For the case of R Yishmael Chatas no Olah (she was metameh herself as a nazir and afterward her husband was mefer), Tosfos has to make a stretch to justify bring the Chatas - since a Chtas can be brought on a safek, so even on the 'alila kol dehoo' of initially depriving oneself of wine, it's justifiable to sacrifice without concern of chulin bazara.
Why not instead answer that the case is where she did a a vadei wrong in violating her nezerus, where it would seem for sure justifiable to sacrifice without concern of chulin bazara. The Sfrei Ois 17 in Bamidbar perek 30 pasuk 6 ???? ?? where she violated her nezirus without knowing that he husband had been mefer it!? In this question her chatas comes for the violation of the nezirus that she thought was upon her but in reality wasn't, even thought he husband is meaker the nezirus, she needs forgiveness and the case to bring a chataas for such forgiveness seems stronger than the case of the gmara - In our gmara the initial mtzaar atmo min hayayin causes the need for chatas.
hank you for your interesting and challenging question. The Sefer Mishnas Shalom (Rav Shalom Gotlieb) (Siman 15) quotes what the Brisker Rav said in the name of his father, Rav Chaim Soloveichik, that the ability to bring a Chatas ha'Of for a Safek is not optional (Reshus), but rather an obligation to purify oneself to eat Kodshim (by bringing the Korban), even though the original cause for the obligation of this Korban is a Safek and no longer a legitimate cause to bring that Karban. The Mishnas Shalom extrapolates and says that after Hafarah, even though there is no obligation to bring the Korban Chatas ha'Of due to the Dinei Nezirus (which were duly nullified), it is possible to achieve purification for the sin of suffering by abstinence from wine which she experienced in reality, even though (retroactively) the Neder Nezirus was not the cause for the Korban.
In order to understand this more fully, note the words of the Tosfos Rid in a responsum (Siman 8) that "[when discussing the] suffering referred to by Rebbi Elazar... at the time... she experienced [real] suffering, and it is impossible to uproot the suffering retroactively [saying] it did not happen."
In addition, I would like to add that the Gemara in Nedarim says only that she needs "Selichah" but in actuality she did not commit an Aveirah due to her husband's Hafarah; this is not so in our case, where -- although the Nezirus was not in effect -- in actuality she did not drink wine and the suffering from abstinence itself is the sin. (Compare the Gemara in Ta'anis 11 that someone who fasts is called a sinner, although you could counter that there also is a Neder to fast.) Therefore, the case of Nazir 19 is more stringent than the case of Bamidbar 30:6
Shimon Brodie
hanks so much! Before I can respond, let's back up a step to see what you think about these:
1. Does Rebbi Elazar Hakafer's Nazir Choteh statement apply to someone who merely accepted Neziros but has not yet actually suffered (or never will if the Nezirus is cancelled) OR only to a nazir who has actually suffered wine abstinence?
2. If the former, is Rashi 19a "leolam miakar akar specifically writing 'she'Nazrah Atzmah me'ha'Yayin' to make this point?
3. Does the case on 19a ha'Ishah she'Nadrah b'Nazir v'Nitmeis v'Achar Kach Heifir Lah Ba'alah Mevi'ah Chat'as ha'Of v'Einah Mevi'ah Olas ha'Of include where the husband was mefer within a very short time lapse from her kabala so that it's possible she has not yet actually suffered any wine abstinence?
4. Do you agree that my premise "Tosfos has to make a stretch to justify bring the Chatas - since a Chtas can be brought on a safek, so even on the 'alila kol dehoo' of initially depriving oneself of wine, it's justifiable to sacrifice without concern of chulin bazara. Why not instead answer that the case is where she did a a vadei wrong in violating her nezerus, where it would seem for sure justifiable to sacrifice without concern of chulin bazara. The Sfrei Ois 17 in Bamidbar perek 30 pasuk 6 ???? ?? where she violated her nezirus without knowing that he husband had been mefer it!? In this question her chatas comes for the violation of the nezirus that she thought was upon her but in reality wasn't, even thought he husband is meaker the nezirus, she needs forgiveness and the case to bring a chataas for such forgiveness seems stronger than the case of the gmara outweighs the counter argument that while a woman whose husband was mefer for her but she didn't know and but for that 'violated' her Nezrios and needs forgiveness, true she needs forgiveness but that cannot justify brining a karbon Chatas toward such forgiveness. BUT, in contrast, a person who brought upon himself to suffer wine abstinence thereby needing forgiveness, albeit this rises merely to the status of 'alila' (logically but not practically lower than safek chatas status per Tosfos) can be better justified brining a karbon Chatas toward such forgiveness than said woman because he in fact of matter did something wrong but she (miakar akar) did not in fact do anything wrong but for think she did, which needs forgiveness but isn't karban-worthy?
Once we are on common ground on above issues, their removal out of the equation allows for them not disturbing the ensuing discussion on your answer.
Daniel Gray
Toronto Ontario
1) The Gemara says in Kidushin 31a that someone who is commanded to do a Mitzvah and fulfills his obligation has more reward than someone who fulfills the Mitzvah voluntarily. The Ritva there says that the reason is that the Satan raises opposition to the Mitzvah and "Lefum Tzara Agra." We can extrapolate from there that just accepting on oneself self-denial already purveys a measure of suffering. Perhaps this is also borne out by the Gemara in Bava Metzia 84a, that immediately upon his accepting to learn Torah, Reish Lakish was weakened even though he had not begun to learn Torah at all. This question is also similar to the great wisdom of Shlomo ha'Melech who, commanded by his father to frame Shim'i ben Geira and cause his death, told Shim'i that he had full freedom except that he was not to leave Yerushalayim. He did so knowing that as soon as one is told not to do something, he has a tremendous urge to do it, and that it was now inevitable that Shim'i would leave Yerushalayim, and as having rebelled against the king he would be liable for capital punishment.
Even though these are not conclusive proofs, they are enough basis to state that it cannot be ruled out that mere acceptance of Nezirus causes suffering.
2) That is truly an excellent Diyuk in the Mefaresh, that acceptance of the Nezirus is enough to be called "suffering" and "a sinner." However, it is also inconclusive, because even if the intention is that she must actually execute the Nezirus in order to suffer, the language chosen would still be proper and not misleading.
3) According to what I wrote in #1 above, the amount of time spent in Nezirus would be irrelevant. One second is enough to experience that moment of feeling, "Oh no! What have I done!?" (which generally intensifies the more time has passed).
4) According to all of the above, we could really look at it from an entirely different angle. Someone to whom Hash-m has given good life and all of his needs is really out of place accepting on himself unnecessary abstinence. You could not find a way to thank Hash-m or to improve without suffering?
On the other hand, someone who has already (rightly or wrongly) placed herself in that tough spot of being a Nezirah, and feels a tremendous pressure to act out against the restraints of the Kedushah, although her behavior is unjustified, it is readily understood. Of course, having broken her commitments she desereves punishment, but if she was so lucky to become Tamei or drunk only after her husband nullified her Nezirus it would not be so difficult to envision her as a victim of her nature, upon which Chazal teach us that she in fact needs "Selichah." Therefore, I personally do not see any obvious logic dictating that this is the Aveirah for which Tosfos should have attributed the Chatas ha'Of.
Shimon Brodie