I'm a little confused at what r' avina's maskana is(46b end of gemara). Does he hold that according to the chachamim, tenufah IS meakev? How can we say this if the mishna clearly says that r' shimon holds that after one of the bloods is sprinkled, his neziris is done. Further, in the last mishna of the perek (47a), it clearly states that if he became Tamei after sprinkling one of the bloods, the korban is good since his nezirus was over (even before he did tenufah)!
Even if we say that he agrees that according to the chachamim tunfah is not meakev and just leaves off with a question on them, we could just answer that the braita of "zot torah hanazir" is according to r'eliezer (and even though the rosh explains that r'eliezer would learn that out from achar yishtei hanazir yayin which would mean even after tenufah, but since we see that chachamim obviously don't hold that tenufah is meakev, as seen from the above mishnayos, we should say like the first lashon of the gemara that this beraita is r' eliezer, and he would not learn tenufah is meakev from "achar"(perhaps because usually tenufah is not meakev so we need a special source to tell us it is here of zot torat hanazir)).
If the Rav can please clarify the maskana according to r' avina, I would greatly appreciate it.
(As an aside, I asked a question on daf 43a I believe, about the issur of "lo yavo" by a nazir, a while back. If the rav answered it, do you mind resending it because I havent received anything. If the rav didn't get up to it yet,then disregard this message and thank you for taking the time to answer our questions)
Elisha Yagudayev, Flushing , United States
I understand the difficulty in explaining Rav Avina. He is basically reverting to the previous explanation of the Gemara that Beis Hillel maintains that a Nazir without hair cannot fulfill his obligation, and similarly a Nazir without hands cannot fulfill Tenufah. This of course presupposes that Tenufah is Me'akev but it is still in accordance with the Chachamim, since even though they maintain that a Nazir can drink one after one "individual act" (see 46a), this means only that there is no Isur once he brings one of his Korbanos, but all of the aspects of that Korban -- including Tenufah -- are Me'akev, and therefore if he cannot do Tenufah he is not yet permitted to drink wine, even though the other Korbanos are not Me'akev. So Rav Avina is explaining according to the Chachamim and asking how the Gemara can say that Tenufah is not Me'akev since we have proof that Tenufah is Me'akev from the Beraisa.
I'm sorry if I wasn't entirely clear. Even if we say that R' avina holds that tenufah is meakev according to the chachamim, shouldn't the mishna I mentioned above disprove that since it holds that if he became tamei after just sprinkling, he is not soter, so it must be that they hold that tenufah is not meakev. How would r' avina explain these mishnayos?
I think Rav Avina understands the Mishnah to mean that even though he is not Soter, he still has to do all the Avodos relating to that Korban including Tenufah. Once he has done Tenufah, he has completed his Nezirus since he only became Tamei after sprinkling. The requirement of Tenufah then enables the Nazir to drink wine (as this is all part of the Ma'aseh Yechidi needed to drink wine), but after he has sprinkled he will not be Soter despite not finishing all of the Korbanos.