1)

QUESTIONS AGAINST REISH LAKISH [line 1]

(a)

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): A father can impose on his son for Chinuch (to train him in Mitzvos).

(b)

Question: If so, a mother should also be able to!

(c)

Answer: Reish Lakish holds that a man is obligated to be Mechanech his son, but a woman is not.

(d)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, this law is a tradition from Sinai. It is not difficult why one can impose on a son, but not on a daughter (such was the tradition);

1.

According to Reish Lakish, one should be able to impose even on a daughter!

(e)

Answer: Reish Lakish holds that Chinuch applies only to a son, but not to a daughter.

(f)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult why the law applies only to Nezirus, and not to other vows;

1.

According to Reish Lakish, it should apply to other vows, too!

(g)

Answer: It does!

1.

The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush. One can impose on his son even Nezirus, which entails disgrace.

(h)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult why the son or relatives can annul the Nezirus by protesting;

1.

According to Reish Lakish, why can they stop him from training his son?

(i)

Answer: He holds that any Chinuch that entails disgrace is not good for the son.

(j)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult why we cut his sideburns when he shaves at the end;

1.

According to Reish Lakish, how can Chinuch, which is mid'Rabanan, override a Torah Isur?

(k)

Answer: Reish Lakish holds that cutting all the hair on the head is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. (He holds that the Isur mid'Oraisa is to even the hairline in back of the ear to in front of the ear, like Nochri priests - Rosh and Sefer ha'Mitzvos.)

1.

The Mitzvas Aseh (Chinuch) mid'Rabanan overrides the Isur mid'Rabanan.

(l)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult that he brings Korbanos upon completing his Nezirus.

1.

According to Reish Lakish, he offers Chulin ba'Azarah (profane things in the Mikdash)!

(m)

Answer: Reish Lakish holds that Chulin ba'Azarah is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. (The Olah and Shelamim are offered for Nedavos. The Chatas is slaughtered l'Shem Chulin, and the Eimurim are burned on the Mizbe'ach as if they were wood, i.e. not for Kaparah.)

(n)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult that if he becomes Tamei, he offers birds, and a Kohen eats the Chatas ha'Of.

1.

According to Reish Lakish, these are not proper Korbanos. The bird died without slaughter (rather, through Melikah, cutting the Simanim with the thumbnail). It is a Neveilah, and the Torah does not permit eating it!

(o)

Answer: Reish Lakish holds like R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says that mid'Oraisa, fowl need not be slaughtered. (Nechirah, i.e. extracting the blood through the Simanim, permits eating fowl. Melikah fulfills this.)

(p)

Question: R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah does not say so!

1.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): The following is the source that one may bring Chatas ha'Of due to Safek, but it is not eaten.

2.

"And one who has a flow (emissions), a male or female" equates a male to a female:

i.

Just like a male brings a Korban (Chatas) if he definitely sinned (b'Shogeg in Chayavei Kerisus), a female does the same (Rosh - this is no Chidush. It is for parallel structure with the Seifa);

ii.

Just like a man brings a Korban (Asham Taluy) due to Safek (about Chayavei Kerisus), so a woman brings mi'Safek (regarding a Korban only for females, e.g. Korban Yoledes);

iii.

Just like he brings the same kind of Korban (a Beheimah) whether he is sure or in Safek, also she (a Yoledes brings Chatas ha'Of in either case).

iv.

Suggestion: Just like his Korban (due to Safek) is eaten, also hers!

29b----------------------------------------29b

v.

Rejection: No. Only one Isur could apply to his Korban (if he didn't sin, it is Chulin ba'Azarah). If she did not give birth (to something obligating a Korban), two Isurim apply to her Korban.

3.

(Summation of question) Suggestion: The two Isurim are Neveilah, and Chulin ba'Azarah.

(q)

Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Perhaps the two Isurim are mid'Rabanan!

2)

DO THE TANA'IM ALSO ARGUE ABOUT THIS? [line 5]

(a)

Suggestion: The Tana'im also argue about whether the Halachah is a tradition from Sinai, or due to Chinuch.

1.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): A man can impose Nezirus on his son until the son brings two hairs (of maturity);

2.

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he may do so until the son reaches Onas ha'Nedarim (the start of his 13th year. From this time, if he understands Nedarim his vows take effect.)

3.

Suggestion: Rebbi holds that the Halachah is a tradition, and applies even from Onas ha'Nedarim, until (adulthood, i.e. 13 full years and) two hairs. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that it is due to Chinuch. After Onas ha'Nedarim, (he can vow by himself so) he leaves the Reshus of the father.

(b)

Rejection #1: No, both agree that it is a tradition. They argue about the vows of a child who reached Onas ha'Nedarim:

1.

Rebbi holds that such vows are only mid'Rabanan. The tradition overrides it (it enables the father to impose Nezirus mid'Oraisa);

2.

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that vows of such a child are mid'Oraisa.

(c)

Rejection #2: Both agree that it is due to Chinuch, and the vows of a near-adult are mid'Rabanan.

1.

Rebbi holds that Chinuch, mid'Rabanan, overrides the mid'Rabanan law that such a child may take his own vows;

2.

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that once the child can vow by himself, there is no Mitzvah for the father to train him in Nezirus.

(d)

The following Tana'im argue as Rebbi and R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah do.

1.

(Beraisa): R. Chanina's father imposed Nezirus on him. R. Gamliel was checking Chanina to see if he was already an adult (in which case the Nezirus is void);

2.

R. Yosi says, he was checking whether Chanina understood vows.

3.

Chanina: Don't bother! If I am still a child, I am a Nazir due to my father;

i.

If I am mature, I accept Nezirus upon myself!

4.

R. Gamliel: Surely, this child will make rulings about Halachah! (This happened soon.)

(e)

Question: According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, we understand why Chanina said 'if I am a child (i.e. too young to vow), I am a Nazir due to my father' (past this age, his father cannot impose Nezirus on him);

1.

According to Rebbi, why did he say 'if I am mature, I accept Nezirus upon myself'? Even if he reached Onas ha'Nedarim (but not adulthood), he is a Nazir due to his father!