NAZIR 38 (9 Adar 5783) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Sarah bas Zishe Ehrmann, by her grandson Zev Rosenbaum (of Yerushalayim), in honor of her Yahrzeit.

1)

TOSFOS DH d'Leis Lei Tziruf

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìéú ìéä öéøåó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what R. Shimon learns from "Mishras".)

ëìåîø ìà áòé öéøåó ãàéú ìéä ëì ùäåà [ìîëåú]

(a)

Explanation: He does not require Tziruf, for he holds that one is lashed for any amount.

åà"ú ìø"ù îùøú ìîä ìé ìöéøåó ìà àéöèøéê

(b)

Question: According to R. Shimon, why do we need "Mishras"? It is not needed for Tziruf;

åë"ú ìèòí ëòé÷ø

1.

Suggestion: He needs it for Ta'am k'Ikar.

úéôå÷ ìéä îâéòåìé òåáãé ëåëáéí ìø"ù ãìàå çéãåù

2.

Rejection He can learn from Gi'ulei Nochrim, for according to R. Shimon it is not a Chidush!

ãàéäå àîø áîñ' ò"æ (ãó ñæ:) ìà àñøä úåøä àìà ÷ãøä áú éåîà

i.

He said in Avodah Zarah (67b) that the Torah forbids only a Kli that is a Ben Yomo [absorbed Isur in the last 24 hours].

åé"ì ãéëåì ìäéåú ãìãéãéä ðîé àé àôùø ãìà ôâîä ôåøúà åàô"ä àñøä äëúåá

(c)

Answer #1: Perhaps also he holds that [even within 24 hours] it is impossible that the taste was not blunted a little, and even so the Torah forbids;

åùôéø î÷øé çéãåù ùçì÷ äëúåá áéï ôâí îøåáä ìôâí îåòè

1.

This is properly called a Chidush, for the Torah distinguished between a big blunting and a small blunting.

åòåã úéøõ ð"ò ãùôéø àéöèøéê ìöéøåó ãäà ã÷àîø ëì ùäåà äééðå ëùäåà áòéðéä àáì ëùäåà îòåøá ìà ñ"ã ìîéñø

(d)

Answer #2: He properly needs it for Tziruf. He said that one is lashed for any amount, i.e. when the Isur is intact, but when it is mixed, there is no Havah Amina to forbid (in a majority of Heter, without a Drashah ("Mishras") to forbid. Surely R. Shimon agrees that elsewhere, Bitul applies to Min b'Mino, and Min b'Eino Mino when it does not give taste! Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 68a DH v'Idach) brings like this from R. Yakar.)

åëé äàé âååðà àîø àáéé áîðçåú (ãó ðç.) áøééúà àéï ìé àìà ëå' ãáúø ãîøáéðï î÷øà î÷öúå ãäééðå çöé æéú îöøéê ÷øà ìòéøåáå.

(e)

Support: Similarly, Abaye said [regarding] the Beraisa "I would know only..." that after the verse teaches part, i.e. [one is liable for Haktarah of Se'or of] half a k'Zayis, he requires a verse for a mixture.

2)

TOSFOS DH Nazir Revi'is Yayin l'Nazir

úåñôåú ã"ä ðæéø øáéòéú ééï ìðæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is like Mishnah Rishonah.)

åäééðå ìîùðä øàùåðä (ìòéì ãó ìã:)

(a)

Explanation: This is according to Mishnah Rishonah (34b).

àò"â ã÷àîø ì÷îï áôìåâúà ìà ÷îééøé

(b)

Implied question: It says below that he does not discuss matters about which Tana'im argue!

äééðå âáé çéååøúà.

(c)

Answer: That is regarding white (i.e. not red) liquids. He does discuss red liquids about which Tana'im argue!

3)

TOSFOS DH Bar meha'Hi d'Batlei Betulei

úåñôåú ã"ä áø îääåà ãáèìéä áèåìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether there is a minimal size for a spring.)

ôéøåù äöøéëå àøáòéí ñàä àôé' ìîçèéï åöðåøéåú åáàãí ìòåìí áòéà î' ñàä ìî÷åä

(a)

Explanation: They obligated 40 Sa'im even for [Tevilah of] needles and forks. A person always requires 40 Sa'im.

38b----------------------------------------38b

åàîø øáé ãî"î øáéòéú ãîòééï ìà áèìåä åéëåì ìäèáéì îçèéï áîòééï àôé' ëì ùäåà

(b)

Limitation (Tosfos' Rebbi): In any case, they were not Mevatel a Revi'is for a Mayan (spring). One can immerse needles in a Mayan Kol she'Hu (any size, even if it is very small);

ãúðï (ú"ë ô' ùîéðé) î÷åä áî' ñàä åîòééï áëì ùäåà

1.

Source - (Toras Kohanim): A Mikveh of 40 Sa'im [is always Tahor]. A Mayan Kol she'Hu [is always Tahor].

åîã÷úðé î÷åä áî' ñàä òì ëøçê áúø ãáèìåä ãàé ÷åãí ìëï âí äî÷åä èäåø áøáéòéú

2.

Inference: Since it teaches a Mikveh of 40 Sa'im, you are forced to say that this is after they abolished [a Mikveh of a Revi'is for Kelim]. If it were before, also a Mikveh of a Revi'is is Tahor!

àìà áúø áéèåì ÷àîø å÷àîø áîòééï ëì ùäåà

i.

Rather, it is after Bitul, and it teaches a Mayan Kol she'Hu!

åìéëà ìîéîø ã÷åãí áéèåì àééøé åáàãí ãäà î÷åä áòéðï î' ñàä

3.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is before Bitul, and it teaches about a person, for a Mikveh for person requires 40 Sa'im!

[à"ë] âí äîòééï ìà îèäø àãí áëì ùäåà ãáòéðï îéí ùëì âåôå éúëñä áäï

4.

Rejection: If so (it discusses a person), also a Mayan Kol she'Hu is not Metaher a person, for we require water in which his entire body is covered!

åä"ð àîø áôø÷ áúøà ãçâéâä (ãó ëá.) ãäà àøòà çìçåìé îçìçìà åáòéðï àøáòéí ñàä

(c)

Support: It says in Chagigah (22a) that land is porous, yet [it is not considered connected to its source, i.e. a big river, so] we require 40 Sa'im;

àìîà ãîòééï áòéðï î' ñàä åìëì äôçåú áàãí àééøé

1.

Inference: A Mayan requires 40 Sa'im, at least for people.

åàéï ìúîåä] àé ìà] áèìå øáéòéú ãîòééï ìúðééä

(d)

Implied question: If they were not Mevatel a Revi'is for a Mayan (it is still Metaher Kelim), why didn't [R. Elazar] teach this?

ãàéëà ìîéîø (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãä"ä áôçåú îøáéòéú ñâé áîòééï.

(e)

Answer: We can say that less than a Revi'is suffices for a Mayan.

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Eino Chayav Ad she'Yochal Min ha'Anavim k'Zayis (pertains to Daf 34a)

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéðå çééá òã ùéàëì îï äòðáéí ëæéú (ùééê ìãó ìã.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains like R. Tam, that they argue only about the Shi'ur for drinking.)

åä"ä áùúéä åäééðå ëîùðä àçøåðä åëø"ò ãáñîåê

(a)

Explanation #1: The same applies to drinking, like Mishnah Acharonah, and like R. Akiva below;

îùðä øàùåðä òã ùéùúä øáéòéú ééï ôéøåù åä"ä ìàëéìä áøáéòéú

1.

Mishnah Rishonah said until he drinks a Revi'is. I.e. and the same applies to eating; [he is liable for] a Revi'is.

åùúéä áëæéú ëéöã îùòøéï îáéàéï æéú àâåøé åùå÷òå áëåñ îìà ééï [åäééï ùéåöà îîðå] àí ùåúä ëéåöà áå äééðå ëæéú

(b)

Explanation #1 (cont.): [Mishnah Acharonah holds that the Shi'ur for] drinking is a k'Zayis. How do we measure this? We bring an Aguri olive and submerge it in a cup full of wine. The wine that spills out, if he drinks as much as this, this is a k'Zayis.

åàëéìä áøáéòéú ëéöã (äâäú áøëú øàù) îùòøéðï ãëîå ùàëì îï äòðáéí ðåúðéï áëåñ îìà ééï àí éåöà îï äééï øáéòéú äøé àëì ëøáéòéú

1.

How do we measure eating a Revi'is? An amount like he ate of grapes, we put it in a cup full of wine. If a Revi'is of wine that spills out, he ate a Revi'is.

å÷ùä ìø"ú [òì] ôéøåù [æä] ãàéï ãøê äúðà áùåí î÷åí ìä÷ãéí îùðä àçøåðä ìîùðä øàùåð' áñãø

(c)

Question #1 (R. Tam): The Tana never teaches Mishnah Acharonah before Mishnah Rishonah!

åòåã ÷ùä ãîúçéìä ð÷è ëæéú ãäééðå îùðä àçøåðä ëø"ò åîôñé÷ áä áîùðä øàùåðä åùåá çåæø ìåîø ãáøé ø"ò ùäåà ëîùðä [àçøåðä]

(d)

Question #2: Initially he discussed a k'Zayis, like Mishnah Acharonah like R. Akiva, and interrupts with Mishnah Rishonah, and returns to say "this is R. Akiva's opinion", which is like Mishnah Acharonah!

åò"÷ ãìôé [æä] äéä ìå ìùðåú áîùðä øàùåðä òã ùéàëì øáéòéú ëéåï ãáàëéìä ôìéâé ãìéùðà ãîúðéúéï îùîò ãáàëéìä ìà ôìéâé

(e)

Question #3: According to this, he should have taught in Mishnah Rishonah "until he eats a Revi'is", since they argue [also] about eating. The wording of our Mishnah connotes that they do not argue about eating!

åò"÷ ãëé äéëé ãáòé äù"ñ èòîà ìãáøé ø' ò÷éáà ùîáéà ôñå÷ áâîøà ùîãîä ùúéä ìàëéìä äéä ìå ìéúï èòí ìîùðä øàùåðä àîàé îãîé (ùúéä ìàëéìä) àëéìä ìùúéä

(f)

Question #4: Just like the Gemara needs to give a reason for R. Akiva's words, i.e. the Gemara brings a verse that equates drinking to eating, it should have given a reason for Mishnah Rishonah, why it equates eating to drinking!

ìë"ð ìø"ú ãîúðé' ã÷úðé áøéùà òã ùéàëì îï äòðáéí ëæéú äééðå àìéáà [ãë"ò] ãáàëéìä ë"ò îåãå ãáëæéú

(g)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Our Mishnah, which taught in the Reisha, "until he eats a k'Zayis of grapes", is according to everyone. All agree that the Shi'ur of eating is a k'Zayis;

åìà ôìéâé àìà áùúéä ãîùðä øàùåðä òã ùéùúä øáéòéú ëãøê ëì ùúéä

1.

They argue only about drinking. Mishnah Rishonah holds that [he is exempt] until he drinks a Revi'is, like the Shi'ur of every drinking [of Isur];

åàò"â ãáàëéìä áëæéú ëãàîøéðï áô' ëì ùòä ãó ìá (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) [î"î] ùúéä ìà âîø îéðéä [ãàëéìä] åîöøéê ùúéä áøáéòéú

i.

Even though the Shi'ur of eating is a k'Zayis, like it says in Pesachim (32b), even so, we learn drinking from eating. For drinking, we require a Revi'is.

5)

TOSFOS DH v'Eino (part 2) (pertains to Daf 34a)

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéðå... (ùééê ìãó ìã.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses learning drinking from eating or vice-versa.)

åø"ò ëéåï ãëúéá òðáéí ìçéí åéáùéí ìà éàëì îä àëéìä áëæéú àó ëì àéñåøéí áëæéú

(a)

Citation of Gemara: R. Akiva holds that since it is written "va'Anavim Lachim vi'Yveshim Lo Yochel", just like the Shi'ur of eating is a k'Zayis, also all Isurim are a k'Zayis.

åé"å ãåòðáéí (äâäú áøëú øàù) ÷ãøéù àó ëì àéñåøé ðæéø áëæéú ãäééðå ùúéä ãëúéá ìòéì îéðéä åëì îùøú òðáéí ìà éùúä

(b)

Explanation: He expounds the Vov in "va'Anavim". Also all Isurim of Nazir, the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis, i.e. the Shi'ur of drinking, which is written above "v'Chol Mishras Yayin Lo Yishteh";

åäùúà åé"å ãåòðáéí îåñó òì ãìòéì ãëé äéëé ãòðáéí áëæéú äëé ðîé ùúéä äëúåá ìòéì áëæéú

1.

