NAZIR 59 (7 Cheshvan) - in honor of the Yahrzeit of ha'Gaon Rav Meir Shapiro, founder of the renowned Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin, representative of the Jewish community in the Polish parliament, and creator of the DAFYOMI STUDY CYCLE (see www.dafyomi.co.il/dafyomi.htm for more about him). Dedicated by Mr. and Mrs. Shmuel Kovacs of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel - may the great Gaon be a Melitz Yosher for the Kovacs children to grow up with love of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim and succeed in all that they do, and may the Zechus of the great Tzadik stand for Klal Yisrael to merit a complete redemption speedily, in our days!

1)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan again sentences anyone who shaves the underarm hair or that of the Beis ha'Ervah to Malkus. Once again, we ask from the Beraisa which presents it as only an Isur d'Rabanan. What does he add in this Lashon that renders the answer that we gave in the first Lashon (that Rebbi Yochanan also means Lokeh Malkus d'Rabanan) unacceptable?

(b)We establish Rebbi Yochanan like the Beraisa 'ha'Ma'avir Beis ha'Shechi ... Lokeh Mishum Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah". Why do we not support his opinion with the Beraisa that we quoted earlier 'ha'Ma'avir Beis ha'Shechi ... Harei Zeh Lokeh'?

(c)How does the first Tana explain the Pasuk "Lo Yilbash ... "?

(d)Why can he not explain the Pasuk in its literal sense?

1)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan again sentences anyone who shaves the underarm hair or that of the Beis ha'Ervah to Malkus. Once again, we ask from the Beraisa which presents it as only an Isur d'Rabanan. What he adds in this Lashon that renders the answer that we gave in the first Lashon (that Rebbi Yochanan also means Lokeh Malkus d'Rabanan) unacceptable is - the source "Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah".

(b)We establish Rebbi Yochanan like the Beraisa 'ha'Ma'avir Beis ha'Shechi ... Lokeh Mishum Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah" rather than like the Beraisa that we quoted earlier 'ha'Ma'avir Beis ha'Shechi ... Harei Zeh Lokeh' - because we prefer to cite the Beraisa which quotes the Pasuk (which caused us to ask on Rebbi Yochanan in the first place).

(c)The first Tana explains the Pasuk "Lo Yilbash ... " - as a prohibition for a woman to dress-up as a man or vice-versa, for immoral purposes.

(d)He cannot explain the Pasuk in its literal sense (that it is forbidden for a woman to wear men's clothes or vice-versa) - because the Torah adds 'To'evah Hi", and there is nothing abominable about that.

2)

(a)How does Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov explain the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lo Yiheyeh Kli Gever al Ishah"?

2. ... "v'Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah"?

(b)On what grounds does Rav Nachman permit a Nazir to shave his underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah?

(c)What is the Halachah in this regard?

2)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov explains the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lo Yiheyeh Kli Gever al Ishah" - as a prohibition against a woman wearing weapons.

2. ... "v'Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah" - as a prohibition against a man wearing a woman's make-up.

(b)Rav Nachman permits a Nazir to shave his underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah - because, he maintains, since he anyway shaves off all the hair on his head, shaving them too, is not considered an act of beautification.

(c)The Halachah however - is not like him.

3)

(a)Why were the Rabanan surprised to discover that Rebbi Yochanan had no underarm hair?

(b)How did Rav Shemen bar Aba put their minds at ease?

(c)Why did he not answer that Rebbi Yochanan probably cut it off with scissors?

3)

(a)The Rabanan were surprised to discover that Rebbi Yochanan had no underarm hair - seeing as Rebbi Yochanan is the one who expressly forbade shaving it earlier in the Sugya.

(b)Rav Shemen bar Aba put their minds at ease - by attributing it to old age (which causes hair to fall out).

(c)He did not answer that Rebbi Yochanan probably cut it off with scissors - proving that Rebbi Yochanan forbids even that, at least mid'Rabanan (even according to those who say that Rav permits it).

4)

(a)On what grounds did Rebbi Ami release a certain man from Malkus, as they were about to administer it?

(b)What did Rebbi Chiya reply when Rav ...

1. ... asked him whether shaving the underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah was permitted?

2. ... pointed out that the hair tends to grow and become painful?

(c)What exactly, did Rebbi Chiya forbid according to ...

1. ... our original text in Rav (on the previous Amud), which does not forbid shaving body-hair at all?

2. ... the Ba'al Halachah Gedolos, who forbids shaving even body-hair with a razor?

(d)Neither did Rebbi Chiya permit scratching the hair until it falls out. Did he allow any concession at all in this regard?

4)

(a)Rebbi Ami exempted a certain man from Malkus (mid'Rabanan), as they were about to administer it, when he noticed, as they were removing his clothes, that he did not shave his underarm hair (as was apparently the custom of the Amei-ha'Aretz of that time). Consequently, on the assumption - that he must be a Talmid-Chacham, he released him from Malkus (mid'Rabanan).

(b)When Rav ...

1. ... asked Rebbi Chiya whether shaving the underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah was permitted - he replied that it was forbidden.

2. ... pointed out that the hair tends to grow and become painful - he replied that (unlike the hair of the head, that grows very long), it only tends to grow a little and then stop (so it will not cause much pain).

(c)According to ...

1. ... our original text in Rav (on the previous Amud), which does not forbid shaving body-hair at all - Rebbi Chiya forbade shaving the underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah with a razor.

2. ... the Ba'al Halachah Gedolos, in whose opinion Rav forbids even shaving body-hair with a razor - he forbade shaving the underarm hair and that of the Beis ha'Ervah even with scissors.

(d)Neither did Rebbi Chiya permit scratching the hair until it falls out. He did however - permit doing so using a cloth.

5)

(a)What interesting Heter emerges from the implication that, if it was a matter of pain, it would be permitted to remove the hair?

(b)In the second Lashon, Rav asked Rebbi Chiya whether one is permitted to scratch the underarm hair or the Beis ha'Ervah using a cloth, during Davening. What did he reply?

(c)What is the Halachah in this regard?

5)

(a)The interesting Heter that emerges from the implication that, if it was a matter of pain, it would be permitted to remove the hair is, that since whatever is not for the purpose of beautification is not subject to "Lo Yilbash" - it follows therefore that even though looking in a mirror in order to look nice would be forbidden, whereas doing so in order to avoid hurting oneself whilst shaving, will be permitted.

(b)In the second Lashon, Rav asked Rebbi Chiya whether one is permitted to scratch the underarm hair or the Beis ha'Ervah during Davening via a cloth. He replied - in the negative.

(c)The Halachah however, is - that it is permitted.

59b----------------------------------------59b

6)

(a)We learned in the previous Mishnah, that two Nezirim one of whom is Tamei, must bring their Korbanos jointly and make the necessary conditions. What does Rebbi Yehoshua suggest that the remaining Nazir does in the event that his friend dies? How does he make-up for his missing friend with whom he would otherwise have shared his Korbanos and made the conditions?

(b)He begins by declaring 'If I was Tamei, then you are a Tahor Nazir immediately, but if I was Tahor, then you will only be a Nazir only after thirty days'. What happens at the next stage thirty days later?

(c)And what happens at the final stage thirty days after that?

(d)On what grounds does Ben Zoma disagree with Rebbi Yehoshua?

6)

(a)We learned in the previous Mishnah, that two Nezirim one of whom is Tamei, must bring their Korbanos jointly and make the necessary conditions. Rebbi Yehoshua suggests that, in the event that one of them dies - the remaining Nazir finds someone who wants to adopt Nezirus anyway, and it is with him that he brings his Korbanos jointly and with whom he will then make the necessary conditions.

(b)He begins by declaring 'If I was Tamei, then you are a Tahor Nazir immediately, but if I was Tahor, then you will be a Nazir only after thirty days'. After thirty days - they bring a Korban Tum'ah and a Korban Taharah. He then declares 'If I was Tamei, then the Korban Tum'ah is mine and the Korban Taharah is yours; whereas if I was Tahor, then the Korban Tahor is mine and the Korban Tum'ah is a Safek' (since a Chatas ha'Of [unlike a Chatas Beheimah] can be brought b'Safek).

(c)At the final stage thirty days after that - they bring a Korban Taharah, and he declares - 'If I was the Tamei one, then the Korban Tum'ah that I brought was mine, the Korban Tahor was yours and the Korban Tahor that I am bringing now is mine But if I was the Tahor one, then the Korban Taharah that I brought was mine, the Korban Tum'ah was a Safek, and the Korban that I am now bringing is yours'.

(d)Ben Zoma disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua on the grounds - that nobody would be fool enough to join him.

7)

(a)According to ben Zoma, the remaining Nazir brings a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas Beheimah. Does he also bring an Olas ha'Of? When does he bring them?

(b)What does he then stipulate?

(c)Why does he need to bring the Olas Beheimah then? Why can he not bring all his Korbanos together at the end of the second set of thirty days?

(d)What does he then do after counting the second set of thirty days?

(e)What is he permitted to do after that?

7)

(a)According to ben Zoma, the remaining Nazir brings a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas Beheimah - as well as an Olas ha'Of (even though ben Zoma omits to mention it) after thirty days.

(b)He then stipulates 'If I was Tamei, then the Chatas ha'Of is obligatory and the Olas Beheimah a Nedavah; whereas if I was Tahor, then the Olah is obligatory and the Chatas, a Safek'.

(c)He needs to bring the Olas Beheimah then (and not at the end together with his other Korbanos) - to enable him to perform his first shaving on it (seeing as one is never permitted to shave without bringing at least one of the Korbanos).

(d)After counting his second set of thirty days - he brings a Korban Taharah (Chatas, Olah and Shelamim) and declares 'If I was Tamei, then the first Olah was a Nedavah, and the one I am now bringing is my obligation; whereas if I was Tahor, the first one was my obligation and this one is a Korban Nedavah'.

(e)Then he is permitted to drink wine.

8)

(a)On what grounds does Rebbi Yehoshua object to ben Zoma's ruling?

(b)What is Rebbi Yehoshua's conclusion?

(c)If he really agrees with ben Zoma, then why does he not rule like him?

8)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua objects to ben Zoma's ruling on the grounds -that it means splitting up the Nazir's Korbanos (as we explained).

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua's conclusion - is that the Chachamim nevertheless agreed with ben Zoma.

(c)In fact, Rebbi Yehoshua does not only agree with ben Zoma, but he even rules like him too. He only presented a different opinion in our Mishnah in order to sharpen the brains of the Talmidim.

9)

(a)Rav Nachman queries Rebbi Yehoshua 'Mai Le'avid Lei Rebbi Yehoshua l'Dakei d'Lo Yisru' (what will Rebbi Yehoshua do to stop the intestines from going bad?). What did he mean by that?

(b)But why is Rav Nachman not worried about that in the previous Mishnah, when everyone agrees that both men bring a combined set of Korbanos?

(c)Others associate Rav Nachman's Kashya with the entire Olah, which, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, will now have to wait until after both men had shaved. On what grounds do we reject this explanation?

9)

(a)Rav Nachman queries Rebbi Yehoshua 'Mai Le'avid Lei Rebbi Yehoshua l'Dakei d'Lo Yisru' (what will Rebbi Yehoshua do to stop the interstices from going bad?) - by which he means that taking a second Nazir as prescribed by Rebbi Yehoshua may help the solve the initial problem, but it creates a new one, in that at the end of the final thirty days when they bring the remaining Korbanos, they are both required to wave the Chelev of the Shelamim and then to shave, doubling the time that elapses until the Chelev is burned on the Mizbe'ach, thereby creating the probability that the intestines will go bad.

(b)Rav Nachman is not worried about that in the previous Mishnah, when everyone agrees that both men bring a combined set of Korbanos - because when both Sefeikos are alive, there is no other option; whereas here, it is possible to do like ben Zoma.

(c)Others associate Rav Nachman's Kashya with the entire Olah, which, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, will now have to wait until after both men had shaved. We reject this explanation on the grounds that - firstly, the main Korban of the Nazir is the Shelamim, and secondly, there is nothing to stop the Kohanim from bringing the Olah before the two men shave.

10)

(a)We have already discussed the Mishnah 'Nazir she'Hayah Tamei b'Safek u'Muchlat b'Safek ... ' earlier (in Perek Kohen Gadol). When will he become permitted ...

1. ... to eat Kodshim?

2. ... to drink wine and become Tamei Mes?

(b)Why does he have to wait sixty days before shaving for his Safek Muchlat, seeing as normally, the shaving of a Muchlat overrides the Nazir's prohibition to shave?

10)

(a)We have already discussed the Mishnah 'Nazir she'Hayah Tamei b'Safek u'Muchlat b'Safek ... ' earlier (in Perek Kohen Gadol). He will become permitted ...

1. ... to eat Kodshim - after sixty days.

2. ... to drink wine and become Tamei Mes - after a hundred and twenty days.

(b)He has to wait sixty days before shaving for his Safek Muchlat - because it is only the shaving of a Vadai Muchlat that overrides the Nazir's prohibition to shave, but not of a Safek.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF