(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 56


QUESTION: Rav Chisda rules that if a Nazir becomes a Metzora during his Nezirus, the days of his Tzora'as count towards his days of Nezirus. However, after he becomes Tahor from his Tzora'as (which involves shaving his hair on two different occasions, one when he begins counting the seven days before he can bring his Korbanos to become Tahor, and one at the end of those seven days), he must wait thirty days before bringing the Korbanos Taharah for his Nezirus, since he must grow his hair back in order to do Tiglachas for his Nezirus.

The Gemara disproves Rav Chisda's opinion from a Beraisa which says that when a person accepts Nezirus for one year and then he becomes a Safek Metzora and a Safek Nazir Tamei, he may eat Kodshim after two years have passed, and he may drink wine only after four years have passed, after all of the doubts involved with his status have been appropriately addressed (see Chart). According to Rav Chisda, this person should be permitted to drink wine after *three years and thirty days*, because after two years he is definitely no longer a Metzora and he may bring his Korbanos Nezirus, whether he was a Nazir Tamei or a Nazir Tahor: if he was a Nazir Tahor, then he only needs to wait thirty days (in order to grow his hair) and then he performs the Tiglachas of Nezirus. Since he might have been a Nazir Tamei, though, he needs to observe in Taharah the full period of Nezirus that he accepted (one year). Hence, after thirty days have passed, he shaves (either as a Nazir Tahor, or for the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei) and begins counting the one-year Nezirus, which is completed after a total of three years and thirty days have passed. Since the Beraisa says that he must wait four years, it must be that the days of his Tzora'as do *not* count towards the days of his Nezirus, and hence he must start counting his Nezirus anew after he becomes Tahor from Tzora'as!

Before citing this Beraisa that says that a Nazir must wait four years, the Gemara cites a Mishnah (59b) that discusses an identical case regarding a Nazir Stam (a Nezirus for thirty days), where the Nazir may drink wine after 120 days have passed. However, the Gemara does not see sufficient proof in that Mishnah to disprove Rav Chisda's opinion, since even according to Rav Chisda the Nazir must wait thirty days after his Tzora'as in order to grow back his hair.

Why can we not disprove Rav Chisda's opinion from that Mishnah? If the days of Tzora'as count towards the days of Nezirus, the person should be permitted to drink wine after only sixty days! After the first thirty days, when he performs the first Tiglachas of Metzora mi'Safek, he should make a condition and say, "If I am a Metzora and I am Tamei, I want this Tiglachas to serve as my Tiglachas of Nazir Tamei *and* as my Tiglachas of Metzora." After sixty days, he should say, "If I am a Metzora, I want this Tiglachas to be not only my second Tiglachas of Metzora, but also my Tiglachas of Nazir Tahor, since by now I am certainly a Nazir Tahor, and the days of my Tzora'as count towards my Nezirus." It should not be necessary to count another thirty days in order to grow his hair back, since the second Tiglachas of Metzora itself was a valid Tiglachas of Nezirus Taharah! TOSFOS (DH Ochel) addresses this point and writes simply that the Tiglachas of a Metzora cannot count as a Tiglachas for a Nazir Tahor. Why not?

A similar question may be asked on the way that Rav Chisda interprets our Mishnah. According to Rav Chisda, our Mishnah means that if a Nazir accepts a thirty-day Nezirus, the days during which he was a Metzora do not count towards the days of his Nezirus, since he must observe thirty days of growing his hair. Why must he make up days of growing his hair? Let him just wait thirty days before performing the Tiglachas of Metzora, and let him do one Tiglachas for both the Tzora'as and the Nezirus!

ANSWER: The Gemara later (60b) quotes Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai who explains that a Tiglachas cannot count for two different purposes. If it is a Tiglachas Metzora, then it cannot serve also as a Tiglachas Nezirus. Therefore, the first two Tiglachos must be for the Tzora'as exclusively, and then he needs another two Tiglachos for Nazir Tamei and Nazir Tahor. (There is another reason why the Tiglachas of Metzora cannot count as a Tiglachas for Nazir Tamei: Tosfos holds that a person who is Tamei Mes cannot become Tahor while he is a Metzora (in the days of his Chaluto or even in the seven days between his two Tiglachos; see Insights to 60b). This is why Tosfos only addresses using the Tiglachas of a Metzora for the Tiglachas of a Nazir *Tahor*.)

Similarly, in our Mishnah, the Nazir cannot count his Tiglachas of Tzora'as as his Tiglachas of Nezirus. (He cannot be Megale'ach for his Nezirus before he is Megale'ach for Tzora'as, because a Metzora is prohibited from shaving; see Moed Katan 15a and the Rambam, Hilchos Tzora'as 10:6.)

(The TOSFOS CHITZONIYOS cited by the SHITAH MEKUBETZES writes that the Gemara indeed could have disproved Rav Chisda's opinion from the case of the thirty-day Nezirus (which must be observed for 120 days). The only reason it asks from the Beraisa that discusses the one-year Nezirus is because the Gemara concluded that our Mishnah is discussing a Nezirus Merubah (a Nezirus longer than thirty days) according to Rav Chisda. It is not clear what the Tosfos Chitzoniyos means by this, since even according to Rav Chisda, one Tiglachas cannot count for two different purposes, as the Tosfos Chitzoniyos himself writes earlier.)


QUESTION: The Gemara proves that when a teaching was passed down through a long line of Tana'im, it is necessary only to quote the first and last sources, and not the middle one(s). Rav Nachman proves this from a Mishnah in which Nachum ha'Lavlar relates a certain teaching in the name of Rebbi Mei'asha, who heard it from "father," who heard it from the "Zugos," who heard it from the Nevi'im, who received it as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. We see that he omitted Yehoshua and Kalev from the list of sources. It must be that it is not necessary to mention the middle ones.

If it is not necessary to mention the middle ones, then why did Nachum ha'Lavlar mention all of the sources between Rebbi Mei'asha and Moshe Rabeinu?


(a) The CHIDA in PESACH EINAYIM answers that the Gemara does not mean that one *should* omit the middle sources, but rather that it is *permitted* to omit the middle sources. That is why we often find in the Gemara a statement quoted from a long list of Amora'im or Tana'im (and the statement is not simply quoted in the name of the first source and last source). The ARZEI HA'LEVANON points out that this is also inferred from the words of the ROSH here.

Why, though, would a Tana choose to list only some names and omit others?

The answer might be that the reason why a person *should* mention any earlier sources that he knows of when relating a statement is because he thereby hastens the Ge'ulah ("Mevi Ge'ulah l'Olam;" Megilah 15a). The Gemara, though, is trying to prove that even when one knows the entire chain of sources but has a reason to omit some names, it is permitted to omit them (without causing a delay for the Ge'ulah). In the case of Nachum ha'Lavlar, it was not necessary for him to mention Yehoshua and Kalev, because everyone knows the chain of Kabalah between Moshe Rabeinu and the Nevi'im, as it says in Avos (1:1), "Moshe taught the Torah to Yehoshua who taught it to the Zekenim who taught it to the Nevi'im" (Kalev apparently was the leading elder of the Zekenim; as one of the only ones who survived in the Midbar, he was the oldest). Not mentioning those sources will not deprive us of the Ge'ulah, because their names will be known without having to mention them, and that is why Nachum ha'Lavlar omitted them.

Similarly, in our Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah -- who is quoting what Rebbi Eliezer said -- is not detracting from the Ge'ulah by not saying all the names, since the statement was already known to have been said by Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi only includes the entire chain of tradition in a Mishnah when he is quoting a Tana's words in the exact wording that the Tana used himself, in first person (such as the words of Nachum ha'Lavlar when he said, "*I* was Mekabel from...").

(b) The MEFARESH says that Nachum ha'Lavlar quoted everyone from the Nevi'im and onward because they are all considered to be one single unit in the chain of tradition, since they all lived during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash and onward. Apparently, according to the Mefaresh, one must mention all of the people in the chain of tradition who lived in the same time period, as the last (or first) link. The reason why the Mishnah omits mention of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Mamal is perhaps because he lived during the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, while Rebbi Eliezer taught after the Churban (see Gitin 56a).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,