About this episode
Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi in honor of her sister Hasya and her love of learning. Today's daf is sponsored by Hinda Herman in memory of her dear mother Ethel Bat Chaim on her yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in memory of her father Leon Pultman on his 8th yahrzeit. Husband of Thelma Pultman and father of Linda, Sheila and Gwen. "Dad had a special love of learning about Jewish history and our people. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her father, Melvyn Goldstein, on his third yahrzeit. "Only now that you are gone am I understanding the wisdom of your ways." The Mishna says that if one drank wine while being a nazir, those days still count as their nazirite days. This does not seem to follow either the rabbis or Rabbi Yosi's position as the rabbis require one to add as many days as one spent drinking wine while a nazir, and Rabbi Yosi requires a minimum of thirty days without drinking wine, regardless of how long the nazirite period was supposed to be. However, the Gemara explains that one can explain the Mishna according to each opinion. From the fact that Beit Shamai hold hekdesh by mistake is hekdesh and yet one who dissolved his nazirite vow, the sacrifices are no longer sanctified, we can learn to Beit Hillel that even though substitution by mistake is sanctified, if one dissolved the sanctity of the first animal, the sanctity would be canceled as well. In animal tithes, if one calls the 9th or 11th animal tenth by mistake, the animal is sanctified. Is this true as well if one intentionally called the 9th or 11th the tenth? Can we infer the answer to this question from our Mishna which makes reference to this law? If one vowed to become a nazir, assuming the animal in their possession would be used for the sacrifice, but it gets stolen, can one dissolve the vow on that basis? It depends upon whether the animal was stolen before or after the vow as if it was only stolen later, that is nolad (something unexpected that was not in existence at the time) and one cannot dissolve a vow using nolad . This is what confused Nachum HaMadi when he permitted nezirim who came to Israel after the destruction and when they realized there was no Temple in which to bring their sacrifices, they tried to dissolve their vows and he dissolved them based on the fact that had they realized the Temple would have been destroyed and they would have no way to finish their nazirite term, they never would have vowed. Isn't this nolad ? Rav Yosef raises a question on the Mishna because of a verse from Yirmiyahu 7:4 that alludes to the fact that the temple will be destroyed and therefore the nezirim should have known! If two people are walking and see someone from afar and bet on who it is by taking upon being a nazir and then others take a bet and take on being a nazir if one of them, both of them, or neither of them are nezirim , there are three opinions in the Mishna about which of them are nezirim . Beit Hillel's language in the Mishna is difficult as he says "The one who's words do not come to be is a nazir." Shouldn't it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read "The one whose words come true."