1)

(a)After the She'eilah of 'Hareini Nazir le'Achar Esrim Yom, u'me'Achshav Me'ah Yom', Rava goes on to ask 'Hareini Nazir le'Achar Esrim Yom, u'me'Achshav Nazir le'Olam' (see Rosh), Mahu? What is the sequence of these two She'eilos?

(b)Why might 'Nazir le'Olam' ...

1. ... not take effect immediately, even if 'Me'ah Yom' does?

2. ... nevertheless begin immediately like 'Me'ah Yom?

(c)According to the first Tzad of the She'eilah, when will his hundred-day Nezirus actually commence?

(d)Others have the text 'N'zir Olam' (rather than 'Nazir le'Olam' - Tosfos reverses the implications of the two phrases). Why might 'N'zir Olam' not take effect immediately, even if 'Me'ah Yom' does? What is a 'N'zir Olam'?

1)

(a)After the She'eilah of 'Hareini Nazir le'Achar Esrim Yom, u'me'Achshav Me'ah Yom', Rava goes on to ask 'Hareini Nazir le'Achar Esrim Yom, u'me'Achshav Nazir le'Olam' (see Rosh), Mahu? The sequence of these two She'eilos is - that even if, in the previous case, the hundred-day Nezirus begins immediately, maybe this one will not, as we shall now see.

(b)'Nazir le'Olam' ...

1. ... might not take effect immediately, even if 'Me'ah Yom' does - because the latter only does because the Noder is able to resume the first Nezirus after the second one terminates; whereas in this case, once the Nezirus le'Olam commences, he will never be able to shave, in which case he will not be able to resume the first Nezirus.

2. ... might nevertheless begin immediately like 'Me'ah Yom - because he is able to have the Nezirus le'Olam revoked by a Chacham. Consequently, he may as well begin the first Nezirus on the off-chance that he will decide to do just that.

(c)According to the first Tzad of the She'eilah - his hundred-day Nezirus will not commence at all.

(d)Others have the text 'N'zir Olam' (rather than 'Nazir le'Olam' - Tosfos reverses the implications of the two phrases). 'N'zir Olam', who may trim his hair every thirty days, until the end of his life (but never cut it properly) might not take effect immediately, even if 'Me'ah Yom' does - because in the latter case, even if the hundred days begin immediately, his second Nezirus will not be considered a break in his first Nezirus (due to their basic similarity), whereas it will be considered a break in the case of a 'N'zir Olam', which has different Halachic implications than a regular Nezirus.

2)

(a)If someone undertakes Nezirus Shimshon after twenty days and S'tam Nezirus immediately, why might the S'tam Nezirus not take effect immediately, even if, in the previous case, a 'N'zir Olam' or a 'Nazir le'Olam' does?

(b)What problem does Nezirus Shimshon create vis-a-vis S'tam Nezirus continuing afterwards?

(c)What would then be the alternative to observing the first twenty days of S'tam Nezirus and not being able to complete it?

2)

(a)If someone undertakes Nezirus Shimshon after twenty days and S'tam Nezirus immediately, the S'tam Nezirus not take effect immediately even if, in the previous case, a 'N'zir Olam' or a 'Nazir le'Olam' does - because, like them, it will demolish the S'tam Nezirus once it takes effect, but unlike them, it cannot be annulled.

(b)The problem that Nezirus Shimshon creates vis-a-vis S'tam Nezirus continuing afterwards - is the fact that a N'zir Shimshon is never allowed to shave.

(c)The alternative to observing the first twenty days of S'tam Nezirus and not being able to complete it - would be not to observe it at all.

3)

(a)If someone declared 'Hareini ke'Moshe be'Shiv'ah ba'Adar' ...

1. ... why might he be a Nazir?

2. ... why might he not?

(b)What problem do we have with this (since we are apparently talking about S'tam Nezirus - though it is unclear why Tosfos takes this for granted)?

3)

(a)If someone declared 'Hareini ke'Moshe be'Shiv'ah ba'Adar' ...

1. ... he might he be a Nazir - because that is the day on which Moshe died, and it is presumed that many people adopted Nezirus on that day due to the pain that they felt at Moshe's passing.

2. ... he might not however, be a Nazir - because the term could also refer to the day that Moshe was born, in which case he meant that he would rejoice.

(b)The problem that we have with this (since we apparently talking about S'tam Nezirus - though it is unclear why Tosfos takes this for granted) is - that those who undertook Nezirus after Moshe died would have had no option but to remain Nezirim le'Olam, because the Korbanos of a Nazir, which are considered Korbenos Nedavah, could not be brought on a Bamah (which is what they had to sacrifice on - Tosfos). (See Meso'res ha'Shas and Rashash).

