POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nazir 62
NAZIR 61, 62 - The preparation of the study material for these Dafim was
supported by a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, for
which the Kollel is grateful.
1) VOWS OF KUSIM
1. "A man" teaches that (regular) Nezirus applies to
(b) Answer: R. Yochanan taught, shaving on money the father
set aside for shaving is tradition from Moshe from Sinai;
a verse would not come to exclude this.
(c) Question: "A man that Yafli (precisely) takes a vow of
Erchin" - why is the verse needed?
1. By calling Erchin a vow, the Torah equates Erchin to
(d) (Summation of question): What does "A man that Yafli
takes a vow of Erchin" teach? (Even without this, we
would learn from vows that Erchin apply partially to
2. (Beraisa): "A man" - this teaches that Kusim may vow
sacrifices as Yisrael.
(e) Answer: To include a Mufla Samuch l'Ish (someone close
to adulthood that understands vows).
1. This fits well according to the opinion that vows of
a Mufla Samuch l'Ish are valid mid'Oraisa.
(f) Question: According to the opinion that Mufla Samuch
l'Ish is mid'Rabanan, what does the verse teach?
(g) Answer: To include a Kusi Mufla Samuch l'Ish (his vows of
Erchin are valid mid'Oraisa).
1. This fits well according to the following opinion.
(h) Question: According to the following opinion, what does
the verse teach?
2. (Beraisa): Bnei Yisrael have Erchin values (if one
vows to give the Erech of a Yisrael, this is valid);
Kusim do not;
i. One might have thought, Kusim cannot vow to
give Erchin - "A man" teaches, they can.
1. (Beraisa): Bnei Yisrael can vow to give Erchin;
(i) (Summation of question): Even a month old baby has an
Erech value - what does "Yafli" teach?
i. One might have thought, Kusim have no Erchin
values - "A man" teaches, they have Erchin
(j) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): To teach that vows of an
adult Kusi are valid only if he understands vows.
(k) Question: "Yafli" is also written by Nezirus - what does
1. Nezirus is equated to vows - we could have learned
from "Yafli" written by Erchin!
(l) Answer #1: To include ambiguous Yados (incomplete
languages of acceptance of Nezirus).
1. (Abaye): Ambiguous Yados are valid Yados.
(m) The above answer works for Abaye, but not for Rava!
2. (Rava): Ambiguous Yados are not valid Yados.
(n) Answer #2: "Yafli" teaches R. Tarfon's law.
1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): R. Tarfon says, none of them
are Nezirim, for Nezirus requires Hafla'ah (a clear
(o) The above answer works for Abaye, but not for Rava!
(p) Answer #3: "Yafli" teaches as R. Eliezer.
1. (Mishnah): Annulment of vows has no solid source in
the written Torah;
2. R. Eliezer says, it has a solid source - "Yafli" is
i. Once teaches that a vow cannot be annulled
without regret; the other, that it can be
annulled through regret.
2) VOWS OF A WIFE AND SLAVE
(a) (Mishnah): There is a stringency in the vows of slaves
which does not apply to women: a husband can annul his
wife's vows, but a master cannot annul his slave's vows;
3) A SLAVE THAT FLED
(b) A husband's annulment is permanent; if a master annulled
his slave's vow, when the slave becomes free, he must
fulfill his vow.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa) Question: Why can a master force his
slave to transgress Nezirus, but not vows or Erchin?
1. Presumably, we learn that he can force his slave to
transgress Nezirus from "To put a prohibition on his
own soul", to exclude a slave, who does not own his
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): The case is, a cluster of grapes
is in front of the slave.
2. This verse was written by vows, it should apply to
1. If he vowed not to eat it, he can eat other grapes,
so the master cannot force him to transgress.
(e) Objection: The Beraisa says he can never force him to
transgress vows, even if there are no other grapes
around, and he will become weak if he doesn't eat these!
2. If he accepted Nezirus, he is forbidden on all
grapes, therefore, the master can force him (so he
will not become weak).
(f) Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, he vowed not to eat a
Chartzan (grape peel or pit).
1. Such a vow will not weaken him; but Nezirus forbids
him to eat all produce of the vine!
(g) Objection: It can be, there is nothing else around to
eat, and keeping his vow will cause him to become weak!
(h) Answer #3 (Abaye): The Beraisa says, the master must
force the slave to transgress Nezirus (if not, the slave
must guard Nezirus), but the slave is not bound by his
(other) vows and oaths even if the master does not force
1. It says by oaths, "To harm or benefit" - just as
benefiting is optional, also harming;
2. An oath to harm another (e.g. the master) is
invalid. (We learn from oaths to vows, but not to
(a) (Mishnah): A slave (that accepted Nezirus) fled from his
master. R. Meir says, he may not drink wine; R. Yosi
says, he drinks.
(b) (Gemara) Suggestion: The Tana'im argue on Shmuel's law.
1. (Shmuel): One who declares his slave ownerless, the
slave becomes a free convert and does not need a
document of freedom.
(c) Rejection: Really, both hold as Shmuel (and they do not
hold that the master despairs).
i. (Implicit assumption): When the slave flees,
the master loses hope of getting him back, and
this is as declaring him ownerless.
2. R. Meir holds as Shmuel; R. Yosi argues on Shmuel.
1. R. Yosi says that he drinks, in order that he should
be strong when he will return.
2. R. Meir says that he may not drink, in order that he
will suffer, so he will want to return (expecting
that his master will force him to drink).