Mon Nazir 9

R' Yehuda says in the case he says" I'm a Nazir from figs": even Beis Shamai only forbids figs (and doesn't become a Nazir) as if he said the figs are a Korbon.

Tosfos asks: we see regularly that R' Yehudah holds we assume the first terms the person said. Therefore we should assume that the main words are "I'm a Nazir" and he should be a complete Nazir.

Tosfos answers: we only say that he assumes the first terms is only if the terms are contradictory. Like if he says that this animal is an exchange for an Olah, an exchange for a Shlomim. Therefore we assume his first term that it's an exchange for a Shlomim. However, here we can say the end of his words explain his original statement, that when he said I'm a Nazir, he means to make an oath and separate himself from figs. Therefore we can take the end term into account how to explain the original words.

Thurs Nazir 5

R' Masna says the reason why one shouldn't shave fro his Nazirus on the thirtieth day (which would be permitted, because he holds part of the day is like the complete day) because L'chatchila we don't rely on part of a day is likethe whole day (as we'll explain later.)

According to Bar Pada that says that the whole Nazirus is only 29 days (full days, since he doesn't hold that part of a day is like a full day.) that we don't L'chatchila shave on the 30th because a Gezaira if he would specifically say he's a Nazir for 30 full days.

Tosfos points out that Bar Pada doesn't need to say 30 full days so that he can't shave on the 30th day. As long as he says for 30 days, we know he cannot shave the whole thirtieth day, since he doesn't hold of part of a day is like a whole day. Only to R' Masna, the reason he can't shave on day 30 perhaps he'll say he's a Nazir a full 30 days. Without saying it's full, he would be able to shave on day 30, because he holds part of a day is like the whole day unless you specifically make a condition that the days are full.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nazir 4

The Gemara has a version, that how can you say that Nazir falls on Kiddush and havdalah, but they're chayiv from the Torah and you already swore to uphold it. Thereofre your Nazirus now cannot go against your original commitment.

However, Tosfos says it cannot be. Here the Drasha is that despite you have an earlier commitment the Torah says the nazirus transpires. (Like we say at the end, if someone swore to drink wine, although you already swore and need to uphold that commitment, the Nazirus takes effect.) Also, although there is a Drasha of Zachor, remember over wine, that is only an Asmachta. So although Kiddush is from the Torah, over wine is not from the Torah.

So Tosfos syas the versions should read as follows: how can you say that the Drasha is to say that Nazirus takes effect despite being in conflict with Kiddush. That cannot be. Since the wine is not from the Torah, the Torah doesn't need to make a Drasha that Niziros takes effect going against it. So the Gemara only finds the Torah to obligate drinking wine only if the person swore to do so.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nazir 3

The Gemara says that R' Yochanan holds if you says "birds that (are written) next hair" and a Nazir Tahor passes you want to be a Nazir (according to R' Meir.) However if a Nazir Tamai walks by, then we assume he only wants to pay for his Korbon Tamai (which is brought with birds.)

Tosfos explains: we assume that he wants to take the easy way out, so we 'll assume he only wants to pay for this Nazir's korban rather than taking upon himself a full Nazirus.

Tosfos asks: perhaps we should assume it even though the Nazir is Tahor, that all he wants to do is to pay for his korbonos if he becomes Tahor.

Tosfos answers: since the obligation to bring korbon Tamai has not materialized yet, we don't say that could be his intent. Therefore, we must assume he's taking on Nazirus, which is applicable to take effect immediately.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nazir 2

The Gemara says "let say Shmuel holds Yadayim that are not definitely implied doesn't work. That's why when someone says "I'll be" only works if a Nazir passes, so we know he refers to a Nazir. Otherwise we cannot say we definitively know what he's trying to be.

Tosfos explains: that if he holds that Yadayim don't need to be so definitive, than he would be a Nazir with this expression even if no Nazir passed by.

Tosfos explains: although everyone holds that an expression needs to imply one way more than the other, or else it's not a Yad at all. If so, why does the term "I'll be" imply more that he'll be a Nazir than he'll be fasting?

Tosfos explains: since the implication of "I'll be" seems to say that he'll be something immediately. This is more apropos by Nazir, that may start immediatly in middle of the day. despite if he drank wine that day. However, a fast cannot start in middle of a day that you already ate, therefore the term is not as apropos as by a Nazir

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Thurs Nedarim 88

The Gemara says that if he made a Neder against his son-in law, and he wants to give something to his daughter. However, technically, anything given to the daughter belongs to her husband. So he needs to say that he's giving money on condition that her husband doesn't receive it and he gives it to her to eat.

Ran explains: since it's only given to her to eat, she only acquires it at the time that she's eating. At the point that she's swallowing it, it cannot revert to the husband, so it never got to the husband's pocket. However, this would not help by clothing, since she acquires it when she wears it, and then it would revert to the husband's property.

However, some explain: since he only gives it for one purpose and she cannot exchange it for another purpose, she never makes a complete acquisition on it. Since she never completely owns it, it never revert to the husband's property.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nedarim 87

The Gemara says that Toch Kdai Dibur one may retract from his words except by Avodah Zara and Kiddushin. The Ran asks: what's the difference?

He Brings R' Tam who says that really from the Torah there is no such concept of retracting Toch Kdai Dibur. However, the Rabanan gave this Shiur so that a student who's making a deal, if at the end of the deal he meets his Rebbi and needs to greet him, he should still be able to retract afterwords. Although this doesn't apply to most cases, but the Rabbis said to make this Halacha universal so that we shouldn't need to differentiate between different Halachos. However, they decided to keep Kiddushin and Avodah Zara on their Torah Din, that there is no retractions within Toch Kdai Dibur.

The Ran disagrees. If someone made a Neder and retracted Toch Kdai Dibur, it's a Neder form the Torah, so how can the rabbis allow you to actively transgress that Neder? (We have a rule that the rabbis can only allow one to transgress a Torah law passively)

So the Ran explains: that most laws people are not certain they mean it until after Toch Kdai Dibur. If they don't retract by then, we know that they must mean it and it takes effect. However, Kiddushin and Avodah Zara which are very serious matter, if they had not thought it through in the first place, they would never uttered it. So the very fact that he said it shows he means it completely as soon as it leaves his mouth.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nedarim 86

The Gemara is finding a case how can she Assur her work for after she gets divorced, since right now it's something that she doesn't have a power over. We cannot compare it to even selling a field he gave up for collateral, though it's not in his hands anymore, since he has the right to redeem it and it will be in his hands. Even if they stipulated that he can't redeem it up to ten years, but eventually it will be in his hands. However, a woman has no way to have herself divorced in order that her work may become her's.

Ran asks: the woman has the ability to say she doesn't want to work for the husband and she won't receive any food from the husband. So we see she has a way to force having her salary in her own hand.

Ran answers: that only works for what she needs to work (with making wool) for supplementary income. That the husband doesn't need to worry about, since it's simple for her to keep that money separate. However, the problem here is that she also Assurs the housework that she needs to do, which is a problem for the husband, therefore he needs to Matir it. However, the Gemara has a problem, since there is no way for a woman o get charge of that since she cannot opt out even if he doesn't feed her.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nedarim 85

Rava says that when the owner Assurs pleasure to all Kohanim and Leviyim, since there is no one he can give it to, he has nothing he can do with it, so it becomes hefker and the Kohanim and Leviyim may take it themselves.

The Rashba says: therefore, if someone Assurs his fruits on himself, so it's Hefker and anyone may take them. However, if he goes to a Chachum who Matir the Neder, since retroactively it was never Assur to him, so retroactively it was never Hefker. So the one who took it needs to pay for them. Even though here we allow the Kohanim and Leviyam to take it and we're not worried that they're stealing perhaps the owner will have a Chachum Matir his Neder, since it's not common to have a Neder Matir.

The proof that we're not concerned that he'll Matir a Neder hat we allow a woman who received Kiddushin on condition that she doesn't have any Nedarim on her to marry others (if she has Nedarim.) Why are we not afraid that she'll Matir the Neder and then retroactively she was a woman without Nedarim and the first Kiddushin takes effect, and now the second husband is living with a married woman. So we must conclude that it's very unlikely to Matir a Neder, so we don't worry it may happen.

The Ran disagrees. He holds that it's common to Matir Neder. We encourage people to Matir Neder, and for this reason we consider it a Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirim, since he really should be Matir it. Over there by the woman, we never allowed her to remarry. We only say that she's not Mikudeshes, since that's her status in the meanwhile. Even if we say that it is a licence for her to marry, that's only because we know she won't be Matir it forever and get herself in a lot of hot water by making her retroactively a married woman. However, when this reason doesn't apply we need to worry someone will Matir Neder.

So the Ran says, once he made a Neder and at this point he made it Hefker, so the Hefker can never be reversed, even if he's Matir Neder.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Thurs Nedarim 81

The Gemara says that if he she swears off working for their parents or to give straw to his cattle, he cannot be Meifer, since she is not obligated to do this for him However, he may Meifer if she swears off pouring him wine, wash him or spread his sheets on his bed, since she's obligated to him.

Ran asks: however, the Gemara in Kesuvos said she's also obligated to feed his cattle, so why can't he be Meifer?

Ran answers: we refer to after he hired four maids, which they do all of the wife's duties, so she's no longer obligated to do so. However, this exemption only applies to work. However, poring wine etc she's still obligated, because this is not regular work, but actions to create closeness between wife and husband.

Wed Nedarim 80

We say that someone cannot Maifer a Neder until it starts. So if there is a condition to be met before the Neder takes effect, hen he cannot be Maifer, because just make sure the condition is kept and there won't be any suffering on her part. Of course, if the condition contains something that causes her to suffer, he can Maifer it immediately.

Asks the Ran: if so, when a woman says she''s a Nazira when she gets divorced, the husband can be Maifer. Why? the condition of the Nazira didn't take place yet, and it's not suffering to remain married, so the husband shouldn't be able to Maifer?

Ran answers: only conditions that in her hands to not fulfill, where she can avoid suffering, we say it doesn't take effect until the Neder starts. However, since divorce is his decision, it's not in her hands not to get divorced and avoid suffering going through Naziros, therefore the husband can be Maifer.

Tues Nedarum 79

A husband can't be Maifer in his heart without explicitly saying so. However, he can be Maykim in his heart and doesn't need to say it.

The Ran explains the reason he doesn't need to explain by Hakam, since we see that Hakam takes effect despite not saying anything. We see this when he doesn't say anything until the next day. since a day passes without saying anything, we see in his heart he wants the Neder to stand. So we have a precedence for doing hakam by not saying anything.

R' Akiva eiger asks: there is no comparison between the two cases. By keeping quiet for a day, he reveals to all that his intent is to make the Neder stand. However, within that same day, just thinking of the Hakam doesn't reveal anything to anybody. So we should revert to the rule that things though in his heart is nothing and doesn't take effect.

Mon Nedarim 78

The Gemara says that a husband is only takes away a Neder if he uses the term "hafara." a Chachum only takes off a Neder with the term" Heter."

Ran explains: the term Heter means that it's permitted completely and there was never any Issur here. Therefore, since a Chachum removes the Neder retroactively, it's only appropriate to use the term "Heter". However, a husband only takes off the Neder from this time and on, but not retroactively. Therefore it's appropriate to use the term" Maifer" that implies that.

Thurs Nedarim 74

The Gemara explains that R' Yehoshua that says that if there is only one Yavum, he may be Maifer the Yevama's oaths, it's because he holds there is Zika (that they're connected to the point that we consider him to be her husband.)

Ran asks: the Gemara there says we don't find anyone that holds Zika is so strong that we already consider him to be her husband except r' Oshia explaining R' Shimon, and he was disproved?

The Ran answers: the Gemara there only means that we don't find anyone that explains R' Shimon that Zika makes him her husband, however, we can say that R' Yehoshua held that way.

Alternatively, we don't consider him to be her complete husband, rather just being on the same plane as Kiddushin, that he can Maifer her Neder in partnership with her father's Hafara.

Wed Nedarim 73

The Gemara has a Shaila if you can be Maifer the Nedarim of his two wives at thee same time. Or do we say that the Torah says "her Neder" and not her with someone else.

The Gemara brings a proof from a Sotah that you may not perform the ceremony on two Sotos at the same time. Tana Kama says for perhaps, one of them would admit to her sin, but gets more confidence to deny her sin when her friend is also denying. R' Yehuda says: this is not the reason, rather because the Pasuk says to take "her" out, and not "them" out.

The Ran brings those who explain: so we see it's a Machlokes if we make this Drasha, therefore the Halacha is like Tana kama who says that we don't, therefore he can maifer two wives at the same time.

However, the Ramban explains: everyone holds of this Drasha. The Gemara in Sotah explains Tana Kama as R' Shimon that explains the reasons of the Pasuk, why was the Torah care to take only her out. Similarly, we use this Drasha that one can't Shecht two Para Adumos at the same time, since the Torah says you Shecht "her." Also, we use this Drasha to say later, that the man needs to know which person's Neder he's Meifer. (he can't be in doubt if his wife or daughter made it.

Tues Nedarim 72

The Gemara has a Shaila if someone could be maifer before he hears. The Gemara wants to bring a proof that before the Nesuin, both the husband and the father Maifer all Nedarim until now, since they can't do it do it anymore for these Nedarim after the Nesuin. The Gemara rejects it that the father starts up with her so that she would reveal to him all the Nedarim she made (to show him how angry she is.)

The Ran says there are those that require the same from the husband. ALthough he may still be Maifer after the Nesuin, but not for Nedarim that she made before the Nesuin. So he needs to know about, and be Maifer before the nesuin. However, there are those that versions don't require that by the husband. He may just simply say I'm being Maifer your Neder to take effect after I hear about it. Although after the Nesuin he cannot be Maifer by himself Nedarim she made after Airusin. However, since he can Maifer at that time, and the father already Maifer before Nesuin, we can combine the two hafaros.

Mon Nedarim 71

If the father heard the neder and made hafara, while before the husband hears, he dies, if she receives Kiddushin that day, the second husband may do Hafara.

Ran explains that this may go according to Beis Hillel. Although he holds that the father's heter would weaken the Neder tot he point that it would be too weak to transfer the remainder to the father, still we say that the second husband may make Hafara. The reason is, the Neder is not transferring from the first husband's jurisdiction to the second husband's jurisdiction. Rather, the second husband is taking over the first husband's position and we consider him just a continuation of the first husband's jurisdiction.