4)

(a)Which of all the above She'eilos do we categorically resolve?

4)

(a)We categorically resolve - the first She'eilah from a Beraisa, which reads 'Hareini Nazir le'Achar Esrim Yom, u'me'Achshav Me'ah Yom, Moneh Esrim, ve'Achar-Kach Moneh Sheloshim, ve'Achar-Kach Moneh Shemonim, K'dei Lehashlim Nezirus Rishonah'.

5)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Meni'ach es she'Lo u'Moneh shel B'no'. According to Rebbi Yochanan, if he became Tamei during the term of Nezirus for his son, he also demolishes his first term of Nezirus. What does Resh Lakish say?

(b)Rebbi Yochanan's reason is because he considers the two Nezirus to be one long Nezirus. Why is that?

(c)What would Rebbi Yochanan hold in the equivalent situation in the Reisha of our Mishnah, where the Tana says 'Moneh es she'Lo, ve'Achar-Kach Moneh shel B'no'?

5)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Meni'ach es she'Lo u'Moneh shel B'no'. According to Rebbi Yochanan, if he became Tamei during the term of Nezirus for his son, he also demolishes his first term of Nezirus. According to Resh Lakish - he does not.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan's reason is because he considers the two Nezirus to be one long Nezirus - which in turn, is due to the fact that he only shaves once at the end of the second Nezirus (though we will see later that this requirement is not really necessary.

(c)In the equivalent situation in the Reisha of our Mishnah, where the Tana says 'Moneh es she'Lo, ve'Achar-Kach Moneh shel B'no' - Rebbi Yochanan would concede to Resh Lakish that he does not demolish his first Nezirus (even though, it would appear, he may not yet have brought his first set of Korbanos) Tosfos.

14b----------------------------------------14b

6)

(a)What will be the Din if a Nazir 'contracted' Tzara'as during his term of Nezirus? Does the Tzara'as demolish the days of Nezirus that he already counted (particularly bearing in mind that a Metzora is obligated to shave before he becomes Tahor)?

(b)Rebbi Yochanan holds however, that, if that Nazir became Tamei whilst he was a Metzora, he demolishes the days of Nezirus that he already counted. Why is that?

(c)According to Resh Lakish, he does not, because, like he said in the previous case, Tzara'as and Nezirus are two different issues. Why do they find it necessary to repeat their Machlokes (despite its similarity to the previous case)? Why might we have thought had they only argued ...

1. ... in the previous case, but not in this one?

2. ... in this case, but not in the previous one?

6)

(a)If a Nazir contracted Tzara'as during his term of Nezirus, the Tzara'as does not demolish the days of Nezirus that he already counted (in spite of the fact that a Metzora is obligated to shave before he becomes Tahor) - since the Tzara'as has nothing to do with the Nezirus (though this will be explained in more detail in the following Perek).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan holds however, that, if that Nazir became Tamei whilst he was a Metzora, he demolishes the days of Nezirus that he already counted - due to the fact that he is still in the middle of his term of Nezirus.

(c)According to Resh Lakish, he does not, because, like he said in the previous case, Tzara'as and Nezirus are two different issues. They find it necessary to repeat their Machlokes (despite its similarity to the previous case), because we might otherwise have thought that they only argue ...

1. ... in the previous case - because the two Nezirus at least share the same name, whereas in our current case, where Nezirus and Tzara'as are two different issues, even Rebbi Yochanan would concede to Resh Lakish that his Nezirus will not be demolished.

2. ... in this case - because they are two different issues, but in the previous one, where the two issues share the same name, even Resh Lakish would concede to Rebbi Yochanan that it will.

7)

(a)'Nitma be'Yom Gidul Se'ar, Rav Omer, Eino Soser'. What is 'Yom Gidul Se'ar'?

(b)Why do we now speak about 'Yom Gidul Se'ar', whereas before we spoke about 'Yemei Tzara'ato'?

(c)What is Rav's reason? Does this mean that Rav holds like Resh Lakish in the previous case?

(d)Shmuel holds 'Soser'. What is his reason? Does that mean that he holds like Rebbi Yochanan in the previous case?

7)

(a)'Nitma be'Yom Gidul Se'ar, Rav Omer, Eino Soser'. 'Yom Gidul Se'ar' - refers to someone who accepted a thirty-day Nezirus, and after twenty days, shall we say, robbers forcibly cut off his hair. He now has to wait thirty days for his hair to grow in order to shave, and 'Yom Gidul Se'ar' refers to when he became Tamei on one of those twenty days between the thirtieth day of his Nezirus and the final day when his haircut falls due.