Now, the Vov in "va'Anavim" adds to what was written above. Just like the Shi'ur of grapes is a k'Zayis, also the Shi'ur of drinking, which is written above, is a k'Zayis.

åìôéøåù ÷îà âøñéðï áâîøà ú"÷ îãîé ëì àéñåøé ãðæéø ìùúéä ãúðà òã ùéùúä øáéòéú

(c)

Observation: According to Explanation #1 (above), the text of the Gemara says "the first Tana compares all Isurim of Nazir to drinking." The Tana taught until he drinks a Revi'is";

åø"ò [îãîä] ëì àéñåøé ðæéø ìàëéìä ôéøåù åéìéó ùúéä îàëéìä ëãôøéùéú.

1.

R. Akiva compares all Isurim of Nazir to eating. I.e. he learns drinking from eating, like I explained.

6)

TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan bi'Gemara

úåñôåú ã"ä ä"â áâîøà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos specifies the text.)

åîëàï àúä ãï ìëì àéñåøé ðæéø

(a)

Citation of Gemara: From here you learn to all Isurei Nazir. (This is unlike our text, which says "to all Isurim in the Torah.")

7)

TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan (part 2)

úåñôåú ã"ä ä"â (çì÷ á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not know these directly from the verse.)

çîøà çãúé åòéðáé,

(a)

Citation of Gemara: New wine and grapes.

àò"ô ùèòîí ùåä äåàéì ùäåà ùðé ùîåú ìå÷ä ùúéí

(b)

Explanation: Even though their taste is the same (new wine is grape juice), since they are two names (Isurim), he is lashed twice.

åà"ú úéôå÷ ìéä ãçîøà çãúé åòðáé ëúéá áäãéà á÷øà áúøé ìàåéï ãëúéá îééï åùëø éæéø [åîúøâîéðï] îçîø [çãú] åòúé÷ åòðáéí ëúéá

(c)

Question: We already know this because the Torah explicitly wrote new wine and grapes as two separate Lavim! The Targum of "mi'Yayin v'Shechar Yazir" is "me'Chamar Chadas v'Atik" (new and old wine), and grapes are written [explicitly]!

åé"ì ãàé îéæéø ä"à çãúà ëâåï úåê àøáòéí éåí åàçø ùìùä éîéí ùëáø àéï èòîå ëèòí òðáéí (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ)

(d)

Answer: If we learned only from "[mi'Yayin v'Shechar] Yazir", one might have thought that new wine is within 40 days but after three days, that it already lost the taste of grapes;

àáì ééï [çãù] îîù àéîà ìà îçééá àìà çãà ÷î"ì.

1.

However, truly new wine (grape juice within three days), he is liable only once (if he drank it and ate grapes. The general rule, i.e. whenever there are two names...) teaches that this is not so.

8)

TOSFOS DH v'Lilki Shesh mi'Kol Asher v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åìéì÷é ùù îëì àùø åâå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not consider other omissions.)

åà"ú åìçùåá ðîé äúðà ùëø åçåîõ

(a)

Question: The Tana should count also Shechar (old wine, that intoxicates) and vinegar!

åé"ì ãäà ìàå ùéåøà äåà ãìà ùééø (äâäú áøëú øàù) îéðéä àáì áäðê ãçùéá äúðà éù ìîðåú ëì äîì÷éåú ùáäí.

(b)

Answer: This is not a Shiyur (remnant), for he did not leave over from the same species. However, the others that the Tana counts, he should count all the lashes for them.

9)

TOSFOS DH Shiyer Bal Yachel

úåñôåú ã"ä ùééø áì éçì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the rejection of this answer.)

ãìéì÷é ðîé îùåí áì éçì,

(a)

Explanation: He [omitted teaching that] he is lashed also for Bal Yachel.

ìàå ùéåøà, ëé ÷úðé îéìúà ãìéúà áùàø àéñåøéï àìà áðæéø àáì áì éçì ùééê áùàø ðãøéí ðîé

1.

[We reject that] this is not a Shiyur. The Tana taught only things that do not apply to Isurim other than Nazir. Bal Yachel applies also to other Nedarim.

åà"ú åëé ðàîø ëï ëãé ìä÷ùåú ìàáéé

(b)

Question: Should we say so to challenge Abaye?! (He can say that the Tana did not restrict himself like this, and it is a proper Shiyur!)

åé"ì ã÷àîø äëé îùåí ãìà ú÷ùé ìøáà îàé ùééø ãäàé ùééø ãùééø áì éçì àåîø äâî' ëï

(c)

Answer: We say so, so we will not challenge Rava, "what else did [the Tana] omit in addition to this Shiyur, that he omitted Bal Yachel. This is why the Gemara said so.

ãåîéà ãäëé îôøù ø"é áô"÷ ãá"÷ (ãó èå.) âáé àé îùåí çöé ëåôø ìàå ùéåøà äåà.

(d)

Support: The Ri explained like this in Bava Kama (15a) regarding Chetzi Kofer is not a Shiyur.

10)

TOSFOS DH Ha Shiyer Bein ha'Beinayim

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà ùééø áéï äáéðéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this according to both Perushim of Bein ha'Beinayim.)

÷åùéà äåà ìî"ã ãìà éçì ìà äåé ùéåø àîàé ùééø áéï äáéðéí

(a)

Explanation: This is a question. According to the opinion that Lo Yachel is not a Shiyur, why did he omit Bein ha'Beinayim? (Gilyon ha'Shas - no one needs to hold like this. Tosfos said that Rava could say so if we would challenge him. If Bein ha'Beinayim is a Shiyur, Rava can say that also Lo Yachel is a Shiyur! If so, this is not a question.)

åà"ú äúéðç ìôé' ø"ú ãôéøù (ìòéì ãó ìä.) ãáéï äáéðéí äééðå òðáéí ÷èðéí ãúðà áàëéìä ëã÷úðé åàëì òðáéí áéï âãåìéí áéï ÷èðéí îùîò

(b)

Question: This is fine for R. Tam, who explained (35a) Bein ha'Beinayim are small grapes. He taught them regarding eating, like it taught "and he ate grapes." This connotes whether they are big or small;

åùééø [ìàå ùì (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ] ÷èðéí ùìà îðàï äìëê ôøéê ùôéø

1.

He omitted the Lav of small grapes. He did not count them. Therefore, it is a proper question.

àìà ìôéøåù ùðé ùôéøù ìòéì ãäáéðééí äééðå [âåó] äòðáéí äøé ãúðà ìà ùééø ëìåí ã÷úðé ìå÷ä ä' äééðå îùåí òðáéí ìàå àçã

2.

However, according to the second Perush there, that Bein ha'Beinayim is the grape itself (what is between the peel and the pit), the Tana did not omit anything. He taught that he is lashed five times, i.e. because "grapes" is one Lav!

åé"ì ãâí ìàåúå ôé' ùééø ìàå ãéãéä ãìàå ãçéåá òðáéí äééðå ëùàåëìï ùìîéí ëãøê ùàåëìéí òðáéí

(c)

Answer: Also according to that Perush, he omitted its Lav (of Bein ha'Beinayim). The Chiyuv Lav of grapes is when he eats them whole, the way people [normally] eat grapes;

àáì îì÷è äàåëì ùáéðé åáéðé ùàéï ãøê ìàëåì ëï æäå ìàå àçø ùì áéï äáéðééí åäúðà ùééøå

1.

However, if one gathers the food in between [the peel and the pit], which is not normal to eat this way, this is a different Lav of Bein ha'Beinayim. The Tana omitted it.

åàó òì ôé ùîìùåï äúðà ðîé îùîò ùùðä åàëì àú äáéðééí ãøê ìé÷åè ãàåëì òðáéí îùîò áëì òðéï àôéìå áìé÷åè

(d)

Implied question: The words of the Tana connote also if he deviated and ate the middle through gathering. "One who eats grapes" connotes every way, even through gathering!

àôéìå äëé ìàå ãéãéä ùééø ãàì"ë ìéì÷é ùù.

(e)

Answer: Even so, he omitted this Lav (of Bein ha'Beinayim). If not, he should say that he is lashed six times!