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)

TOSFOS DH mi'Mai d'Hadin Silsul Sa'ara Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä îîàé ãäãéï ñéìñåì ùòøà äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we ask how we know that it refers to hair, and not to Torah.)

ãìùåï æä ðåôì àäôåê ùéòø ãðéîà ðæéøåú ÷áéì òìéä åàéîà úåøä ìäôê áúåøä.

(a)

Explanation: [What is the source that] this word applies to handling hair, that we should say that he accepted Nezirus on himself? I can say that he will delve in Torah!

2)

TOSFOS DH Hacha Nami Tafis b'Sa'arei

úåñôåú ã"ä äëà ðîé úôåñ áùòøéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is a proper answer.)

ãîùîò ùôéø äøéðé îäôê áîöåä äúìåéä áùéòø.

(a)

Explanation: This properly connotes "I will engage in Mitzvos that depend on hair."

3)

TOSFOS DH Shilu'ach Ribuy Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä ùéìåç øáåé äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the answer, and the question against it.)

ìùåï âéãåì ëîå ùìçéê ôøãñ øîåðéí

(a)

Explanation: This refers to growth, like "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim";

åàéîà îéãé ãòáåøé äåà ù÷éáì òìéå ìâìç åìäòáéø äùéòø ìëùéâãì.

1.

[We ask that] I can say that it is removal, that he accepted on himself to shave and remove the hair when it will grow!

4)

TOSFOS DH Tana Pera Pera Yalif

úåñôåú ã"ä úðà ôøò ôøò éìéó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gezeirah Shavah is needed.)

ìàå àúðà ãîúðé' ÷àé àìà àúðà ãñðäãøéï (ãó ëá:) ã÷àîø ëäï äãéåè öøéê ìâìç àçú ìùìùéí éåí

(a)

Explanation: This does not refer to the Tana of our Mishnah. Rather, it is the Tana of Sanhedrin (22b), who says that a Kohen Hedyot must shave once every 30 days;

åéìéó ôøò ìà éùìçå îðæéø ãëúéá âãì ôøò îä ìäìï ùìùéí éåí ëîðéï éäéä àó áëäï äãéåè ùìùéí éåí å÷àîø ìà éùìçå

1.

He learns "Pera Lo Yeshalechu" from Nazir, about which it says Gadel Pera. Just like there it is 30 days, like the Gematriya of Yihyeh, also here regarding a Kohen Hedyot it is 30 days, and [the verse] says that they may not be Shole'ach.

åäëà äëé ôéøåùà úðà ôøò ôøò éìéó áòìîà àìîà ãùéìåç äåé ìùåï âéãåì

2.

Our Gemara means as follows. Elsewhere, the Tana learns from a Gezeirah Shavah Pera Pera. This shows that Shilu'ach is an expression of growth.

åàí úàîø åìééúé î÷øà ãëúéá áðæéø ìäãéà ÷ãåù éäéä âãì ôøò åìîä ìé â"ù ëì òé÷ø (äâäú ìé÷åèé âàåðéí, ááøéú éò÷á)

(b)

Question: We should learn from the verse written explicitly about a Nazir, "Kadosh Yihyeh Gadel Pera." Why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah at all?

åé"ì ãùàðé äúí ãëúéá âãì ìäãéà àáì ùéìåç ìçåã ìà (äâäú ìé÷åèé âàåðéí, ááøéú éò÷á)

(c)

Answer: There is different, for it explicitly wrote Gadel (growing). However, when it says Shilu'ach alone, this is no [proof].

åàí úàîø åìééúé î÷øà ãëúéá áëäï äãéåè åôøò ìà éùìçå åàëúé â"ù ìîä ìé

(d)

Question: We should learn from the verse about a Kohen Hedyot u'Fera Lo Yeshalechu? Still, why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah?

åðøàä ìé ãî÷øà ãëäï äãéåè ìà îùîò ãìà éùìçå äåé âéãåì àôéìå ãúøé éåîé

(e)

Answer: The verse about a Kohen Hedyot does not connote that Lo Yeshalechu is growth even of two days;

1.

Note: Surely, the Torah permits a Kohen to serve with one day's growth of hair. When Yom Tov falls before Shabbos, how may he serve on Shabbos? Must he ask a Cheresh, lunatic, child or Nochri to cut his hair?!

åëéåï ãìà àîø áôéøåù äøéðé ðæéø úøé éåîé àìà ùéìåç ôøò àéï ëàï ÷áìú ðæéøåú

2.

Since he did not say explicitly "I am a Nazir for two days", rather, Shilu'ach Pera, there is no acceptance of Nezirus;

àáì ëé âîøéðï ëäï äãéåè îðæéø ãùéìåç äåé îï (äâäú äøù"ù) ùìùéí áâ"ù å÷àîø äøé [òìé] ìùìç ëàéìå àîø äøé òìé ìùìç ôøò ùìùéí éåí

3.

However, when we learn a Kohen Hedyot from a Nazir, that Shilu'ach is from (i.e. past) 30, through a Gezeirah Shavah, and he said Harei Alai Leshale'ach, it is as if he said Harei Alai Leshale'ach 30 days;

åîùúîò ùôéø ãðæéøåú ÷áéì òìéä ìäëé îééúé â"ù

4.

This properly connotes that he accepted Nezirus on himself. Therefore, we bring the Gezeirah Shavah.

åãåå÷à ëé àîø äøé òìé ìùìç ôøò àáì àîø äøé òìé ôøò áìà ùéìåç ìà îùîò îéãé

(f)

Distinction: This is only if he said "Alai Leshale'ach Pera." However, if he said "Alai Pera", without Shilu'ach, this does not connote anything;

ãôøò äåéà ìùåï âéìåé ëîå åôøò øàù äàùä (áîãáø ä).

1.

"Pera" is an expression of exposure, e.g. "u'Fara Rosh ha'Ishah."

5)

TOSFOS DH Mashkin Lei Maya li'Fri v'Rabi

úåñôåú ã"ä îù÷éï ìéä îéà ìôøé åøáé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that in other verses, Shilu'ach connotes removal.)

ôéøåù âãì äôøé

(a)

Explanation: The fruit grows.

å÷ùä ãàùëçï äøáä ùéìåç ùàéðå ìùåï âéãåì àìà ìùåï äòáøä ëîå ùìç úùìç (ãáøéí ëá) åéùìç éò÷á îìàëéí (áøàùéú ìá)

(b)

Question: We find many places in which Shilu'ach does not connote growth, rather, removal, e.g. "Shale'ach Teshalach" and "va'Yishlach Yakov Mal'achim"!

åéù ìåîø ãàé úåúáé' îäðê ÷øàé äåä îùðé ìéä ëãìòéì úðà ôøò ôøò éìéó

(c)

Answer #1: If we would ask from these verses, he would answer like above, that the Tana learns from a Gezeirah Shavah Pera-Pera;

åìà áà ìôøù àìà ìî÷øà ãàåúáéðï îéðéä åùåìç îéí

1.

He comes to explain only the verse we asked from, "v'Shole'ach Mayim."

åãåç÷ ãîùîò ãäðéç äâ"ù îëì åëì åòúä àéðå öøéê ìä ëìì

(d)

Question: This is difficult, for he totally abandoned the Gezeirah Shavah, and now he does not need it at all!

ìëï ð"ì ãîúçéìä ìà äéä çåùù ø÷ ùéîöà ìå ôñå÷ àçã ãîùîò ìùåï øáéä å÷îééúé ìéä î÷øà ãùìçéê

(e)

Answer #2: Rather, initially he was concerned only to find one verse that connotes that an expression of increase, and he brought this from the verse "Shelachayich";

åãçé ìéä äù"ñ ãìîà ääåà âåôéä ìùåï äòáøä ëîå åùåìç îéí åìéëà àôéìå çã ÷øà ãìùúîò ìùåï øáåéà

1.

The Gemara rejected this. Perhaps this itself is an expression of removal, like v'Shole'ach Mayim, and there is not even one verse that connotes increase!

åàäà îùðé àéáòéú àéîà äàé ùåìç îéí ìùåï øáåé äåà åàéëà ìîéìó îéðéä àå î÷øà ãùìçéê ôøãñ

2.

To this we answer that alternatively, v'Shole'ach Mayim is an expression of increase, and we can learn from it, or from the verse "Shelachayich Pardes."

åàó òì âá ã÷øàé èåáà ìùåï äòáøä

(f)

Implied question: There are many verses in which it is an expression of removal!

ùôéø éìôéðï îçã ÷øà ãäåé ìùåï øáåéà ãîñúáøà ãòúå àðæéøåú äåà.

(g)

Answer: We properly learn from one verse that it is an expression of increase, for presumably he intends for Nezirus.

6)

TOSFOS DH Tziporim ha'Semuchin l'Se'ar Kibel Alei

úåñôåú ã"ä öôåøéí äñîåëéï ìùéòø ÷éáì òìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is even though he said only "birds".)

äàîåøéï áôñå÷ àöì ùòø ëìåîø àó òì ôé ãàîø öôåøéí ñúîà

(a)

Explanation: [This refers to birds] mentioned in the verse near hair, even though he said "birds" Stam.

ãäà îúðé' ñúîà ÷àîø àôéìå äëé ñáéøà ìéä ìøéù ì÷éù ããòúéä ãàéðéù àöôåøéí äñîåëéí ìùéòø

(b)

Source: Our Mishnah says Stam, and even so, Reish Lakish holds that a person intends for birds [written] close to hair;

åäëé îùúîò ìéä äàåîø äøé òìé öôåøéí äøé æä ðæéø

1.

It connotes to him as follows. One who says "Harei Alai birds", he is a Nazir;

ãëéåï ãöôåøéí ñîåëéï ìùéòø á÷øà (äâäú úí ãøê) îñúîà ä"÷ äøé òìé îöåä ãùééëà áéä öôåøéï äúìåéí (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) áîöåú ùéòø

2.

Since birds are close to hair in a verse, presumably he means "is Alai a Mitzvah to which birds apply, that depends on a Mitzvah of hair";

ãäééðå ðæéø ùàí ðèîà öøéê öôåøéï åä"ô îöåä äúìåéä áöôåøéï

3.

This is Nazir, for if he became Tamei, he needs [to bring] birds. This is the Perush [of his words] - a Mitzvah dependent on birds.

àëï àéï ìôøù îùåí ñîéëåú âøéãà ëãîôøù äù"ñ

(c)

Suggestion: Perhaps it is merely due to the Semichus alone, like [the simple reading of] the Gemara explains!

ãàí ëï äøé òìé ðùøéï äì"ì ãäåé ðæéø ãèôé ñîéëé ìùòø.

(d)

Rejection: If so, if he said "Harei Alai Nishrin", he should be a Nazir, for this is closer to hair!

7)

TOSFOS DH Ad Di Sarei k'Nishrin Revah v'Tifrohi ch'Tziparin

úåñôåú ã"ä òã ãé ùòøéä ëðùøéï øáä åèôøåäé ëöôøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the source of the verse.)

ôñå÷ äåà áãðéàì âáé ðáåëãðöø.

(a)

Explanation: This is a verse in Daniel, regarding Nevuchadnetzar.

8)

TOSFOS DH Tziporei Nazir Tamei Kibel Alei (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä öôåøé ðæéø èîà ÷éáì òìéä (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why R. Meir says that he is a Nazir.)

ôéøåù îöåú ðæéøåú ãùééëà áäå öôåøé ðæéø èîà àí éèîà.

(a)

Explanation: This is the Mitzvah of Nezirus, to which Tziporei Nazir Tamei apply, if he will become Tamei.

9)

TOSFOS DH Michdi Chaishinan ka'Amar... (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä îëãé çééùéðï ÷àîø... (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we assume that he did not accept Nezirus on himself.)

ãëì ëîä ãàéëà ìôøåùé ãéáåøéä ãìàå ðæéøåú ÷éáì òìéä àìà ðãø àçø ùôéø èôé

(a)

Explanation: As long as we can explain his words that he did not accept Nezirus on himself, rather, a different Neder, this is better;

ãìà ðéçà ìéä ìàéðéù ì÷áåìé òìéä ðæéøåú (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) ãçîéø òìéä åèøéçà ìéä.

1.

This is because it is not comfortable for a person to accept on himself Nezirus , for it is severe on him and a burden.

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

10)

TOSFOS DH Harei Alai Ken Miba'i Lei

úåñôåú ã"ä äøé òìé ÷ï îéáòé ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he should have said Ken.)

ããøê ðåãáé ðãáú òåìú äòåó ìåîø áìùåï ÷ï.

(a)

Explanation: It is the way of those who volunteer to bring Olas ha'Of to use the word "Ken".

11)

TOSFOS DH Tziporei Metzora ka'Amar

úåñôåú ã"ä öôåøé îöåøò ÷àîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the Havah Amina.)

ëìåîø ìäúçééá á÷øáï îöåøò åìäáéà úçúéå öôåøéí äöøéëåú (äâäú áøëú øàù) ìå ìèäøúå

(a)

Explanation: I.e. [he said] to become obligated in the Korban of a Metzora, and to bring for him the birds needed for his Taharah;

åàôéìå àéï îöåøò òåáø ìôðéå ãàé àôùø ãìéëà çã îöåøò ãèòåï öôåøéí åìà ðæéøåú

1.

This is even if no Metzora passes in front of him. Surely there is at least one Metzora who needs birds. [We do] not [say that he intended for birds of] Nezirus.

åâí ãöôåøé ùééëé ùôéø âáé îöåøò.

2.

Also, "Tziporei" properly applies to a Metzora. (The Torah says that a Metzora needs "Tziporim", i.e. any Tahor birds. A Nazir brings only Turim or Benei Yonah.)

12)

TOSFOS DH Kegon she'Hayah Nazir Over Lefanav

úåñôåú ã"ä ëâåï ùäéä ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Makshan held that it is even if a Nazir Tamei is in front of him.)

åäéä ñáåø àôéìå ðæéø èîà ìôðéå åìäëé ôøéê åãìîà öôåøéï ã÷àîø ìôèåø ðæéø èîà äòåáø ìôðéå î÷øáðåúéå

(a)

Explanation: He thought that this is even if a Nazir Tamei is in front of him. Therefore, he asks that perhaps he means birds to exempt the Nazir Tamei in front of him.

åîùðé ëâåï ùðæéø èäåø òåáø ìôðéå åéåãò æä äðåãø ãèäåø äåà å÷àîø äøé òìé öôåøéí

1.

We answer that the case is, a Nazir Tahor passes in front of him, and the one who vows knows that he is Tahor, and he said Harei Alai Tziporim."

åàëúé ÷ùä ðéîà ãöôåøéí ã÷àîø äééðå ãàí éèîà æä äðæéø äòåáø ìôðéå ùéáéà úçúéå öôåøéí

(b)

Question: Still, we should say that he said birds, i.e. if this Nazir passing in front of him will become Tamei, he will bring birds in place of him!

åöøéê ìãçåú åìåîø ëâåï ãàîø áìáå ìäéåú ùééê ìîöåú ðæéøåú ãùééëà áéä öéôåøéí àí éèîà

(c)

Answer #1: We must answer and say that the case is, he said in his heart that should apply to him the Mitzvah of Nezirus, to which applies birds if he will become Tamei.

åìòéì ëé ôøéê åãìîà öôåøé îöåøò ÷àîø ìà îöé ìùðåéé ëâåï ãàîø áìáå

1.

Implied question: Above, when we asked "perhaps he refers to birds of a Metzora", why didn't we answer that he said in his heart [that he intends for Nezirus]?

ããéáåøéä îéùúîò èôé àöôåøé îöåøò (èôé) îðæéøåú îùåí ãðæéøåú èøéçà ìéä åçîéø òìéä ì÷áì

2.

Answer #1: His words connote Tziporei Metzora more than Nezirus, because Nezirus is a burden to him and severe on him to accept.

åòåã ãìùåï öôåøéí ëúåáéï àöì îöåøò ëãôøéùéú åìà àöì ðæéø àìà úåøéí

3.

Answer #2: The word "Tziporim" is written regarding Metzora, like I explained (at the end of the previous Dibur), but not regarding Nazir; [for which the Torah says] only Turim [or Benei Yonah].

åàôé' ÷àîø áìáå àéï ëç áîçùáú äìá ìäëøéò ãéáåøéä ìðæéøåú ãàéï æä ôéå åìáå ùåéï

i.

Even if he said in his heart [that he intends for Nezirus], this cannot resolve that his utterance is [acceptance of] Nezirus, for his mouth and his heart are not the same;

àáì äëà àó òì âá ãðæéøåú çîéø òìéä åèøéçà ìéä ëéåï ãðæéø èäåø äåà ùòåáø ìôðéå àéï ñáøà ùé÷áì òìéå öôåøé ðæéø èîà (äâäú îìàëú éå"è) ùãáø æä àéðå áòåìí òãééï

4.

However, here, even though Nezirus is severe on him and a burden to him, since a Tahor Nazir passes in front of him, it is unreasonable that he accepts on himself birds of a Tamei Nazir, since this is not yet in the world;

åäãáø ù÷åì ìëê îäðéà îçùáú äìá ìåîø ãðæéøåú ÷áéì òìéä åçùéá ùôéø ôéå åìáå ùåéï

5.

The matter is equal (what he intends), therefore intent of his heart helps to say that he accepted Nezirus on himself. It is considered that his mouth and his heart are the same.

åëï ìòéì ëé àîø àäà èôé îùîò äìùåï àðæéøåú åìåîø ëîåäå ìàìúø àó òì âá ãèøéçà ìéä åçîéø òìéä îìåîø àäà úçúéå á÷øáðåúéå ìàçø æîï ëùéùìéí

(d)

Support: Also above, when he said "Ehei", this connotes more than Nezirus, and to say [I will be] like him immediately, even though it is a burden to him and severe on him, than to say "I will be in place of him [to supply] his Korbanos later, when he finishes;

åäãáø ù÷åì ìëê îçùáú äìá îëøòú äãéáåø ìðæéøåú åäøé ôéå åìáå ùåéï

1.

The matter is equal. Therefore, intent of his heart helps resolves that his utterance was for Nezirus. His mouth and his heart are the same.

å÷ùä ãäñôø ìà äæëéø ëàï ëìì ã÷àîø áìáå

(e)

Objection: The Gemara did not mention at all that he said in his heart!

ìëï ðøàä ìîäø"ó (äâäú ÷øï àåøä) àéï ñáøà ìåîø ãàí éèîà ÷àîø ùéúçééá áöôåøéï äåàéì åäùúà èäåø äåà åãáø æä ìà áà ìòåìí ëìì

(f)

Answer #2 (R. Peretz): It is unreasonable to say that he means that it is unreasonable that if he (the Nazir) will become Tamei, he accepts on himself birds of a Tamei Nazir, since now he is Tahor. This is not in the world at all;

åà"ë ñáøà ìåîø ãðæéøåú ÷áéì òìéä ããáø æä îáåøø ìôðéðå åéù áéãå ì÷áì ìàìúø àó òì âá ãçîéø åèøéçà ìéä

1.

If so, it is reasonable to say that he accepted Nezirus on himself, for this is clear in front of us, and he can accept immediately, even though it is severe and a burden to him;

åìòéì ëé ôøéê îîöåøò äúí ðîé äãáø îáåøø ìôðéðå ãåãàé éù îöåøò áòåìí äöøéê öôøéí.

2.

Above, when we asked from a Metzora, also there it was clear in front of us, that surely there is a Metzora in the world who needs birds.

13)

TOSFOS DH Mai Beinaihu

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé áéðééäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they agree about one who accepted birds Stam.)

ëìåîø îàé áéðééäå áôé' ãîúðé' áéï ìø"ì áéï ìø' éåçðï àìéáà ãø"î

(a)

Explanation: We ask what is the difference between them regarding the Perush of our Mishnah, between Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan, according to R. Meir.

åà"ú åìéùðé ãàéëà áéðééäå äéëà ãàîø öôåøéí ñúîà (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãìø"ì àìéáà ãø"î îäà ìçåã ìà äåé ðæéø àí ìà äæëéø âí ñîåëéï ìùéòø ëãôéøù ø"ì áîéìúéä öôåøéí ñîåëéï ìùéòø ÷áéì òìéä

(b)

Question #1: We should answer that they differ about one who said birds Stam! According to Reish Lakish according to R. Meir, from this alone he is not a Nazir, unless he mentioned also "next to hair";

åìø' éåçðï ãìà äæëéø áîéìúéä öôåøéí ñîåëéï ìùéòø ëùé÷áì òìéå öôåøéí ñúîà áìà ñîåëéï ìùéòø äåé ðæéø

1.

According to R. Yochanan, who did not mention in his words birds next to hair, when he accepts on himself birds Stam, without "next to hair", he is a Nazir.

åòåã äéà âåôä úé÷ùé ìø"ì ìîä ìéä ñîåëéï ìùéòø áöôåøéí ñúîà ìçåã ñâé ìø"î ìîéäåé ðæéø

(c)

Question #2: This itself we can ask against Reish Lakish! Why do we need next to hair? Birds Stam suffices according to R. Meir to become a Nazir!

ùäøé îúðéúéï ìø"î ìà äæëéø àìà öôåøéï ìçåã

1.

Source: In our Mishnah, R. Meir mentioned only birds!

ìë"ð ìôøù ãìø"ì àìéáà ãø"î áöôåøéï ñúîà äåé ðæéø ëùðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ãå÷à

(d)

Answer: Therefore, it seems that according to Reish Lakish according to R. Meir, [when he said] Stam birds he is a Nazir, only if a Nazir was passing in front of him.

åäà ãð÷è ø"ì áîéìúéä ñîåëéï ìùéòø

(e)

Implied question: Why did Reish Lakish mention in his words "next to hair"?

ìäùîéòðå ãëé àîø öôåøéí ñîåëéï ìùéòø ãáìà ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ðîé äåé ðæéø áäëé

(f)

Answer: This is to teach that when he said birds he is a Nazir, also without a Nazir passing in front of him he is a Nazir through this.

åà"ú ëéåï ãìø"ì ëùé÷áì öôåøéí ñúîà ìà äåé ðæéø àí ìà ëùðæéø òåáø ìôðéå àìéáà ãø"î äåé ìéä ìäù"ñ ìäæëéø ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå áîéìúéä ãø"ì ëîå áîéìúéä ãøáé éåçðï

(g)

Question: Since according to Reish Lakish, when he accepted birds Stam, he is not a Nazir unless a Nazir was passing in front of him, according to R. Meir, the Gemara should have mentioned that a Nazir passes in front of him in the teaching of Reish Lakish, just like it [it mentions this] in the teaching of R. Yochanan!

åé"ì ãìëê äæëéø èôé áîéìúéä ãø' éåçðï îîéìúéä ãø"ì îùåí ãø' éåçðï ôñé÷à ìéä

(h)

Answer: It mentions this more in the teaching of R. Yochanan than in the teaching of Reish Lakish, for it is uniform according to R. Yochanan;

ãàó ëùàîø öôåøéí äñîåëéï ìùéòø òìé ìà äåé àìà ëùðæéø òåáø ìôðéå

1.

Even when he said "birds next to hair Alai", he is [a Nazir] only if a Nazir was passing in front of him;

åìø"ì äåé ðæéø ëùàîø öôøéí äñîåëéï ìùéòø àôéìå àéï ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå

2.

According to Reish Lakish, he is a Nazir when he said "birds next to hair", even if no Nazir was passing in front of him.

åäùúà ðéçà ãôøéê îàé áéðééäå ãìëåìäå àó áùìà äæëéø öôåøéï ñîåëéï ìùéòø àìà öôåøéí ñúîà äåé ðæéø ëé ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå

(i)

Support #1: Now it is fine that we ask what is the difference between them, for according to all of them, even when he did not mention "birds next to hair", rather, birds Stam, he is a Nazir if a Nazir was passing in front of him;

åàé àéï ðæéø òåáø áöôåøéí ñúîà ìçåã ìà äéä ðæéø ìëåìäå

1.

If a Nazir was not passing in front of him, if he said birds Stam, he is not a Nazir according to all of them;

åäùúà ðîé ðéçà ãìø"ì áöôåøéí ñúîà ìà îéçééá îùåí ãñîåëéï ìùéòø á÷øà ãà"ë ìéçééá ðîé ëé àîø ðùøéï åèåôøéï ãñîéëé èôé ìùéòø á÷øà îöôåøéí ëê ùéèú äø"ó ð"ò äâä"ä.

(j)

Support #2: Also now it is fine that according to Reish Lakish, regarding birds Stam, he is not obligated [to be a Nazir] because they are next to hair in the verse, for if so, he should be obligated also if he said "Nishrin" or "Tufrin", which are closer to hair in the verse than birds are! This is the opinion of R. Peretz.

14)

TOSFOS DH Heicha d'Amar Tziporim Semuchin l'Se'ar Kibel Alei

úåñôåú ã"ä äéëà ãàîø öôåøéí ñîåëéí ìùéòø òìé (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we must say that a Nazir passed in front of him.)

ø"ì ù÷éáì òìéå ãáø äñîåê ìöôåøéí ãäééðå âéãåì ùéòø

(a)

Explanation: He accepted on himself something next to birds, i.e. growing hair.

àáì ëé àîø äøé òìé öôåøéí åìà àîø öôåøéí ñîåëéï ìùéòø çééì òìéä ðæéøåú îùåí ãîùúîò ùðãø ãáø ùéëåì ìáà ìéãé çéåá öôåøéí ãäééðå ðæéø ëùðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ãå÷à

(b)

Distinction: However, when he said Harei Alai birds, and he did not say birds next to hair, Nezirus takes effect on him because it connotes that he vowed something that can come to an obligation of birds, i.e. Nazir. This is only when a Nazir passes in front of him.

åîùåí äëé ìà îäðé äøé òìé ðùøéï

(c)

Implied question: Why doesn't it help "Harei Alai Nishrin"?

ãìéùðà ãðùøéï ìà îùîò ùåí ìùåï ðæéøåú ëï ð"ì

(d)

Answer: The word "Nishrin" does not connote any expression of Nezirus. So it seems to me.

äâä"ä åäø"ø ùáúàé ëúá ùéèä æàú îàé áéðééäå ëìåîø îàé áéðééäå áôéøåù ãîúðé'

(e)

Comment: R. Shabtai wrote this Perush. What is the difference between them, i.e. what is the difference between them regarding the Perush of our Mishnah?

ãåãàé ðøàä ìéä ãø"ì ìà ÷àîø àìéáà ãøáé îàéø ãáöôåøéí ñúîà îéçééá áðæéø ãàéëà ìîéôøê ëì äðé ôéøëé ãôøéê ìòéì ìø' éåçðï åò"ë éôøù äîùðä ëîå ø' éåçðï

1.

Surely, it seems to him that Reish Lakish did not say according to R. Meir that [through saying] Stam birds he is obligated [to be a] Nazir, for we can ask all the questions we asked above against R. Yochanan. He is forced to explain the Mishnah like R. Yochanan.

ãâí ìà éåëì ìôøù äîùðä ùàîø áôéøåù öôåøéí äñîåëéí ìùéòø òìé ãäà îúðé' ñúîà ÷àîø öôåøéí òìé

2.

He cannot explain the Mishnah to be when he explicitly said "birds next to hair Alai", for the Mishnah says Stam "birds Alai."

äéìëê ò"ë ëøáé éåçðï îôøù åáðæéø òåáø ìôðéå åäåà èäåø åò"ë ôøéê îàé áéðééäå áôéøåù ãîúðé'

(f)

Conclusion: He is forced to explain the Mishnah like R. Yochanan, and when a Nazir passes in front of him, and he is Tahor. Therefore, we ask what is the difference between them in the Perush of our Mishnah.

åðøàä ùðúëååï ìäáéï ëîå ùôéøùúé áúçéìä.

(g)

Remark: It seems that [R. Shabtai] understood like I initially explained [above, 3a DH Tziporim].

15)

TOSFOS DH ha'Omer Yamin Harei Zeh Shevu'ah

úåñôåú ã"ä äàåîø éîéï äøé æå ùáåòä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that also Smol makes a Shevu'ah.)

éîéï ùìà àåëì ëëø æä åä"ä ùîàì ëãì÷îï

(a)

Example: He said "Yamin, that I will not eat this loaf." The same applies to Smol, like it says below.

1.

Note: Maharav Ransborg says that this Dibur ends here. The next Dibur ha'Maschil is uvi'Zro'a.

.åáæøåò äééðå ùîàì ãòåæå (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ôéøåù äúôéìéï

(b)

Explanation #1: "Uvi'Zro'a" is (Hash-m's) left hand, for "Uzo" means Tefilin (which is worn on the left hand).

àé ðîé îãäæëéø éîéï úçéìä

(c)

Explanation #2: [We know that] "uvi' Zro'a" is the left hand, since it mentioned the right hand first.

16)

TOSFOS DH Min ha'Chartzanim u'Min ha'Zagim

úåñôåú ã"ä îï äçøöðéí åîï äæâéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he need not say both.)

àå àå ÷úðé ëãîåëç áâîøà.

(a)

Explanation: The Mishnah teaches [that he said] either of these, like is proven in the Gemara.

17)

TOSFOS DH v'Chol Dikdukei Nezirus Alav

úåñôåú ã"ä åëì ã÷ãå÷é ðæéøåú òìéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we needed to say this.)

îùåí ãðæéø ùîùåï îåúø ìéèîà ìîúéí ÷àîø äëà åëì ã÷ãå÷é ðæéøåú òìéå.

(a)

Explanation: Because a Nazir Shimshon may become Tamei to Mesim, it says here that all laws of Nazir apply to him.