QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that when a person accepts upon himself to become a Nazir only with regard to the prohibition against eating grapeseeds or grapeskins, all of the laws of Nezirus take effect and all of the prohibitions apply. The Gemara explains that Rebbi Shimon disagrees and maintains that a person does not become a Nazir until he accepts all of the laws of Nezirus upon himself; if he accepts only some of the laws, the Nezirus does not take effect at all. The Rabanan in the Mishnah derive their view -- that one becomes a full Nazir when he accepts any of the laws of Nezirus -- from the verse, "He shall be a Nazir from wine (mi'Yayin) and aged wine (v'Shechar)" (Bamidbar 6:3), which implies that by accepting upon himself even one of the prohibitions of Nezirus he becomes a Nazir. Rebbi Shimon, in contrast, derives a different Halachah from the extra word "v'Shechar" -- that word teaches that a person is liable for entering the Beis ha'Mikdash while intoxicated only when he is intoxicated with wine.

The Gemara continues and says, "Alternatively, Rebbi Shimon does not agree with the principle of Isur Chal Al Isur, as Rebbi Shimon says that a person who eats Neveilah on Yom Kippur is exempt from punishment for eating on Yom Kippur."

The words of the Gemara are difficult to understand. The concept of "Isur Chal Al Isur" seems to be unrelated to the Sugya. The Gemara is discussing only one Isur, the Isur of Nezirus, and not two, such that there should be a question of "Isur Chal Al Isur." Why does the Gemara assume that there is a second Isur which takes effect upon a pre-existing Isur?

Moreover, why does the Gemara say that only Rebbi Shimon maintains that a second Isur cannot take effect on another Isur? All of the Tana'im agree that a second Isur cannot take effect on another Isur! Rebbi Shimon's opinion is unique only in that he maintains that even an "Isur Kolel" or an "Isur Mosif" cannot take effect on a pre-existing Isur.

(a) TOSFOS (DH Rebbi Shimon) and the ROSH explain that the Gemara means that Rebbi Shimon maintains that an Isur cannot take effect on an Isur when the second Isur is an "Isur Kolel." This means that even if the second Isur includes more objects than the first Isur, the second Isur still cannot take effect on the objects that were prohibited by the first Isur (but only on the other objects). The Rabanan maintain that the second Isur takes effect on all of the objects, even those prohibited by the first Isur. Still, though, in what way is this issue related to the Gemara's discussion of the verse what the verse of "v'Shechar" teaches?

The verse teaches that a person who made a Neder or a Shevu'ah not to drink wine, and afterwards he accepted upon himself Nezirus, the Nezirus takes effect and he is prohibited from drinking wine because of his Neder (or Shevu'ah) and because of the Isur of Nezirus even though, in most other situations, an Isur cannot take effect upon another Isur. The Rabanan do not need a verse to teach this because the Isur of Nezirus is an Isur Kolel; since the Isur of Nezirus prohibits him from becoming Tamei to Mesim and from shaving his hair, it also takes effect with regard to wine and grape products.

The KEREN ORAH finds support for this interpretation from the Gemara in Makos (22a). The Mishnah there (21b) states that when a person who is both a Nazir and a Kohen who plows a field which contains a grave on a day which is both Shabbos and Yom Tov is liable for numerous sets of Malkus for his single act. The Gemara there proves that the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Shimon who says that even an Isur Kolel cannot take effect on a previous Isur. The SHA'AGAS ARYEH (#60) asks that if the Mishnah follows Rebbi Shimon, how is it possible that a Kohen-Nazir could also be liable for becoming Tamei to Mesim because of his Nezirus? The Nezirus is a second Isur of Tum'ah and should not take effect on the existing Isur Tum'ah of a Kohen! The KEREN ORAH points out that according to the words of Tosfos here, the question of the Sha'agas Aryeh is no question: even Rebbi Shimon agrees that Nezirus takes effect on a pre-existing Isur because of the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of "v'Shechar."

