NAZIR 3 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

(a)We already explained in our Mishnah that 'Hareini ka'Zeh' is a Nazir, only if a Nazir walks past at the time. What Lashon will he have to use for Nezirus to take effect whilst he is holding his hair (see Hagahos ha'Rav Renshberg)?

(b)What does the Pasuk in Mishlei "Salselah u'Seromimcha" mean?

(c)So what does a person mean when he says 'Hereini Mesalsel'?

(d)What did Shmuel therefore say to reconcile this with our Mishnah, which declares someone who says 'Hareini Mesalsel' a Nazir?

(e)How do we know that 'Silsul' refers to combing one's hair?

1)

(a)We already explained in our Mishnah that 'Hareini ka'Zeh' is a Nazir, only if a Nazir walks past at the time. For Nezirus to take effect whilst he is holding his hair - he will have to say 'Hareini ba'Zeh'.

(b)The Pasuk in Mishlei "Salselah u'Seromimcha" means - that Torah will elevate whoever turns it over (studies it in depth).

(c)Consequently, when a person says 'Hareini Mesalsel', he means - that he undertakes to study Torah in depth.

(d)To reconcile this with our Mishnah therefore, which declares someone who says 'Hareini Mesalsel' a Nazir - Shmuel establishes the latter when he was holding his hair when he said it.

(e)We know that 'Silsul' refers to combing one's hair - from Rebbi wise maidservant, who once said to a Talmid who kept on combing his hair 'How long will you continue to be 'Mesalsel' your hair?'

2)

(a)What does our Mishnah rule with regard to someone who says 'Hareini Mechalkel'?

(b)We learn this from the Mishnah in Shabbos, where Rebbi Yehudah gives the amount of lime for which one is Chayav for carrying on Shabbos as 'Kedei Lasud Kilkul', which Rav in turn describes as 'bas Tzid'a'. What does that mean?

(c)Based on the Pasuk in Vayechi "Vayechalkel Yosef es Aviv v'es Echav", what else might it mean?

(d)Then how do we know that this is not what the 'Hareini Mechalkel' in our Mishnah means?

2)

(a)Our Mishnah - declares someone who says 'Hareini Mechalkel' a Nazir.

(b)We learn this from the Mishnah in Shabbos, where Rebbi Yehudah gives the amount of lime for which one is Chayav for carrying on Shabbos as 'Kedei Lasud Kilkul', which Rav in turn describes as 'bas Tzid'a' - meaning hair that sticks out on the forehead and that a girl wishes to remove, using a lime-pack.

(c)Based on the Pasuk in Vayechi "Vayechalkel Yosef es Aviv v'es Echav", it might also mean - an undertaking to feed the poor.

(d)We know that this is not what the 'Hareini Mechalkel' in our Mishnah means - because as Shmuel explains once again, it is speaking when the man was holding his hair when he said it.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah also rules 'Harei Alai Lishlo'ach Pera, Harei Zeh Nazir'. What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim" in this regard?

(b)How do we query this Limud from the Pasuk in Iyov "v'Shole'ach Mayim al Pnei Chutzos"?

(c)What do we gain by citing the Pasuk in Yechezkel "u'Pera Lo Yeshaleichu"?

(d)How do we ultimately interpret the Pasuk in Iyov which enables us to dispense with the Gezeirah Shavah?

(e)How can we learn that 'Shalach' means to let grow, on the basis of one Pasuk, when, more often than not, the word means to send away?

3)

(a)Our Mishnah also rules 'Harei Alai Lishlo'ach Pera, Harei Zeh Nazir'. We learn from the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim" - that 'Lishlo'ach' means to grow one's hair, rather than to cut it.

(b)We query this Limud from the Pasuk in Iyov "v'Shole'ach Mayim al Pnei Chutzos" however - where the word "Shole'ach" has the very opposite connotation (in which case, in our Mishnah, it to refer to as undertaking to cut off his hair (to send it away).

(c)So we cite the Pasuk in Yechezkel "u'Pera Lo Yeshalechu", which enables us to learn a Gezeirah Shavah 'Pera' 'Pera' ("Gadel Pera Se'ar Rosho" from there (though the Gezeirah Shavah really pertains to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin).

(d)We ultimately interpret the Pasuk in Iyov (dispensing with the Gezeirah Shavah) - to mean that watering a field causes the fruit to grow (so that the word now has connotations of growing their, too).

(e)We can indeed learn that 'Shalach' means to let grow, on the basis of one Pasuk, even though, more often than not, the word means to send away - because logically, the Noder had in mind to become a Nazir rather than to cut off his hair.

4)

(a)What do we initially learn with regard to the Kohanim by whom it is written in Yechezkel "u'Pera Lo Yeshalechu" via a 'Gezeirah Shavah' from Nazir "Gadel Pera"?

(b)What does this indicate regarding our Din in Nazir?

(c)Why could we not learn this from the Pasuk "u'Pera Lo Yeshalechu" without the 'Gezeirah Shavah'?

(d)Why must the Noder say 'Harei Alai Legadel Pera' and not just 'Harei Alai Pera', in order to be a Nazir?

4)

(a)We initially learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' (with regard to the Kohanim) "u'Pera Lo Yeshalechu" from Nazir "Gadel Pera" - that they are not permitted to allow a growth of hair of more than thirty days.

(b)This indicates - that "Gadel Pera" means letting the hair grow (Nezirus), rather than cutting it off.

(c)We could not learn this from the Pasuk "u'Pera Lo Yeshalechu" without the 'Gezeirah Shavah' - because, without the 'Gezeirah Shavah', the Pasuk could be referring to a growth of even just two days (which has nothing to do with Nezirus, since 'Stam Nezirus Sheloshim Yom', and the Noder did not mention two days.

(d)The Noder must say 'Harei Alai l'Gadel Pera' in order to be a Nazir, and not just 'Harei Alai Pera' - because 'Pera' on its own implies to uncover (as in the Pasuk in Naso "u'Parah es Rosh ha'Ishah").

5)

(a)In the final case in our Mishnah, Rebbi Meir declares someone who says 'Harei Alai Tziprin' a Nazir'. According to Resh Lakish, how does Rebbi Meir learn this from the Pasuk in Daniel "Ad di Sa'areih k'Nishrin Rabah, v'Tufrohi k'Tziprin"?

(b)What indication do we have that the Noder in our was referring to (the hair of) Nezirus (see 'Rashi')?

(c)What do the Rabanan say?

5)

(a)In the final case in our Mishnah, Rebbi Meir declares someone who sya 'Harei Alai Tziprin' a Nazir'. According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Meir learns this from the Pasuk "Ad di Sa'areih k'Nishrin Rabah, v'Tufrohi k'Tziparin" - because the Noder is probably referring to the "Tziprin" (birds - that a Nazir brings as a Korban) that the Pasuk juxtaposes there next to hair.

(b)The indication that the Noder was referring to Nezirus - lies in the fact that as in the earlier cases, either a Nazir was passing in front of him or he was holding his hair when he made the declaration.

(c)The Rabanan say - that we cannot take for granted that the Noder meant birds of Nezirus just because the Pasuk juxtaposes Tziprin and hair, in which case we have no indication that 'Tziprin refers to Nezirus).

3b----------------------------------------3b

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, even Rebbi Meir does not rely on the juxtaposition of Tziprin to hair. Then what is the basis of Rebbi Meir's opinion? Why does he say 'Harei Alai Tziprin, Nazir'?

(b)How do we know that he did not undertake to bring birds ...

1. ... as a gift-offering?

2. ... on behalf of a Metzora?

3. ... on behalf of a Tamei Nazir?

(c)Why do we initially think that he did not undertake to bring the bird-offering on behalf of the Tahor Nazir, should he become Tamei and be required to bring birds?

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, even Rebbi Meir does not rely on the juxtaposition of Tziparin to hair, and the basis of Rebbi Meir's opinion is - the suspicion that the Noder accepted to become a Nazir, who brings birds should he become Tamei.

(b)He could not have undertaken to bring birds ...

1. ... as a gift-offering - because then he would have said 'Harei Alai Kan', since that is the regular Lashon that is used for that purpose.

2. ... on behalf of a Metzora - because, here too, we are speaking when a Nazir is passing in front of him (as we explained according to Resh Lakish).

3. ... on behalf of a Tamei Nazir - because the Nazir who passed in front of him happened to be Tahor.

(c)We initially think that he did not undertake to bring the bird-offering on behalf of the Tahor Nazir, should he become Tamei and be required to bring birds - because it speaks when he specifically had in mind to become a Nazir.

7)

(a)When we just asked 'v'Dilma Harei Alai Tziprei Metzora ka'Amar', why did we not answer there too, that it speaks when he had in mind to bring the birds of a Nazir?

(b)In that case, why do we not say the same here; namely, that since birds are mentioned by a Tamei Nazir, to say that he means to become a Tahor Nazir is 'Ein Piv v'Libo Shavin'?

(c)Tosfos concludes however, that we cannot be speaking when the Noder had in mind to become a Nazir who brings birds when he becomes Tamei, because this idea is not mentioned in the Gemara. On what basis do we then assume that he undertook to become a Nazir now (in spite of the difficulties involved), rather than to bring the Korbanos of a Nazir who is Tamei?

7)

(a)When we just asked 'v'Dilma Harei Alai Tziprei Metzora ka'Amar', we could not have answered there too, that it speaks when he had in mind to bring the birds of a Nazir - because firstly, Nezirus is more difficult to accept than bringing the birds of a Metzora, and secondly, the Lashon 'Tziprin' is written in connection with a Metzora (as opposed to a Nazir, where the Torah writes 'Torim'). Consequently, unless a Nazir was walking past, having in mind Nezirus would constitute 'Ein Piv v'Libo Shavin' (seeing as his declaration implies the Korban of a Metzora, and he had in mind to become a Nazir).

(b)We cannot say the same here however (that since birds are mentioned by a Tamei Nazir, to say that he means to become a Tahor Nazir is 'Ein Piv v'Libo Shavin') - because seeing as the Nazir who is walking past is Tahor, both possibilities are equally plausible, in which case it does not leave the realm of 'Piv v'Libo Shavin'.

(c)Tosfos concludes however, that we cannot be speaking when the Noder had in mind to become a Nazir who brings birds when he becomes Tamei, because this idea is not mentioned in the Gemara. The reason that we assume that he undertook to become a Nazir now (in spite of the difficulties involved), rather than to bring the Korbanos of a Nazir who is Tamei is - because Nezirus b'Taharah is something that can be immediately effective, whereas there is no guarantee that there is a Tamei Nazir who requires Korbanos (rendering it a 'Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam').

8)

(a)What will Rebbi Yochanan hold in a case where the Noder says explicitly 'Tziprin ha'Semuchin l'Sei'ar Alai', and no Nazir happens to be walking past at the time? What would the Noder then have had in mind?

(b)And what will Resh Lakish hold in a case where he says 'Tziprin', and a Nazir is walking past?

(c)Then why did Resh Lakish find it necessary to establish Rebbi Meir when the Noder specifically said 'Tziprin ha'Semuchin l'Sei'ar'?

(d)In fact, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree in almost every case. Which is the only point over which they argue?

8)

(a)In a case where the Noder says explicitly 'Tziprin ha'Semuchin l'Sei'ar Alai', and no Nazir happens to be walking past at the time - Rebbi Yochanan holds that he is not a Nazir, because all he undertook was to let his hair grow long.

(b)And in a case where he says 'Tziprin', and a Nazir is walking past - Resh Lakish will hold that he is a Nazir (like Rebbi Yochanan).

(c)Resh Lakish found it necessary to establish Rebbi Meir when the Noder specifically said 'Tziprin ha'Semuchin l'Sei'ar' - because then he will be a Nazir even if there is no Nazir walking past.

(d)In fact, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree in all almost every case. The only point over which they argue is when the Noder said explicitly 'Tziprin he'Semuchin Alai', where, according to Rebbi Yochanan, a Nazir is nevertheless required to walk past, whereas, according to Resh Lakish, he is not (as we already explained).

9)

(a)If the Noder would declare 'Harei Alai Nishrin' or 'Harei Alai Tufrin' (which are even closer to Sei'ar than Tziprin) would he also become a Nazir?

9)

(a)If the Noder would declare 'Harei Alai Nishrin' or 'Harei Alai Tufrin' - he would not be a Nazir (despite the fact that they are even closer to Sei'ar than Tziprin, because (unlike Tziprin) eagles [or eagles claws] have nothing to do with Nezirus.

10)

(a)What do we try to prove from the Beraisa 'ha'Omer Yemin, Harei Zu Shevu'ah'? On whom is this a Kashya?

(b)We counter this proof however, with a Beraisa which quotes a Pasuk in Yeshayah "Nishba Hash-m bi'Yemino". What does the Tana of the Beraisa extrapolate from there?

10)

(a)We try to prove from the Beraisa 'ha'Omer Yemin, Harei Zu Shevu'ah' - that the Tana holds that people do tend to be Matfis on something that is juxtaposed to something which in turn, is connected to Nedarim and Shevu'os (like here, where the Pasuk in Daniel writes "Vayarem Yemino u'Semolo el ha'Hashamayim Vayishava b'Chei ha'Olam".

(b)We counter this proof however, with a Beraisa which quotes a Pasuk in Yeshayah "Nishba Hash-m bi'Yemino" - from which the Tana of the Beraisa extrapolates that 'Yemin' itself is a Lashon of Shevu'ah.

11)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about someone declares Nezirus from grape-pits or skins, or from Tum'as Mes (exclusively)? Does this make him a Nazir?

(b)Why does the Tana need to add 'v'Chol Dikdukei Nezirus Alav'?

(c)The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Shimon. Why is that? What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(d)What two options does the Noder have of adopting Nezirus according to Rebbi Shimon?

11)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who declares Nezirus from grape-pits or skins, or from Tum'as Mes (exclusively) - is a full-fledged Nazir.

(b)The Tana needs to add 'v'Chol Dikdukei Nezirus Alav' - to teach us that he is even obligated to adhere to the Dinim of Tum'as Mes (even though a Nezir Shimshon is not).

(c)The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Shimon - who holds that a Noder only becomes a Nazir if he specifically accepts all the branches of Nezirus.

(d)According to Rebbi Shimon - the Noder must either undertake to be a Nazir Stam, or he must specify all the branches of Nezirus.

12)

(a)Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" that only someone who undertakes a full Nezirus becomes a Nazir. But that Pasuk speaks only about drinking wine and grape-products? How do we know that he is also obligated to accept the Dinim of shaving and Tum'ah?

12)

(a)Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" that only someone who undertakes a full Nezirus becomes a Nazir. Even though that Pasuk speaks only about drinking wine and grape-products we nevertheless extend this Halachah to the Dinim of shaving and Tum'ah - because once we know of the obligation with regard to drinking wine, it stands to reason that the same applies to the other branches of Nezirus.

13)

(a)What do the Rabanan learn from "mi'Yayin v'Shechar Yazir"?

(b)And what does Rebbi Shimon learn from there?

(c)We ask 'Harei Mushba v'Omed Alav me'Har Sinai?' What is strange about this Kashya?

(d)So how does Rabeinu Tam amend the Kashya?

13)

(a)The Rabanan learn from "mi'Yayin v'Shechar Yazir" - that someone who accepts even just one branch of Nezirus is a full-fledged Nazir.

(b)Rebbi Shimon learns from there - that a Nazir is not even permitted to drink wine of Mitzvah (such as wine of Kidush and Havdalah).

(c)We ask 'Harei Mushba v'Omed Alav me'Har Sinai!', a strange Kashya - seeing as there seems to be no reason why the Lav of Nezirus should not override the Mitzvah of Kidush over wine (even if we assume that Kidush over wine is d'Oraisa).

(d)So Rabeinu Tam amends the Kashya to read - 'v'Chi Mushba v'Omed Alav me'Har Sinai!' (since when is Kidush over wine d'Oraisa in the first place)?