- What is learned from "כי יפליא" written by nezirus (ידים שאינן מוכיחות, היתר נדרים)
The Gemara asks: "כי יפליא" דכתב רחמנא גבי נזירות למה לי – The passuk: “If one shall clearly express” that the Torah stated regarding nezirus, why is it needed (since nezirus is compared to nedarim, which contains the same phrase)? It answers: לאיתויי ידים שאינן מוכיחות – to include as invalid, partial declarations which are unclear. Abaye holds such declarations are valid nedarim, and Rava holds they are not. The Gemara asks, according to Abaye, what then is the passuk teaching? After suggesting that it teaches the principle of Rebbe Tarfon, that a nezirus declaration must be clear at the time it is declared, it asks what is derived according to the Rabbonon. Finally, it answers with a Baraisa: היתר נדרים פורחין באויר ואין להן על מה שיסמוכו– Releases from nedarim “fly in the air,” and do not have a source on which to rely. Rebbe Eliezer disagrees: יש להם על מה שיסמוכו – They do have a source on which to rely, because the Torah says the phrase "כי יפליא" twice, teaching: אחד הפלאה לאיסור, ואחד הפלאה להיתר – one is for the expression for forbidding, and one is for the expression for releasing the neder.
- The difference between forcing one’s slave regarding nezirus vs. nedarim
The next Mishnah states: חומר בעבדים מבנשים – A stringency of slaves compared to women,שהוא מפר נדרי אשתו, ואינו מפר נדרי עבדו – that he can revoke his wife’s nedarim but cannot revoke his slave’s nedarim. It adds: הפר לאשתו הפר עולמית – If he revoked for his wife, he has revoked permanently, הפר לעבדו יצא לחירות ומשלים נזירותו – but if he “revoked” for his slave (i.e., he compelled him to violate his nezirus), if he goes free, he must complete his nezirus. A Baraisa teaches: למה רבו כופו – Concerning what can a master force his slave to violate his vow? לנזירות, אבל לא לנדרים ולערכין – Only for nezirus, but not for nedarim and eruchin. The Gemara initially explains that nedarim only prohibit a specific item, and do not negatively impact the slave ability to work, so the master cannot override it, whereas nezirus, which prohibits all grape products, the master can compel him to violate to protect his interests. After this is rejected, Abaye ultimately explains the Baraisa: למה רבו צריך לכפותו – Concerning what does his master need to force him? לנזירות ואין צריך לכפותו לנדרים ואינו צריך לכפותו לשבועה – Only for nezirus, but he does not need to force him for nedarim or shavuos, because these are not effective at all, for which Abaye provides a source.
- Machlokes about a runaway slave violating his nezirus
The next Mishnah teaches: עבר מכנגד פניו – If [the slave] passed from [his master’s] presence after declaring nezirus (i.e., he ran away), Rebbe Meir says he may not drink wine, but Rebbe Yose says he may. The Gemara initially assumes that the master gives up hope on retrieving the slave, rendering him ownerless. The dispute hinges on Shmuels’s statement: המפקיר עבדו – One who is mafkir his slave, יצא לחירות ואינו צריך גט שיחרור – he goes free and does not require a document of emancipation. Rebbe Meir follows Shmuel’s opinion that the slave is a free man, so he is bound by his original nezirus, and Rebbe Yose holds he is still a slave and under the master’s control. The Gemara argues that the master does not give up hope on retrieving the slave; and Rebbe Yose holds: סוף סבר סוף מיהדר הדר ואתי גביה – [The master] thinks that in the end, he will return, לישתי חמרא כי היכי דלא ליכחוש – so let him drink wine so he should not be weakened. Rebbe Meir holds: סבר ליהוי ליה צערא כי היכי דליהדר גביה – [The master] thinks, “Let him suffer, so he will return to [me].
