More Discussions for this daf
1. Non-Jewish Nazir 2. ha'Kusim 3. Kol Mitzvah sheha'Ishah Chayeves Bah
4. What we learn from l'Olah 5. ואימא עכו"ם אינו מדיר את בנו בנזיר 6. נכרים אינם בירושה
DAF DISCUSSIONS - NAZIR 61

Gary Schreiber asked:

It seems that the gemmara requires the posuk of "l'aviv u'l imo lo yitamah"[Bamidbar 6:7] to exclude non-Jews from Nazir otherwise we might try to include them in part as we do with eruchin. That being the case why does the gemmara need the drasha of "daber el Bnei Yisroel "[Bamidbar 6:2](and not to to non-Jews) at all, since we could exclude them on the basis of l'aviv u'limo alone? ie It seems that the posuk really only comes to include slaves which are learned out from "v'armartem" in the posuk [6:2]

Thanks

Gary Schreiber, Chicago, IL USA

The Kollel replies:

The Beraisa includes slaves from "v'Amarta Aleihem", not from "Bnei Yisrael" (as you yourself wrote). So what do you suggest we learn from "Bnei Yisrael"?

And the same Tana excludes Nochrim from "Bnei Yisrael." What makes you think that the Gemara refutes that Limud?

The Gemara only cites "l'Aviv ul'Imo" to preclude the suggestion that we limit the Derashah of "Bnei Yisrael", 've'Lo Nochrim' to the Din of Korban (see Tosfos DH 've'Ha).

It also makes sense to say that the main Derashah is from "Bnei Yisrael", and not l'Aviv ul'Imo", because the Gemara on Daf 49a learned something completely different from "l'Aviv ul'Imo" (by Nazir). So here, it comes merely to support the Derashah from "Bnei Yisrael", and not as a main Derashah.

Another point is that if the main Derashah was from "l'Aviv ul'Imo", why would the Torah need to add "l'Imo"? Why would "l'Aviv" alone not suffice?

Be'Virchas Kol Tuv.

Eliezer Chrysler