The logic behind this Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, according to Rebbi Shimon, may be as follows. In most situations, an Isur Kolel cannot cause a new Isur to take effect on an object which is prohibited already by a different Isur because the other objects that become prohibited by the Isur Kolel do not force the new Isur to take effect on the object which is already prohibited by the pre-existing Isur. For example, in a normal case of Isur Kolel, such as the Isur of Neveilah and the Isur of Yom Kippur, the Isur of Yom Kippur prohibits a person from eating all foods. The Rabanan maintain that since the Isur of Yom Kippur takes effect to prohibit foods which are usually permitted, it also takes effect to prohibit meat of Neveilah as well. Rebbi Shimon maintains that there is no need for the Isur of Yom Kippur to take effect with regard to Neveilah; it takes effect only with regard to permitted foods, and the Neveilah remains prohibited only because of the Isur of Neveilah. In the case of a Nazir, however, the Isurim of Nezirus are tied to each other and interdependent because of the rule of "Ein Nezirus l'Chatza'in" -- in order for one Isur of Nezirus to take effect, all of the Isurim of Nezirus must take effect. Therefore, when one accepts upon himself a full Nezirus, it must take effect on the Isur of wine as well in order for it to take effect on the Isur of Tum'ah and the Isur of shaving. Accordingly, the Isurim of Tum'ah and shaving draw along with them, so to speak, the Isur of wine so that it takes effect even according to Rebbi Shimon.

The other Rishonim who offer different explanations might have rejected this explanation because the Gemara should not have emphasized the negative with regard to all other cases by saying that in all other cases an Isur does not take effect on another Isur (when no Gezeiras ha'Kasuv says that it does). Rather, the Gemara should have emphasized the positive with regard to Nezirus -- that Rebbi Shimon needs a verse to teach that in the case of Nazir, an Isur does take effect on an Isur.

(b) The ROSH and RASHBA (Teshuvos 4:109) cite RABEINU TAM who explain that Rebbi Shimon derives from "v'Shechar" the rule that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur." The verse teaches that if a person made a Neder or Shevu'ah not to drink wine and then he became a Nazir, his Nezirus does not take effect.

The Rosh questions Rabeinu Tam's approach. Why must Rebbi Shimon derive "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" from "v'Shechar"? The Gemara in Chulin (101a) cites a different source to teach that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" according to Rebbi Shimon! The Rashba answers that the source quoted in Chulin teaches that a second Isur cannot take effect on a pre-existing Isur which came about by itself, such as the Isur of Yom Kippur taking effect on the Isur of Neveilah. However, the verse here teaches that even if the first Isur is one which a person creates himself (Neder or Shevu'ah), the second Isur cannot take effect to prohibit the object a second time. (The Gemara cites a case of one who eats Neveilah on Yom Kippur only as an example of Rebbi Shimon's opinion in other places, but that case is not what he learns from the verse of "v'Shechar.")

The Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Shimon maintain (according to Rabeinu Tam) that an Isur does take effect on another Isur when the first Isur is one the person created himself. (The Rashba suggests that perhaps the Rabanan maintain that a second Isur takes effect even on an Isur which came about by itself, and even when it is not an Isur Kolel or Isur Mosif. The Rashba's suggestion is in contrast to how the other Rishonim view the opinion of the Rabanan.)

The Rashba clearly does not consider the Isur of Nazir to be an Isur Kolel with regard to a previous Neder or Shevu'ah not to drink wine. Why, though, is it not an Isur Kolel? After all, the Nezirus adds an Isur of Tum'ah and an Isur of shaving. (AVNEI MILU'IM, Teshuvah 15)

1. The AVNEI MILU'IM answers, based on the words of TOSFOS in Yevamos (32b, DH Isur Kolel Hu), that an Isur can be called an Isur Kolel only if it is the same Lav which prohibits the objects that were heretofore permitted and the object that was heretofore prohibited. In such a case, the Isur takes effect on all of the objects. In the case of Nazir, three different Lavim are involved -- the Isur which prohibits wine, the Isur which prohibits becoming Tamei, and the Isur which prohibits shaving. Accordingly, when the other Isurim take effect they cannot cause the Isur of wine to take effect. (According to this, if one made a Neder not to eat grapeseeds and then he became a Nazir, the Nezirus would take effect because of Isur Kolel, according to the Rabanan.)

The Avnei Milu'im asks, however, that there is another Isur which encompasses all of the Isurim of Nazir: the Isur of "Lo Yachel Devaro," not to profane his word. That Isur should be an Isur Kolel! The Avnei Milu'im answers that the Isur of Lo Yachel applies only to the Isurim which one intended to create with his word. When the individual Isur of drinking wine does not take effect because Nezirus is not an Isur Kolel, his word did not mean to include that Isur and thus his word also did not include the Isur of Lo Yachel for the Isur of wine.

