Thurs Nazir 33

Abaya held the case of Bais Shammai that a mistaken Hekdish takes effect, if he made it after the day is over, and he is Mikadesh what he thinks comes out first.

Tosfos explains: then it's possible to gauge what he thinks come out first, because he recognized the footprints of the ox that came out first or that you saw which came out first an then forgot. However, if you make a guess on the future what will come out, it's not similar to Temurah where there is a reason to make a mistake, since you have not the slightest inkling which ox will leave first, for you're not prophet.

Mon Nazir 30

The gemara says that according o R' Yosi b. Yehudah it makes sense that the child making a condition that it mends all Sfeikos, even if he turns the age to make Nedarim in middle of the thirty days, but not according Rebbe.

Tosfos explains: the idea is, if the son gets his own identity within the Nazir of the father, then the father's Nazirus stop cold turkey, and then start his own Nazirus. Since it's stopped in the middle, he cannot bring Korbonos for it, and his own Nazir starts, since his father's hasn't finished, it's as his father's never started.

However, according to R' Yosi, since it's only the age of Nedarim, which is rabbinic, it's not strong enough to break the father's Nazir. Therefore the Nazirus finishes until the end. However, Rebbe refers to actual Simanim to become a gadol, which is from the TOrah. Therefore it has the power to stop the father's Neziros cold turkey. Therefore if he gets these Simonim in the middle of the Nazirus, it stops the fathers Nazirus, Thus you don't have a definite Chiyuv until sixty days after teh Father's Nazirus

Thurs Nazir 26

We conclude: we only say that the money of nazir falls to Nedava if the money for chatas is till mixed within. However, if it's not , then half of it goes for the Shlamim and half for an Olah.

Tosfos explains: we can understand this well to R' yochanan, since we can say this condition is included in the Halacha L'Moshe Misinai. However, according to Reish Lakis, that is' a Drashsa, why should we differentiate whether the Chatas money is there or not?

Tosfos answers: it's logical to assume that the Pasuk refers only when the Chatas money is included, since we know that the leftover of Chatas money (that was not needed in the Chatas purchase) falls to nedava. Thus we can assume that the Chatas money causes all the Nazir money to go to Nedava.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nazir 25

The rule is from a Halacha L' Moshe Misinai : all cases where a Chatas dies, an Ashum must go to pasture. The Pasuk of "Ashum should be" that only as is it's an Ashum. But once you bring it to pasture it's no longer an Ashum, and if B'Dieved you Shect it for an Olah it's kosher.

Tosfos brings the gemara in pesachim that going to pasture is only a rabbinic decree. Really you should make it an Oleh . However you might do so before a different Ashum was brought and is still meant to be an Ashum, so they enacted that he must bring it to graze first. However, the pasuk is to tell us that there needs to be a Hefsik and redesignation for an Olah so that it's a Kosher Olah.

And to those that hold you don't need to redesignate it, they must learn the Pasuk "the Ashum shall be" that it's only an Asum when it's still meant to be an Asum. However, after it's no longer meant to be an AShum, then it's really now an Olah with redesignating.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nazir 24

The gemara asks: how can the woman have her own money to buy her own Korbonos. So the Gemara answers: she had skimped from her allowance for food.

Tosfos asks: doesn't the Gemara in Kesuvos say that the leftover money from her food account return to the husband (and the wife is not privy to it?)

Tosfos answers: we refer to a man who told his wife that she use her own salary to buy her food. Since she's not getting support from her husband, she definitely allowed to keep what's leftover.

Alternatively, we only refer to a case where the husband put an allowance for her food, and the food went down in price. Thus all extra money that wasn't spent reverts to him. However, we refer to leftovers from her skimping on the food, then she's privy to keep the leftovers.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nazir 23

The Gemara says: it's better to do Torah and Mitzvos even if it's not L'Shma, since it will lead to L'Shma

Tosfos asks: the gemara in Brachos says it's better not to be borne than to do Mitzvos not L'Shma?

Over there refers to learning Torah for a bad purpose, to belittle others. However, we refer when you have an alternative purpose, like to receive fame.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Thurs Nazir 19

The Gemara says that if the husband Meifer the Neder, this Tana holds taht it's retroactively cut off, and can not bring the Olah but brings the chatas, since she sinned by holding herself back from the pleasure of wine.

The gemara explains this is like R' Yishmael. Tosfos explains that since R' Yishmael considers it part of the Kapara (and not just a gift) he cannot bring it for no reason. However, the Chatas he can bring, although at this point it's no longer Chayiv. However, since we see one can bring a bird Chatas for a Safeik, therefore it's apropos to bring it for any reason you can find, even if technically you're not Chayiv.

However, you cannot bring one if she doesn't become Tamai, although she still sinned, since we only allow this if there was once some kind of Chiyuv to bring, like when she was Tamai. However, for a Nazir tahor, we cannot create a new Korbon.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nazir 18

The Gemara says that the reason for the rabanan that says that when we say we can start a Nazir Tamai's count even if one of his Korbonos wan't brought, we must say it's the Asham. We cannot say that an Ashamm is included, but we exclude the Olah, since there is no reason that the Olah should hold back the count. Since it's not a Korban for kaparah but just a gift.

Tosfos asks: how can R' Yishmael say that we refer to the Olah? Why don't we say that it's simple that it can't hold back counting, since it's only a gift?

Tosfos answers: although usually we only consider it as a gift, by Nazirus it's part of the Kaparah. We see that from the Pasuk writing about the Olah and the Chatos in the same Pasuk and afterwords it refers to the kapara.

Now since we consider it one of the main pieces of the Kapara, this we don't say you must bring the Olah, but the Chatas doesn't stop you from counting? Even though the Olah is part of the Kapar, the Chatas is still the main Kapara. Thus, it makes sense to say that the Torah only excludes the minor part of the Kapara.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nazir 17

The Gemara inquires about the case a Nazir goes into a cemetery protected from the tumah by being in a box. If someone opens the box, is there a time limit to leave the cemetery before he's Chayiv.

Tosfos brings the gemara in Shvuos that the inquiry is only if it was an Onness (against hgis will.) So the question is only if someone exposed him against his will. However, if he exposed himself, or , someone else exposed him with his consent, of course he's Chayiv immediately.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Mon Nazir 16

The Gemara tries to find how does R' Yosi find three days strait of Ziva to make a Zava Gedolah, if we say that part of the day is like the whole day.

Rashi says we cannot say that she saw three days at night, because then we would say that her being clean part of the night is considered as if she was clean that day too.

Tosfos says , this cannot be. We see explicitly, that if she went to the Mikvah on the 11th day of Ziva at night, and have relations that night and sees bloods afterwords, she's Chayiv. We don't say that being clean part of the 11th night is if she was clean the whole 11th day.

Therefore, we must say that we don't consider being clean part of the night as if she was clean the whole day. That Halacha we only say when it starts daylight. However, even if she saw at night, when it becomes dawn, we consider her clean right away for that day. So you still cannot get three consecutive days.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Thurs Nazir 12

If someone sends a Shliach to Mikadesh any woman (and he doesn't come back to tell if he Mikadesh or who he was Mikadesh) we have a Chazaka the Shliach did his Shlichos. Therefore the one who sent him is forbidden to all woman, for perhaps they are relatives of the woman the Shliach is Mikadesh.

Tosfos asks: why then are not everyone is Assur to all the woman, since they may be the womon that the Shliach Mikadesh and therefore a married woman? Even if you say the woman are believed they never received Kiddushin, but someone who was a Ketana at the time and who's father's now dead (and perhaps he accepted for her kiddushin and she's not aware of it) how can anyone marry her?

Tosfos answers: from the Torah they can marry, since we can say they're from the majority of woman that did not receive Kiddushin in this manner. However, we don't allow the man that made a Shliach to rely on the majority as a penalty for sending such a Shliach that would end up in such a predicament.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Wed Nazir 11

If someone makes a Nazirus on condition that he can drink wine, even R' Shimon agrees the nazirus takes effect. Since it's a condition that's against the Torah (that says a Nazir is forbidden to wine), so the condition is illegal, and you're left with a complete Nazir.

Tosfos asks: why does the gemara need to discredit the condition because it's against the Torah? Say the reason the condition is illeagle because you need a condition to be only on something that you can send an agent to do it for you (Shliach.) If you can't make a Shliach, so you can't make a condition.

Tosfos answers: although you cannot make a Shliach to fulfil your Nazirus, you can make a Shliach to bring your Korbonos. So we consider Nazirus as a whole as an aspect that one can make a Shliach .

Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks: we see that someone can make a condition for an oath (which only he can keep and can't send a Shliach not to eat for him), although there is no Korbon to say there some aspect that applies Shlichos?

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com

Tues Nazir 10

Rami b. Chama explains the Mishna that he made a Nazir from the cows meat if he stands up( and he adds the word) by itself.

Rava disagrees. The Mishna does not have the words "by itself," therefore you cannot add it in.

Tosfos asks: don't we always answer Mishnoyos that Chisurai Mechsara, that some of the words are missing (and you need to fill it in?) Why don't we answer that too here?

Tosfos answers: we only say that when it involves what the Tanayim argue with, since it's more obvious something is missing. However, here, it's only a side note (what the condition was) and didn't involve the argument (if a Nazir from meat makes him a Nazir) the Tana would never leave it out.

Blast your way into Elul Zman:

"Gemara and Tosfos"

Try First Amud of Perek Free

tosfos.ecwid.com