Talking Talmud

Details of what of grapes are prohibited to a nazir, including the minimum amount that would make the nazir obligated for violating his prohibition. Plus, a dive into the logical inference of the general to the specific, and how it applies in this case. Also, the example of general/specific from using ma'aser sheni money in Jerusalem.

The Koi. A halakhic conundrum - is this animal a behamah (domesticated) or chayah (wild)? Plus, the context of people taking vows based on the halakhic status of the koi. Are they nezirim or not? Also, opening chapter 6: beginning with what is actually prohibited to the nazir, including all of the different component parts of the grape.

First, a mishnah - a brainteaser of 6 people who take conditional vows of nezirut, depending on determinable unknowns. The question of whether those vows kick in depending on the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Plus, some talmudic revision of the phrasing of the mishnah. Also, the absence of talmudic text on Amud Bet. Plus, a brief review of the Baalei HaTosafot.

One who vows to be a nazir, then regrets it, and wants out - but the sage he asks to dissolve the vow tells him he must continue. Plus, how this regret lines up with consecration that was done in error. Also, what about animals that are stolen and/or blemished, and how that changes things (or doesn't) for a nazir's vow. Plus, the early practicing Jews and how they apparently didn't know about the destruction of the Temple! (And therefore people got stuck in the middle of their periods of nezirut).

What happens if you consecrate something in error? Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai dispute the outcome - not consecrated and consecrated, respectively. Also, delving into the side of Beit Shammai, and the rationale of priority when it comes to consecration, whether that which is more valuable or that which is indeed first.

Finishing chapter 4... with a new mishnah. A man can use his father nezirut funds for the final korbanot but a daughter cannot. But in general, a son cannot use his father's funds for his own offerings - this is an exception. Also, a series of questions at the end of the Gemara in that mishnah, with particulars about cases of nezirut, for which the Gemara does not have answers.

The Gemara presents a series of potential practical differences between the approaches of R. Yochanan (an inherited tradition - halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai) and Resh Lakish (a matter of education). Also, the value of taking the vow of nezirut (for a change), including R. Hanina's vow.

A new mishnah: Can a husband still revoke his wife's vow of nezirut at the time that she's bringing the final sacrifices at the conclusion of her nezirut? In contrast to earlier discussions, it seems that he cannot do so, this late in the game. The Gemara then probes the opinions of R. Akiva and R. Eliezer. Plus, a discussion of wigs, potentially being distasteful to a husband, in contrast to the comparable products today. Also, another mishnah: a father can make a vow to establish nezirut for his minor son. Which the son can then negate, with all the expected ramifications for the funds or animals that were set aside for his sacrifices, in the event that they were.

R. Nachman's position on a designated animal that ends up being blemished - already consecrated for the nazir's offerings. Is it to be treated like an unallocated animal or an allocated one? R. Hamnuna questions whether the blemished animal could be treated like unspecified funds. Plus, Rava's objection to R. Nachman - via a son and father needing to bring their own respective sin-offerings, as per a verse.

Unspecified funds - including the sin-offering funds - can be rededicated for voluntary offerings, with the nazir as an exception to the usual sin-offering rules. Can these bird offerings be redirected? Plus, the role of the Dead Sea. Also, a talmudic revision of a passage that makes more sense.