forbade)?

(c)Consequently, we cannot rely on the Yerushalmi in this matter. What is then the Halachah concerning someone who was not included in the Neder initially and became included only later, or vice-versa?

(d)How can Rebbi Akiva hold of two seemingly contradictory opinions? How can he burn his candle at both ends, so to speak?

11)

(a)We refute the suggestion (establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael) however, on the basis of a Mishnah later 'Amrah Hareini Nezirah l'Achar Sheloshim Yom, Af-al-Pi she'Nises b'Toch Sheloshim Yom, Ein Yachol Lehafer', because, at the time when the Neder was declared, she was not yet his wife - like Rebbi Akiva (who must also then be the author of our Mishnah).

(b)We have now proved from Rav Nachman, who interprets our Mishnah 'Nisgarshah, Yecholah Lehanos' (because she is forbidden to benefit from her husband since he became part of 'people') - that, according to the Bavli, even Rebbi Akiva agrees that we do not go after the time of the Neder with regard to people who were not initially included and became included afterwards.

(c)Consequently, we cannot rely on the Yerushalmi in this matter. The Halachah therefore is - that whether someone was not included in the Neder initially and became included only later, or vice-versa - he is in fact, included.

(d)Rebbi Akiva holds of both opinions, even though they seem to contradict each other - because, according to the Bavli, he holds that we go after Lashon Bnei Adam (as opposed to the Yerushalmi, which bases the Machlokes on Pesukim) and Lashon Bnei Adam incorporates both cases in the Neder.

12)

(a)According to the way we just explained our Sugya, how might we explain the Ramban, who cites the Yerushalmi, in spite of the fact that the Bavli disagrees?

12)

(a)According to the way we just explained our Sugya, the Ramban, who cites the Yerushalmi - probably only does so to add the case of someone who was initially included in the Neder, but changed his status by the time the Neder came into effect, which the Bavli does not discuss (but not vice-versa).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF