Nedarim - Daf 4
- כגון דנדר והוא בבית הקברות
The Gemara on this Daf begins by offering more ways that a nazir can violate the lo sa’aseh of בל תאחר - do not delay. The first is כגון דנדר והוא בבית הקברות - in a case where he accepts to be a nazir in a graveyard. The Gemara clarifies that although the nezirus is effective despite the acceptance being in a graveyard, אפילו הכי קם ליה בבל תאחר, nevertheless, he is subject to בל תאחר, משום דקא מאחר נזירות דטהרה - because he is delaying the nezirus of taharah. Since he is immediately tamei, he cannot begin the fulfillment of his nazir vow )which must be pure from (טומאת מת, until after the taharah process. Any delay of that nezirus constitutes בל תאחר. The Gemara adds that if this is so,נזיר שטימא עצמו במזיד עובר משום בל תאחר - a nazir who makes himself tamei intentionally, and delays the fulfillment of his nezirus of taharah, violates בל תאחר. The second option is, עובר משום בל תאחר תגלחתו - the nazir violates בל תאחר for delaying his shaving. The Gemara adds that although there is an opinion that תגלחת אינה מעכבת, the shaving is not critical to complete the fulfillment of his nezirus and end its restrictions, מצות גילוח מיהא לא מיקיים, he has still not fulfilled the mitzvah of shaving, and even a delay of this element of nezirus constitutes בל תאחר.
- בל תאחר קרבנותיו, חידוש שחידשה תורה בנזיר
The Gemara offers a third option. עובר בבל תאחר קרבנותיו - he violates בל תאחר by delaying to bring his korbonos. The Gemara challenges this answer by asserting that we would not need to learn this from נדרים, as the Baraisa did on Daf 3a, because we already have a derashah that teaches that obligatory korbanos are included in בל תאחר, and the korbanos of a nazir are obligatory. Why do we need an additional source for a nazir? The Gemara answers: מהו דתימא חידוש הוא שחידשה תורה בנזיר - you may have said that the Torah taught a novel leniency by nazir, so perhaps בל תאחר does not apply by nazir. The Gemara provides two explanations of what novel leniency was said by nazir: First, דלא מתפיס ליה לחטאת נזיר בנדר - that one cannot accept to bring a chatas-offering of a nazir through a mere neder. Rather, one must be an actual nazir to bring this korbon. The second explanation of the novelty found by nazir is, הואיל ואם גילח על אחת משלשתן יצא - since if he shaves over only one of the three nazir offerings he has fulfilled his shaving requirement, and his nezirus is completed (although he must still bring the remaining two later). This leniency would lead us to think that nazir-offerings are not subject to בל תאחר.
- אמר שמואל בכולן עד שיאמר שאני אכול לך שאני טועם לך
The Mishnah had given examples of ידות נדרים such as someone who says מודרני ממך, מופרשני ממך - “I am vowed from you,” or “I am separated from you.” Shmuel said, בכולן עד שיאמר שאני אוכל לך שאני טועם לך - in all of these, it only applies when he adds “that which I eat of yours,” or “that which I taste of yours.” He holds that the two sets of phrases in the Mishnah should be understood as two parts of a single case, and not two separate cases. The Gemara initially assumes Shmuel to have meant that without the additional phrase, no neder is effected at all, because there is no implication of prohibition in the words used, and it is even less than a יד. The Gemara challenges this from a Baraisa which proves that the first phrases of מודרני ממך and מופרשני ממך are sufficient alone to effect a neder, and rejects this understanding of Shmuel’s statement. The Gemara will offer, and reject, two more interpretations of Shmuel’s statement on the following Daf before concluding that Shmuel did indeed mean what the Gemara had originally assumed, albeit for a different reason.
