I'm having trouble understanding Tosfos 61b DH Ela Amar Rava (end) is bothered by. He asks what l'Olah comes to teach at the end of the day if we already learned that Nochrim are completely excluded from the Din of Nezirus from 'Bnei Yisrael", and he gives an answer. Didn't the gemara just explain that we need l'Olah to teach that they cant bring Nezirus Korbanos or else we would say that that is what Bnei Yisrael teaches and Ish would then include them to become Nezirim? So why doesn't tosfot just say that we need it to tech that ???? and that's it, why does he find it still extra and expounds it to teach a totally different ????. I'm so confused. I hope my question came out clearly and am looking forward to an answer from the Rav.
Thank you and all the best,
Elisha Yagudayev
Elisha Yagudayev, Flushing, United states
1) At this stage Tosfos is understanding that Nochrim are totally excluded from Nezirus, not merely from the Korbanos of Nezirus. The Derasha of "Ish" comes later in the Gemara.
2) Your question is asked by the Orach Mishor. He asks that if we would not have had the verse of "l'Olah" we would have said that the verse "Bnei Yisrael" teaches only that Nochrim cannot bring a Korban Nezirus, but I would still think that they can become a Nazir. The Orach Mishor writes that if there would only have been one verse, this would have been the logical way of looking at the matter; since we know that Nochrim can make Nedarim, why should they not be able to become a Nazir too? Even though they could not bring a Korban, they could still be a Nazir without a Korban. It is only once we have two verses, both "l'Olah" and "Bnei Yisrael," that we say that Nezirus does not apply at all, either with or without a Korban. Therefore, the Orach Mishor remains with a question on Tosfos: How can Tosfos ask why we need the verse of "l'Olah," since we need this verse to tell us that "Bnei Yisrael" does not merely teach that a Nochri cannot bring a Korban Nazir but that he cannot become a Nazir at all?
3) The Keren Orah answers with the help of the Gemara in Kidushin 4a. There, the Gemara brings two verses to prove that the Amah ha'Ivriyah goes free both with Bagrut (age 12 1/2) and with Na'arut (age 12). The Gemara there asks why does the Torah not write just one verse, that she goes free at the age of 12, and we would not require another verse that she goes free at 12 and a half? One learns from the question of the Gemara that if one can learn from only one verse, one must do so. Even though the fact is that if we would have had only one verse there, we would have said it refers to her going free at Bagrut, but since it can be derived from one verse, we do not need to employ a different verse. This is what Tosfos means when he asks here that we should learn it all from "Bnei Yisrael." It is not necessary to have another verse to tell us what we would have theoretically said if we did not have the verse of "Bnei Yisrael."
Dovid Bloom
I thought I should just add a little explanation to the concept I cited above in the name of the Keren Orah. The Keren Orah writes a very significant idea:
"Lo Mistaber l'Michtav Kra l'Davar she'Eino."
"It is not logical that the Torah should write a verse about something which does not exist."
The Keren Orah bases this on the Gemara in Kidushin 4a which asks, how is it possible that the Torah should write two verses -- one that she goes free at age 12 and one that she goes free at age 12 and a half? The Keren Orah adds that even though had we had only one verse, we would said that it means she goes free only at 12 and a half, nevertheless since at the end of the day the fact is that she goes free at 12, this means that only one of the verses can be discussing something that actually happens, namely, that she goes free at 12.
The Keren Orah explains that this is the rule we learn from Kidushin 4a -- that the Torah does not write a verse for a merely theoretical circumstance, which does not exist in reality.
This, then, is the question of Tosfos here. Since at the end of the day, the Nochrim have no connection to Nezirus, neither to actually become Nezirim nor to bring Korbanos, how is it possible to have two verses telling us only one thing, namely, that there is no Nezirus at all for Nochrim? And why then is the verse "l'Olah" necessary to tell us that they cannot bring a Korban, if we clearly know already that there is no such thing as a Korban Nezirus for them?
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you for the response.
I'm sorry Rav but I don't understand his answer at all. Isn't that EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what the gemara was saying? The gemara also says that we have to teach the lesser Chidush. The ONLY way we can learn that they are excluded from Nezirus from "Benei Yisrael" is if "l'Olah" excludes them from korbanos because otherwise, we would say that "Ish" includes them to be a nazir just like it includes by Erechin. How can we now say that we learn that they are totally excluded from just "Benei Yisrael"? Further, I don't understand the keren orah's explanation of the Tzarich Iyun of tosafos. At the end of the first paragraph there, he says that there remains a question since maybe "l'Olah" teaches about bringing for a jew (like tosafos says) but "Benei Yisrael" teaches that he can't bring his own korbanot. Why would we say that this is what bnei israel teaches if we just said that we can make it teach the most inclusive law (still not sure why that's allowed) and say that they are totally excluded from Nezirus.