2. The RASHBA writes (in his Teshuvah) that the Lav which prohibits a Nazir from drinking wine is an Isur Cheftza (an Isur which takes effect on the object and not on the person), like a Neder. Accordingly, it can prohibit him from wine even if he previously made a Shevu'ah to obligate himself to drink wine. This is because a Neder (which takes effect on the Cheftza) which a person makes to prohibit the object of a Mitzvah (which takes effect on the Gavra, person) is binding and effectively prohibits him from performing the Mitzvah, even though he is already avowed ("Mushba v'Omed me'Har Sinai") to observe the Mitzvah. This is what the verse of "mi'Yayin v'Shechar" teaches, as the Gemara says here (beginning of 3a).

However, the Rashba does not discuss the Isurim of Tum'ah and shaving. These Isurim clearly appear to take effect on the person himself and not on any Cheftza. The person is not prohibiting any particular object with these Isurim, but he is prohibiting acts (becoming Tamei, shaving). Moreover, there is no Gezeiras ha'Kasuv to teach that these Isurim should take effect to override a Mitzvah. (See, however, MAHARIT cited by the Avnei Milu'im, who suggests an explanation for how those Isurim are also Isurei Cheftza.)

Accordingly, the Rashba perhaps understands that since the Isurim are intrinsically different, an Isur Cheftza cannot take effect through "Kolel" on an Isur Gavra. (M. Kornfeld)

3. The MINCHAS CHINUCH (#368) explains that since Nezirus cannot take effect in part (l'Chatza'in), the other Isurim of Nezirus cannot take effect until the Isur of wine takes effect. Therefore, no Isur takes effect such that it would cause the Isur of wine to take effect through "Kolel." (This is a novel understanding of the definition of the principle that "Nezirus cannot take effect l'Chatza'in." The Minchas Chinuch is teaching that even if all of the Isurim of Nezirus will take effect, the person still does not become a Nazir because the Isurim must all come about as a result of the Lav of Nazir and not as a result of a pre-existing Isur such as a Shevu'ah.)

(c) The MEFARESH here (and as cited by the Rashba in the name of Rashi) explains that the Gemara's intent here is not to explain the verse of "v'Shechar." Rather, the Gemara's intent is to give a new source for Rebbi Shimon's opinion in the Mishnah. That source is an analogy to Rebbi Shimon's ruling that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur." Just as a second Isur cannot take effect on a pre-existing Isur, an Isur of Tum'ah of Nezirus cannot take effect if the Isur of wine of Nezirus has already taken effect.

Apparently, the Mefaresh re-defines the case of the Mishnah. The Mishnah does not mean that he made himself a Nazir either from wine or from shaving, but rather he made himself a Nazir first from wine and then from shaving and from Tum'ah. In such a case, the Rabanan maintain that the laws of Nezirus still apply, while Rebbi Shimon maintains that the laws of Nezirus do not apply.

The Rashba wonders how Rebbi Shimon's ruling here can be learned from an analogy to "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur." The case of the Mishnah here involves different Isurim altogether, the Isur of Tum'ah taking effect on the Isur of drinking wine. Moreover, according to both the Rabanan and Rebbi Shimon, why does the first Isur of wine alone take effect if everyone agrees that "Nezirus cannot take effect l'Chatza'in"?

Perhaps the Mefaresh means as follows. According to the Rabanan, when one first makes himself a Nazir only from wine and later adds the rest of the Isurim of Nazir, the Isur of wine retroactively takes effect since it now becomes revealed that the person accepted a complete, and not partial, Nezirus. (The Isur of wine is merely extended a little farther back in time than the rest of the Isurim.) Rebbi Shimon argues that the Isur of wine cannot take effect retroactively because that Isur will not be an Isur of drinking wine alone, but it will be a Nezirus from drinking wine. Similarly, when he adds the Isur of Tum'ah, he adds a Nezirus from Tum'ah l'Mesim. Since Rebbi Shimon rules that an Isur cannot take effect on an Isur, he also rules that a Nezirus cannot take effect on a pre-existing Nezirus, even if the pre-existing Nezirus had slightly different laws (i.e. it was a Nezirus from wine and not from Tum'ah).