ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 9
***** Perek Hareini Nazir *****
(a) According to Beis Shamai, someone declares himself a Nazir from
G'rogros or from a D'veilah (dried figs or from a cake of figs) is - a
We reconcile Rebbi Yehudah's interpretation of Beis Shamai with what we
learned in Nedarim, that 'Korban' is not a Neder unless he adds the prefix
'ke' - by restricting that Sugya to when he did not say 'Alai', but when he
said 'Alai', then 'Korban' alone is effective.
(b) Beis Hillel say - 'Eino Nazir'.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. In his opinion - Beis Shamai consider the figs
Asur like a Korban.
(d) He says that despite the fact that the Noder used the term Nazir -
because 'Nazir' really means separate, so we interpret his words to mean
that he was separating from the figs as if they were a Korban.
(a) The problem that we initially have with Beis Shamai's ruling 'Hareini
Nazir min ha'G'rogros u'Min ha'Deveilah, Harei Zeh Nazir' is - that a grapes
and wine are forbidden to a Nazir, but not figs?
(b) We answer that Beis Shamai holds like Rebbi Meir - who says in Erchin
that someone who declares 'Erech K'li Alai' - knows that Keilim are not
subject to Erchin, and that he simply meant to give its regular value
(Damim) to Hekdesh (because a person does not make such declarations in
vain). Similarly, Beis Shamai in our Mishnah hold that everyone knows that
figs are not forbidden to a Nazir, so the Noder must have meant to forbid
wine (even though he said figs).
(c) And Beis Hillel hold like Rebbi Yossi - who holds that if someone
declares 'Harei Alai Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim', the animal should be
sent to romp in the field until it obtains a blemish, and then, when it is
sold, half of the proceeds go towards an Olah, and half, towards a Shelamim
(because we go after a person's final words). So too in our Mishnah, Beis
Hillel go after his final words, and since, there is no Nezirus from figs,
his Neder remains ineffective.
(d) In Erchin, Rebbi Yossi holds '*Af* bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas', and
the animal has the Kedushah of both an Olah and a Shelamim (as we
explained) - because there is no way to reconcile his first words with his
last ones; whereas here, he goes after 'G'mar Devarav' *exclusively*, and
the Noder is not a Nazir - because it is possible, that his last words come
to clarify the first ones, meaning that he has undertaken to separate from
figs and not from wine.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah here maintains that Beis Shamai too, holds like Rebbi
Yossi (that 'Af bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas') - for the reason that we just
explained (because the Noder's final words can be construed to explain his
first ones); whereas in Temurah he argues with Rebbi Yossi and says 'T'fos
Lashon Rishon' (declaring 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim' to be an Olah
[and not a Shelamim]), because there is no way of reconciling his last words
with his first ones.
(b) We prefer to establish Beis Hillel like Rebbi Yossi rather than like the
Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, who hold 'Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah' - to avoid
establishing the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan to be the
same as that of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
(c) Despite the fact that Rebbi Meir holds (with regard to 'Erech K'li
Alai') 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah' he agrees with Beis Hillel in our
Mishnah, who disregard the Noder's declaration - because (unlike in his
case, where a K'li has 'Damim', he maintains that that is what the Noder
must have meant) there is no such thing as a Nazir from figs (which means
that he must have retracted, in which case he no longer holds 'Ein Adam
Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah').
(d) We repudiate the above interpretation of the Machlokes Beis Shamai and
Beis Hillel - because seeing as he wants to retract from his original
statement 'Toch Kedei Dibur', and to forbid on himself only figs, why is the
Neder not negated automatically?
(a) We still establish Beis Shamai like Rebbi Meir. But now we consider the
Noder as having changed his mind when he said 'min ha'G'rogros', and Beis
Shamai follow their own reasoning. Based on their principle 'Hekdesh Ta'us
Havei Hekdesh', they say - 'Ein She'eilah le'Hekdesh' (and similarly, 'Ein
Charatah le'Hekdesh', even 'Toch Kedei Dibur'). And this extends to Nezirus,
which Beis Shamai also consider Hekdesh in this regard.
(b) Beis Shamai's source for giving a Nazir the Din of Hekdesh in this
regard - is the Pasuk in Naso "Kadosh Yih'yeh, Gadel Pera".
(c) We could not have given Beis Shamai's reason as 'Ein Poschin
ba'Charatah' - because 'Charatah' only applies when the Noder comes to ask
the Chacham to revoke his Neder, but not when he comes to cancel it himself
'Toch Kedei Dibur'.
(d) We did not just reply that Beis Shamai, following their own reasoning,
hold 'Ein She'eilah le'Hekdesh', but found it necessary to repeat that Beis
Shamai holds like Rebbi Meir - because we would otherwise have thought that
we have gone back on that S'vara, and that Rebbi Meir now holds that the
Neder is not valid in the first place. If that is so, then we would not be
able to say that they hold 'Ein She'eilah be'Hekdesh' (because if the
Hekdesh is not effective, then there can be no She'eilah either.
(a) And we establish Beis Hillel like Rebbi Shimon - who says that if
someone declares that he will bring a Minchah from barley, he is Patur from
bringing anything at all, because he did not undertake to bring his Korban
in the conventional manner.
(b) We could did not simply establish Beis Hillel according to their
reasoning, who say 'Yesh She'eilah le'Hekdesh' - because that would not help
explain why the Neder ('Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros') is not effective at
all, even as regards the G'rogros'), whereas establishing them like Rebbi
(a) Rebbi Nasan disagrees with our Mishnah. In a Beraisa, he quotes Beis
Shamai as saying (in the case of 'Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros') 'Nadur
ve'Nazir'. In his opinion, they hold like both ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir - who holds 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah'.
(b) Beis Hillel (says Rebbi Nasan) hold 'Nadur ve'Eino Nazir' - like Rebbi
Yehudah (in our Mishnah, but not like Rebbi Meir).
2. ... and Rebbi Yehudah - (in our Mishnah, who quotes Beis Shamai as saying
that he has declared a Neder, but not Nezirus.
(c) Alternatively, Beis Hillel hold 'Lo Nadur ve'Lo Nazir' - like Rebbi
Shimon (as we established according to the first explanation [on the
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Menachos, someone who
undertakes to bring a Minchah of barley or of 'Kemach', must bring one of
wheat or of 'So'les respectively - because (apart from the Minchas Omer and
a Minchas Sotah, which are exceptions) there is no such thing as a Minchah
from barley, or as a Minchah consisting of Kemach.
(b) If he undertakes to bring a Minchah ...
1. ... without oil and frankincense - he is nevertheless obligated to
include them in his Minchah (since every Minchas Nedavah contains them).
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon, he is Patur in all of the above cases from
bringing anything at all, seeing as he did not undertake to bring a
2. ... consisting of half an Isaron or of one a half Esronim of So'les
- he must bring one Isaron or two Esronim, respectively (since all Menachos
comprise full Esronim).
(d) Chizkiyah establishes the Tana Kama of this Mishnah like Beis Shamai -
who said in our Mishnah 'Hareini Nazir min ha'G'rogros ... Nazir'.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah even like Beis Hillel, who say in
our Mishnah 'Eino Nazir'. They may well agree with the Tana Kama of the
Mishnah in Menachos that his Neder is valid, because he is speaking when the
Noder specifically said that, had he known, he would have declared his Neder
on wheat (rather than on barley - and so with all the other cases); whereas
in our Mishnah, everyone knows that the Din of Nezirus does not extend to
figs (and he must have meant what he said).
(b) We conclude that Chizkiyah agrees with Rebbi Yochanan in this point, and
what he said was that the Tana Kama confines his statement to someone who
undertook to bring barley, but not lentils - since everybody knows that one
cannot bring a Minchah of lentils, and he can no longer say that, had he
known ... . Consequently, the Tana Kama will agrees with Rebbi Shimon that
his Neder is invalid.
(c) Clearly, Chizkiyah has now retracted from what he said above, that the
Tana Kama holds like Beis Shammai (according to whom lentils [with regard to
a Minchah] would be no different than figs [to a Nazir]).
(d) What convinced him to retract - was the fact that the Mishnah in
Menachos talked about G'rogros and not lentils (because people tend to
confuse barley with wheat, seeing as there are some Menachos that comprise
barley, but no-one confuses lentils with wheat).
(a) The problem that we have with Rebbi Yochanan, who now establishes the
Mishnah even when he said 'lentils' is - that he said earlier that we are
speaking when the Noder said that, had he known that one cannot bring a
Minchah of barley, he would have declared it on wheat (a Sevara that does
not apply to lentils [as we just explained]).
(b) We reconcile the statements of Rebbi Yochanan by establishing his latter
statement (not in his own name, but) in the name of Chizkiyah, who retracted
from his original statement. Rebbi Yochanan is asking him why he
retracted) from his distinction between barley and lentils, to which he
subscribes) based exclusively on the fact that theTana talked about a case
of barley rather than of lentils?
(c) If that is the basis of his retraction, he could well have maintained
his initial opinion. And the reason that the Tana Kama refers to a case of
barley rather than to one of lentils is (not to preclude lentils, but)
because had the Noder said 'lentils', it would be obvious that he had
retracted from his initial Neder of Minchah (and he holds 'T'fos Lashon
Rishon'), and it is where he said 'barley', where we might have thought that
the Noder simply became confused between a regular Minchah and one that
comprises barley, and his second Lashon comes to explain the first one
(which is therefore not valid), that the Tana needs to inform us that even
there, his Neder is valid, because he holds like Beis Shamai, that 'Ein Adam
Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah'.