(b)We now speak about 'Yom Gidul Se'ar', whereas before we spoke about 'Yemei Tzara'ato' - because whereas the days of Tzara'as cannot possibly last only one day, Yom Gidul Se'ar can (if the robbers were to cut off his hair on the second day of his Nezirus, extending his Nezirus by only one day) - Tosfos.

(c)Rav's reason is - because his Nezirus has already terminated, in which case, even Rebbi Yochanan will agree that 'Eino Soser'.

(d)Shmuel holds 'Soser' - because it is all still part of the same Nezirus, in which case even Resh Lakish will agree that 'Soser'.

8)

(a)According to Rav Chisda, everyone agrees that 'Im Kidesh Se'ar be'Dam, Ein Lo Takanah'. What does 'Im Kidesh Se'ar be'Dam' mean?

(b)How do we initially interpret 'Ein Lo Takanah'?

(c)This cannot go like Rebbi Eliezer. Why not? What does Rebbi Eliezer say?

8)

(a)According to Rav Chisda, everyone agrees that 'Im Kidesh Se'ar be'Dam, Ein Lo Takanah'. 'Im Kidesh Se'ar be'Dam' means - that the Nazir became Tamei after the blood of his Korban has already been sprinkled, but before his hair has been cut-off.

(b)We initially interpret 'Ein Lo Takanah' to mean - that the Nazir may never cut his hair or drink wine.

(c)This cannot go like Rebbi Eliezer - who says that shaving is crucial the term of Nezirus' completion, in which case he is no different than someone who became Tamei during the days of Nezirus, who demolishes his Nezirus and begins again (and who will ultimately be able to cut his hair or drink wine).

9)

(a)Why does Rav Chisda not appear to go like the Rabbanan either?

(b)We therefore answer the Kashya by re-interpreting 'Ein Lo Takanah'. What does Rav Chisda really mean? According to which Tana does he issue his ruling?

9)

(a)Rav Chisda does not appear to go like the Rabbanan either - because according to them, the shaving is not crucial, and there is no reason why the Nazir in this case should not be permitted to cut his hair or drink wine as soon as he has brought his Korbanos.

(b)We therefore answer the Kashya by re-interpreting 'Ein Lo Takanah' to mean - that he has lost the Mitzvah of shaving, according to the Rabbanan.

10)

(a)What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina say about a Nazir whose term of Nezirus has terminated? What distinction does he make between whether he becomes Tamei then or whether he shaves or drinks wine.

(b)Should he render himself Tamei, does he also demolish the days between the termination of his Nezirus and the day that he brings his Korbanos?

(c)We initially learn Rav Chisda's Din from the Pasuk in Naso "Kol Yemei Haziro la'Hashem". What do we then ask on that from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Kol Yemei Neder Nizro Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Rosho"?

2. ... Kol Yemei Nizro, mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin"?

(d)What do we ultimately learn from the Pasuk "ve'Tamei Rosh Nizro"?

10)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina says that - if a Nazir whose term of Nezirus has terminated renders himself Tamei, he receives Malkos, but not if he shaves or drinks wine.

(b)Even if he renders himself Tamei - he does not demolish the days between the termination of his Nezirus and the day that he brings his Korbanos (Tosfos).

(c)We initially learn Rav Chisda's Din from the Pasuk in Naso "Kol Yemei Haziro la'Hashem". We then ask that if this is indeed so, then why do we not also learn from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Kol Yemei Neder Nizro Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Rosho" - that he should also receive Malkos for shaving during that term.

2. ... "Kol Yemei Nizro, mi'Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" - that he should also receive Malkos for drinking wine.

(d)We ultimately learn from the Pasuk "ve'Tamei Rosh Nizro" - that when he reaches the stage when all he needs to do is to cut his hair (i.e. when his days of Nezirus have terminated), then he receives Malkos for rendering himself Tamei (but not for cutting his hair and drinking wine).

11)

(a)If the Nazir became Tamei after he brought his Korbanos, but before he shaved, will he receive Malkos (according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer)?

(b)We repudiate Rav Chisda's statement however, from a Beraisa? What does the Tana of the Beraisa say?

11)

(a)If the Nazir became Tamei after he brought his Korbanos, but before he shaved, he will not receive Malkos (according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer) - because, in their opinion, shaving is not crucial.

(b)We repudiate Rav Chisda's statement however, from a Beraisa which specifically states - that a Nazir who rendered himself Tamei, shaved or drank wine after his term of Nezirus has terminated but before he has shaved, all receive Malkos.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF