1) Clarifying the author of the Mishnah (cont.)
It is suggested that the Mishnah follows the opinion of R’
Tarfon but that suggestion is rejected.
The Gemara identifies the Mishnah as following the opin-
ion of R’ Yehudah regarding a pile.
The Baraisa related to the pile is cited that presents a dis-
pute between R’ Shimon and R’ Yehudah.
The position of R’ Shimon is clarified.
2) MISHNAH:
The Mishnah presents a case of a
יוכ that
approaches and different people make vows of nezirus related to
whether the
יוכ is wild or domesticated, and the final result of
all the different vows.
3) Parallel Beraisos
Two Beraisos are cited, the first one teaches that the nine
people who made vows are nezirim and the second one teaches
that one person would have to observe nine periods of nezirus.
The Gemara wonders how one person will be obligated to
observe nine periods of nezirus when some of the nine vows are
exclusive of one another.
R’ Sheishes suggests that it refers to the case where a tenth
person declares that he will observe the nezirus periods that the
other nine people are obligated to observe.
יאמש תיב ךלע ןרדה
4) MISHNAH:
The Mishnah enumerates the different prohi-
bitions that apply to the nazir and presents details related to the
prohibition against grape products.
5) Consuming the grapevine
An inference is made from the first part of the Mishnah
that consuming the grapevine is not prohibited for a nazir.
This would be inconsistent with R’ Eliezer who maintains
that a nazir is prohibited to consume the grapevine.
According to a second version this inference was drawn
from the later part of the Mishnah.
The Gemara explains that the dispute between R’ Eliezer
and Rabanan relates to methodology of exposition.
Their respective positions are explained.
The Gemara clarifies different terms used by Rabanan in
their exposition.
The end of the exposition is repeated for the purpose of
further clarification.
Friday, September 25 2015
עשת ירשת ב"י
“
ו
OVERVIEW
of the Daf
ל ריזנ
“
ד
How was the vow of Yaakov valid according to Rabbi Tarfon?
ר םושמ רמוא הדוהי יבר
‘
הנתנ אלש יפל ריזנ ןהמ דחא ןיא ןופרט
האלפהל אלא תוריזנ
I
n Nedarim (21a), the
ר
“
ן writes that because vows are
associated (
ושקוה) to nazir, the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon which
does not validate nezirus when it is made conditionally would
also not recognize any vow made with a condition. At the mo-
ment the vow is pronounced the factor of specificity is lacking,
so the vow is invalid.
Keren Orah (ibid.) asks that we find many examples of
vows which were certainly valid, although they were made con-
tingent upon other factors. For example, Yaakov Avinu prom-
ised to give a tithe of his property if Hashem would protect
him and return him safely to Eretz Yisroel (see Berershis 28:20-
22). Also, the Jewish people issued a vow (Bemidbar 21:2)
when they were confronted by Amalek, who had disguised
themselves. The verses there imply that the vow was valid,
even though it was stated on condition that the Jews prevail.
Channa, the mother of Shmuel declared a vow based upon a
condition (Shmuel 1, 1:11), and Yiftach also issued his vow
with a contingency (Shoftim 11:30). In all these cases, the vow
was valid despite its being conditional. How are we to under-
stand these cases according to Rabbi Tarfon?
Keren Orah explains that Rabbi Tarfon agrees that if one
vows at a time of crisis or in time of duress, the vow is valid
even if there are conditions associated with the commitment.
םירדנ ימלש writes that if a vow involves a mitzvah or
tzeddakah, the person has in mind for it to be valid even if it is
stated as being conditional. It is only in reference to nazir or
vows to prohibit something upon oneself that a conditional
vow fails due to its not being pronounced with certainty (
האלפמ).
In his Shiurim,
יקסרבופ דוד ברה explains that the reason
for the rule of Rabbi Tarfon, as noted in Sanhedrin (25a) is
that one’s mindset is not committed when one is relying upon
an
אתכמסא—a presumed but unreliable outcome. Therefore,
when the condition made is unreliable, such as in our Mish-
nah where a viewer is guessing the identity of a passer-by, the
nezirus is faulty. However, when a person sets up a reasonable
condition in order for his nezirus to rely upon it, the person
may very well know whether the condition will later apply, and
the vow is merely set to hinge upon this eventuality. In this
case, even Rabbi Tarfon can recognize the vow as being valid.
Distinctive
INSIGHT
Today’s Daf Digest is dedicated
ה"ע יכדרמ לאומש 'ר ןב לאנתנ 'ר נ"על
By his children
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hartman
Today’s Daf Digest is dedicated
שעעד ידיסחמ ,ןירג ףסוי לאקזחי ןב יבצ תמשנ יוליעל
From the Grin family, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Number 1171–
ל ריזנ
“
ד
The appropriate beracha for bread soaked in wine and
schnapps
'וכו ןייב ותיפ הרש 'פא רמוא אביקע 'ר
R’ Akiva says that even if a person soaks his bread in wine etc.
M
aharil
1
writes that if a piece of bread falls into wine in
the middle of a meal one must recite a
ןפגה ירפ ארוב
before eating the bread. He cites our Gemara as support for
this conclusion because our Gemara refers to eating something
soaked in wine as drinking. Shayarei Knesses Hagedolah
2
also
addressed the question of bread soaked in wine and the ques-
tion of which is the primary ingredient and which is the sec-
ondary ingredient. He makes reference to the Maharil and
concludes that his practice is to avoid the question so he
makes a beracha on wine before he eats the bread soaked in
wine.
Shulchan Aruch Harav
3
analyzes the case of a person who
dips bread into his schnapps before the meal begins and ques-
tions what is the appropriate beracha. On the one hand one
could argue that his intent is for the schnapps and he is eating
the bread simply to dull the sharp taste of the schnapps. On
the other hand, since this is taking place before the meal it is
hard to accept that he does not intend for the bread to fill him
up and thus the bread cannot be considered secondary. It is
the second approach that Shulchan Aruch Harav finds com-
pelling and therefore even if a person was in the middle of a
meal and wanted to eat bread soaked in wine he would not be
required to make a beracha on the absorbed wine. Even
though if he was going to drink wine he would be required to
make a beracha in the middle of a meal, nonetheless, since the
bread is considered primary, due to its capacity to fill a person,
the wine is considered secondary and a beracha is not re-
quired.
Mishnah Berurah
4
rules that a person who soaks his bread
in schnapps after the meal in order to assist digestion is re-
quired to make a beracha on the schnapps. The reason is that
once the meal is completed it is clear that the function of the
bread is to make it easier to consume the schnapps, thus the
bread is secondary to schnapps. He adds that Elyah Rabbah
advises to drink some schnapps before eating the bread soaked
in the schnapps and by doing so one avoids questions related
to the correct beracha to recite.
1
.
.'ז 'יס תוכרבו הדועס י"טנ ב"ח ל"ירהמ
2
.
.א"י ק"ס י"בהגה ח"סק 'יס ג"הנכש
3
.
'ב 'עס ב"יר 'יס ח"וא ברה ע"וש
-
.'ד
4
.
.ה"קס םש ב"מ
HALACHAH
Highlight
Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center for Torah and Chesed, under the leadership of
HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a
HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HoRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rov ;Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director,
edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand.
Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben.
Avoiding Pitfalls
"...גז דעו םינצרחמ..."
O
ur Gemara discusses the exact pa-
rameters of the nazir’s prohibition
against eating grapes.
םינמזה ןיב is a very difficult time for
a ben Torah, since it is all too easy to
hardly learn one word the entire time.
The Shela Hakadosh, zt”l, actually
wished to abolish it entirely saying, “
ןיב
םינמזה is a plague not recorded in the
Torah.” Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz, zt”l,
would keep to the exact same seder dur-
ing
םינמזה ןיב as he did during the
zeman. Those close with him would say,
“The only difference is the carpet slip-
pers!”
Once, before
םינמזה ןיב, Rav Shach,
zt”l, said to his talmidim, “Let us exam-
ine what Rabeinu Yonah says in Sha’arei
Teshuvah, ‘If you ask where we find
Scripture making a fence to protect? The
answer is: we find this regarding the
mitzvah of Nazir who is only prohibited
from drinking wine…he is prohibited
from everything that can be made into
wine even if it’s not alcoholic. This is
only a protective measure to ensure he
doesn’t drink wine…’ He uses this con-
cept to explain why even kirvah to arayos
is
רובעי לאו גרהי.
“The Gemara itself compares staying
away from arayos to a nazir refraining
from grapes and the like. Chazal go even
further and prohibit him from even en-
tering a vineyard. The Rambam explains,
‘It is Rabinically prohibited for a Nazir
to be in the presence of people drinking
wine. He should be very careful to dis-
tance himself from such debauchery
since Chachamim said he shouldn’t even
go near a vineyard.’”
Rav Shach concluded with a warning
about staying in a good environment
during
םינמזה ןיב. “Think about it. Is
there a bigger gathering of drunkards, of
people with lax moral standards, than
the street?”
STORIES
Off the Daf
1. What is a
יוכ?
_____________________________________________
2. What are the three nazir prohibitions?
_____________________________________________
3. Which exposition is more encompassing—
יטרפו יללכ or
יטוטימו ייוביר?
_____________________________________________
4. What is derived from the words
גז דעו םינצרחמ?
_____________________________________________
REVIEW
and Remember