All the best,
Elisha Yagudayev
1) Elisha, I must conceed that my very first answer here was written when I was at the very beginning of the Sugya and I do not think it is worth putting a lot of weight on it. However, after saying that, I can point out that I found something very interesting in the "Sheyarei Korban" to the Talmud Yerushalmi here, and possibly one could fit in what I wrote with this; but at any rate what is a lot more important is that we should think about what the Sheyarei Korban writes.
a) The Sheyarei Korban is a very important Mefaresh on the Talmud Yerushalmi printed in the back of a lot of standard editions of Yerushalmi Nazir. At the beginning of the ninth chapter of Yerushalmi Nazir, the Sheyarei Korban explains the question of Tosfos (end of DH Ela Amar Rava).
The Sheyarei Korban writes that what Tosfos means with his question is that since we conclude that "Ish" is written because the Torah states "Ki Yafli" (Bamidbar 6:2), the question now is: why does the Torah need to write "Ish"? If the Torah would not have written "Ish," we would not have needed the word "l'Olah"!
b) I understand that the question is that "Ish" and "l'Olah" are two contradictory words. "Ish" tells us that Nochrim may bring Korbanos of Nezirus, while "l'Olah" tells us that they cannot bring such Korbanos. If so, why does the Torah need to write "l'Olah" to teach that they cannot bring Korbanos of Nezirus? Just leave out "Ish" and we would have no reason in the first place to think that they could bring Korbanos of Nezirus!
c) This, then, is the meaning of Tosfos' question; "l'Olah" is superfluos because if we would not have had the word "Ish" we would have thought anyway that Nochrim are totally excluded from any connection to Nezirus.
2) Answer to the question on the Keren Orah:
a) It should first be pointed out that the Keren Orah is not explaning the Tzarich Iyun of Tosfos. Rather, he is commenting on what Tosfos writes imediately before the Tzarich Iyun -- namely, that "l'Olah" is teaching that the Nochri cannot bring a Korban to exempt the Yisrael.
b) We might say that the word "Ish" tells us that Nochrim do have a part in Nezirus. If so, "Bnei Yisrael" would teach that a Nochrim only cannot bring his own Korbanos, but he could be a Nazir.
Kol Tuv,
DOvid Bloom
Thank you Rav for all your time.
Forgive me but I still don't have it 100% clear. I looked at the Sheyarei korban inside and I think I understand the STRUCTURE of his answer, but don't understand the details. If I am not mistaken, the structure of the answer is as follows: The only reason why we would potentially say that Bnei Yisrael excluded them from the korbanos is because Ish would include them to be nezirim. If we didn't have the word Ish, then Bnei Yisrael would full exclude them from nezirus. He says that now that Ish is only written for Ki Yafli, it doesnt teach anything and we would therefore totally exclude them from Bnei Yisrael. Therefore we don't need l'Olah to exclude them from korbanos so it is free for tosafos' drasha.
My problem is that that makes sense, but the WHOLE REASON why we are forced to say that Ish is just written for Ki Yafli and doesn't teach anything is BECAUSE l'Olah excludes them from korbanos and therefore Bnei Yisrael must completely exclude them. If not for l'Olah teaching that, we would say that Ish does teach something, namely that they are included in nezirus, and is not just written for Ki Yafli. I feel like we keep going in circles with this. I apologize if it's just me not understanding the sugya. Once again, I truly appreciate all your time and effort, Rav Bloom.
All the best,
Elisha Yagudayev
1) The word "Ish" in Bamidbar 6:2 is not necessary. It makes the verse read a bit better, but it would have been possible simply to write "Ki Yafli" without writing "Ish" there at all. Therefore, since it was possible not to write "Ish" in Bamidbar 6:2, if the Torah indeed would not have written it there, it would have been unnecessary to write "l'Olah" to cancel out "Ish." There would have been no "Ish" to include them in Korbanos so there would have been no need for "l'Olah" to exclude them. There is no need for us to say that "Ish" comes to teach something.
2) It occurred to me that we may be able to use the idea of the Sheyarei Korban to explain the opinion of the Rambam in our Sugya.
a. The Rambam (Hilchos Nezirus 2:16) writes very tersely,
"The Aku do not possess Nezirus, as is said, 'Speak to the children of Yisrael.'"
b. The simple reading is that, according to the Rambam, the Akum not only do not become Nezirim, but also do not bring Korbanos of Nezirus. In addition, the Rambam does not seem to make mention of either the verse "Ish" or "l'Olah" which are both mentioned in the Sugya.
c. My suggestion is that the way of the Rambam is only to mention the conclusion of the Sugya. The Rambam learns that "Ish" and "l'Olah" cancel each other out, because they are opposite Derashos. At the end of the day, all that is left is "Bnei Yisrael" which teaches that Akum nether become Nezirim nor bring Korbanos of Nazir.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom