1)

(a)What distinction does the Beraisa make between 'Tamei she'Nazar' and 'Tahor she'Nitma' (on their seventh respective days)?

(b)What is the basis for this distinction?

(c)Seeing as a Tamei she'Nazar still has to wait for nightfall to become Tahor, how can his Nezirus take effect?

1)

(a)The Beraisa makes a distinction between 'Tamei she'Nazar' - who, after sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah on the third and seventh days, Tovels and proceeds to count thirty days of Nezirus de'Taharah already from the seventh day, and 'Tahor she'Nitma', who cannot begin counting until he has also brought his Korban Nezirus Tamei (a Chatas ha'Of, an Olas ha'Of and a lamb for an Asham) on the eighth day.

(b)The basis for this distinction is - the fact that the former is not obligated to bring a Korban for his Tum'ah, whereas the latter does.

(c)Despite the fact that a Tamei she'Nazar still has to wait for nightfall to become Tahor, his Nezirus can nevertheless take effect - because the Tum'ah of a T'vul Yom (who is only waiting for nightfall) is too weak to prevent the Nezirus from taking effect (Tosfos).

2)

(a)What is the problem from the previous Beraisa with Resh Lakish, who holds that Nezirus be'Tum'ah is not effective?

(b)Why can we not answer that Nazir Tahor she'Nitma speaks when he reaffirmed his Nezirus after becoming Tahor?

(c)Why does the Tana not include the distinction that ...

1. ... 'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma' who drinks wine receives Malkos, whereas a Tamei she'Nazar does not, according to Resh Lakish?

2. ... 'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma' brings a Korban for becoming Tamei, whereas a Tamei she'Nazar does not, according to Rebbi Yochanan?

(d)How es Mar bar Rav Ashi subsequently amend Resh Lakish's opinion?

2)

(a)The problem from the previous Beraisa with Resh Lakish, who holds that Nezirus be'Tum'ah is not effective is - that if, as he maintains, the Nezirus of a Tamei she'Nazar is not effective at all, why should the seventh day be considered the first day of his thirty-day term?

(b)We cannot answer that 'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma' speaks when he reaffirmed his Nezirus after becoming Tahor - because then the Tana ought to have included this distinction in the Beraisa (Tosfos).

(c)The Tana does not include the distinction that ...

1. ... Nazir Tahor she'Nitma who drinks wine receives Malkos, whereas a Tamei she'Nazar does not, according to Resh Lakish - because we are only concerned with rectifying the Nazir, not with one who sins (as we shall see later).

2. ... Nazir Tahor she'Nitma brings a Korban for becoming Tamei, whereas a Tamei she'Nazar does not, according to Rebbi Yochanan - because that is inherent in the distinction that the Tana already makes.

(d)So Mar bar Rav Ashi subsequently amends Resh Lakish's opinion to read - that he does not receive Malkus for his Tum'ah, (but he concedes that he his Nezirus takes effect).

3)

(a)Does Resh Lakish still argue with Rebbi Yochanan over Malkos for a Tamei she'Nazar who shaves or who drinks wine whilst he is still Tamei?

(b)Then what exactly is their bone of contention?

3)

(a)Resh Lakish now agrees with Rebbi Yochanan in all other regards - and a Tamei she'Nazar who shaves or who drinks wine whilst he is still Tamei will receive Malkos.

(b)Their bone of contention is - whether he is Chayav Malkos for Tum'ah (like he is Chayav for drinking wine and shaving), because the Torah only precluded him from a Korban of Tum'ah (Rebbi Yochanan), or whether he is precluded from Malkos of Tum'ah, too (Resh Lakish).

4)

(a)According to Resh Lakish, why does the Tana of our Mishnah say 'Mi she'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros ... ve'Eino Meivi Korban Tum'ah', implying that he does receive Malkos? What does the Seifa say?

(b)And how does Resh Lakish explain the Beraisa 'Ein Bein Tamei she'Nazar le'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma Ela Tamei she'Nazar Shevi'I she'Lo Oleh Lo le'Minyan ... ', suggesting that as far as Malkos is concerned, they are the same?

(c)What does 'le'Tiglachas Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin' mean?

(d)If then, the Din regarding a Tamei she'Nazar and a Nazir Tahor she'Nitma differs as regards Malkos, then why does the Tana not mention it?

4)

(a)According to Resh Lakish, the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Mi she'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros ... ve'Eino Meivi Korban Tum'ah', not to imply that he does receive Malkos, but to balance the Seifa, which states 'Yatza ve'Nichnas, Oleh Lo min ha'Minyan, '*u'Meivi* Korban Tum'ah.

(b)And he explains that the Beraisa 'Ein Bein Tamei she'Nazar le'Nazir Tahor she'she'Nitma Ela Tamei she'Nazar Shevi'I she'Lo Oleh Lo le'Minyan ... ', does not mean to imply that as far as Malkos is concerned, they are the same - but that they are the same regarding shaving and drinking wine.

(c)'le'Tiglachas Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin' means that as far as the Mitzvah of shaving on the seventh day of his Taharah is concerned, they have the same Din (this is Rava's She'eilah on Amud Beis).

(d)Despite the fact that, according to Resh Lakish, there is a distinction regarding Malkos of Tum'ah, between a Tamei she'Nazar and a Nazir Tahor she'Nitma, the Tana nevertheless declines to mention it - because he is concerned with rectifying the Nazir, not with the Din of one who sinned.

5)

(a)In that case, according to Resh Lakish, why does the Tana not draw a distinction between a Tamei she'Nazar (who is permitted to be Metamei himself again) and a Nazir Tahor she'Nitma, who is not (since this is indeed a Takanah and not a Kilkul)?

(b)And what does Resh Lakish do with the Beraisa, which sentences a Tamei she'Nazar who shaves, drinks wine or *becomes Tamei* to Malkos?

(c)Why did he not answer that the Beraisa speaks when he was 'Yotze ve'Nichnas Shanah ve'Taval', like he himself explained this very Beraisa earlier?

5)

(a)According to Resh Lakish, the Tana does not make a distinction between a Tamei she'Nazar (who is permitted to be Metamei himself again) and a Nazir Tahor she'Nitma, who is not (since this is a Takanah and not a Kilkul) - because this statement a fallacy, and in fact, even a Tamei she'Nazar is forbidden to become Tamei (even though he does not receive Malkos for doing so).

(b)Resh Lakish - has no answer to the Beraisa which sentences a Tamei she'Nazar who shaves, drinks wine or becomes Tamei, to Malkos. It proves him wrong.

(c)He did not answer that the Beraisa speaks when he was 'Yotze ve'Nichnas Shanah ve'Taval', like he himself answered above in this very Beraisa - because it appears that the prohibition of Tum'ah, like that of shaving and drinking wine, takes effect immediately. But above, where he maintained that the Isur of Tum'ah does not effect anyway as long as the Nazir remains in the cemetery, all that was needed was to find a case where Tum'ah is effective.

6)

(a)Rava asked whether 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros' requires a time period before receiving Malkos or not. Why did he think that he might?

(b)Why can the She'eilah not pertain to a case where they warned him not to undertake the Nezirus, and he did?

(c)This Sugya may hold that one receives Malkos even for a La'av without any action, or that not leaving the cemetery is considered a 'La'av she'Yesh Bo Ma'aseh'. How does the Rav ha'Magid resolve the problem of 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' (who, we normally hold, is not subject to Malkos)?

6)

(a)Rava asked whether 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros' requires a time period before receiving Malkos or not. He thought that he might - because we find such a Halachah by someone who becomes Tamei in the Beis Hamikdash.

(b)The She'eilah cannot pertain to a case where they warned him not to undertake the Nezirus, and he did - because then, it is obvious that he would be Chayav immediately (in the same way as a Nazir Tahor who entered a cemetery after being warned is Chayav immediately).

(c)This Sugya may hold that one receives Malkos even for a La'av where is not action, or that not leaving the cemetery is considered a 'La'av she'Yesh Bo Ma'aseh'. The Rav ha'Magid has no problem with La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh (who, we normally hold, is not subject to Malkos) - because, according to him, any La'av that can be contravened with an act, is subject to Malkos even if one contravenes it without one.

7)

(a)How do we finally establish the case of Rava's She'eilah?

(b)What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c)What would be the Din if he removed the cover himself?

7)

(a)We finally establish the case of Rava's She'eilah - by a Nazir who enters a cemetery in a box-like contraption, his friend came and opened the roof and he did not leave the cemetery.

(b)The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether the Din of a minimum time-limit (the time it takes to bow down 'Rashi') is restricted to Tum'ah in the Beis Hamikdash, or whether it applies to outside the Beis Hamikdash, too.

(c)If he removed the cover himself - he would certainly be Chayav immediately (because the She'eilah only applies where the Tum'ah was thrust upon him through an O'nes (Tosfos).

17b----------------------------------------17b

8)

(a)Rava then asks 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros Ta'un Gilu'ach O Lo'. What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(b)Will this She'eilah also extend to the shaving that is due to take place after the Nazir becomes Tahor and goes on to complete his Nezirus de'Taharah?

8)

(a)Rava then asks 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros Ta'un Gilu'ach O Lo'. The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether shaving is applicable even though there is no Korban Tum'ah, or whether the two are interdependent.

(b)This She'eilah will not extend to the shaving that is due to take place after the Nazir becomes Tahor and goes on to complete his Nezirus de'Taharah - because there, it is obvious that he is obligated to shave.

9)

(a)From the Beraisa 'Mi she'Nazar, ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros, Afilu Hayah Sham Sheloshim Yom ... ve'Eino Meivi Korban Tum'ah' we attempt to resolve (by inference - Korban Tum'ah Hu de'Lo Maysi, Aval Giluchi Ba'i') Rav Ashi's She'eilah. Which She'eilah?

(b)How do we refute the proof from there?

(c)And on what grounds do we refute the proof from the Beraisa 'Ein Bein Tamei she'Nazar le'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma Ela Tamei she'Nazar, Shevi'i she'Lo Oleh Lo min ha'Minyan ... ' (from which we can infer 'Ha le'Tiglachas, Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin').

(d)If, in that case, Tamei she'Nazar and Nazir Tahor she'Nitma differ as regards shaving, why did the Tana not insert that distinction in the Beraisa?

9)

(a)From the Beraisa 'Mi she'Nazar, ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros, Afilu Hayah Sham Sheloshim Yom ... ve'Eino Meivi Korban Tum'ah', we attempt to resolve (by inference) Rav Ashi's She'eilah - whether 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros' requires shaving at the termination of his Tum'ah or not.

(b)We refute the proof from there, by fusing the two issues (rather than differentiating between them, i.e.) - the reason that he does not bring a Korban Tum'ah is because he does not require shaving (since the two are interdependent).

(c)And we refute the proof from the Beraisa 'Ein Bein Tamei she'Nazar le'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma Ela Tamei she'Nazar, Shevi'i she'Lo Oleh Lo min ha'Minyan ... ' (from which we can infer 'Ha le'Tiglachas, Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin') by rather inferring 'Ha le'Malkos, Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin' (see above 4c.).

(d)Even though that would mean that Tamei she'Nazar and Nazir Tahor she'Nitma differ as regards shaving, the Tana declined to insert that distinction in the Beraisa - because it is inherent in the existing distinction 'Shevi'i she'Lo Oleh ... ', which teaches us that a Tamei she'Nazar does not bring a Korban, which in turn, is due to the fact that he does not need to shave (as we just explained).

10)

(a)From where does the Tana of a Beraisa learn that the days that a Nazir is a Metzora Muchlat cannot be counted in the days of Nezirus?

(b)On what grounds do we refute this Limud?

(c)Why do we not then learn from Tum'ah that Tzara'as too, demolishes the entire Nezirus and that he must begin counting all over again?

10)

(a)The Tana of a Beraisa learns that the days that a Nazir is a Metzora Muchlat cannot be counted in the days of Nezirus - from a 'Binyan Av' from the days when he is Tamei Meis.

(b)We refute this Limud however - on the grounds that not only are the days of Tum'ah not counted, but they even demolish the entire Nezirus as well and he needs to begin counting all over again (which a Metzora Muchlat does not).

(c)We cannot however, learn from Tum'ah that Tzara'as too, demolishes the entire Nezirus - because of the Pasuk "Al Tum'aso", from which we deduce that Tum'ah demolishes the Nezirus, but not shaving and Tzara'as (Tosfos).

11)

(a)So we learn the Din of a Metzora from a Nazir be'Kever. How?

(b)What exactly, do we attempt to prove from there?

11)

(a)So we learn the Din of a Metzora from a Nazir be'Kever with a 'Kal va'Chomer - if a Nazir be'Kever, whose hair is fit for shaving, yet his days of Tum'ah are not counted in the Nezirus, the days of Tzara'as, which *are* fit for shaving, should certainly not be counted.

(b)We attempt to prove from there - that after a Nazir be'Tum'ah (which we presume the Tana is referring to) becomes Tahor, he is obligated to shave.

12)

(a)We counter 'Lo, be'Tiglachas Taharah'. What does the Beraisa then mean when it says 'u'Mah Nazir be'Kever she'Sa'aro Ra'uy le'Tiglachas, Ein Olin Lo min ha'Minyan, Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas, Lo Kol she'Kein'? What is the meaning of ...

1. ... 'Nazir be'Kever she'Sa'aro Ra'uy le'Tiglachas'?

2. ... 'Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas'?

(b)How do we try to prove that the Tana must be speaking about shaving after the days of Taharah, from the statement 'Yemei Chaluto she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas'?

(c)Why do we not consider the second shaving of the Metzora after he has counted his final seven days as 'Tiglachas de'Taharah'?

(d)How do we reject this proof (that the Tana is talking about Tiglachas de'Tum'ah)?

12)

(a)We counter 'Lo, be'Tiglachas Taharah'. In that case, when the Beraisa says 'u'Mah Nazir be'Kever she'Sa'aro Ra'uy le'Tiglachas, Ein Olin Lo min ha'Minyan, Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas, Lo Kol she'Kein'? The meaning of ...

1. ... 'Nazir be'Kever she'Sa'aro Ra'uy le'Tiglachas' is - that at the end of the thirty days following the seven days of Tum'ah, he stands to shave.

2. ... 'Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas' is - that he does not stand to shave when the days of his Tzara'as terminate, because he will then be obligated to shave as a result of his Tzara'as.

(b)We try to prove that the Tana must be speaking about shaving after the days of Taharah, from the statement 'Yemei Chaluto she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas' - because if the Tana was speaking about shaving after the days of Tum'ah, a Metzora who became Tamei too, requires shaving when his Tzara'as terminates.

(c)We cannot consider the second shaving of the Metzora after he has counted his final seven days as 'Tiglachas de'Taharah' - because even during those final days he renders anyone who touches him, Tamei (in which case his shaving is a 'Tiglachas de'Tum'ah') Tosfos.

(d)We reject this proof (that the Tana is talking about Tiglachas de'Tum'ah) - by concluding that the Tana is talking neither about Tiglachas de'Tum'ah nor Tiglachas de'Taharah, but about Tiglachas di'Nezirus (which pertains to a Nazir be'Kever [even when he is Tamei] but not to a Nazir who is also a Metzora (since *he* shaves because he is a Metzora and not because of his Nezirus).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF