ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 19
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa say about a Nezirah who became Tamei and who had
already designated two birds for her Chatas and Olah (as well as her Asham),
when her husband annulled her Neder - is obligated to bring the Chatas, but
not the Olah (or the Asham).
(b) Rav Chisda establishes the author of this Beraisa as Rebbi Yishmael B'no
shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - who considers the Olah to be part of the
Kaparah, as we learned above, but not according to Rebbi, in whose opinion
it is merely a gift.
(c) Despite the fact that she does not bring the Olah (even though it comes
as a Kaparah, according to Rebbi Yishmael ... ), she bring the Chatas -
because, as we shall soon see, she is still left with a sin that requires
atonement, and based on a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, a Chatas ha'Of must be
brought even on a Safek (and the slender reason that she needs to bring it,
considering that her Nezirus has already been annulled, is compared to a
Safek - Tosfos).
(d) We conclude that this Tana holds that a husband uproots his wife's
Nedarim from their inception (like a Chacham). If he held that he only
negates it from that moment and onwards - she would be obligated to bring
the Olah and the Asham, too.
(a) We establish Rebbi Yishmael ... like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar (otherwise
she would not require a Kaparah at all) - who learns from the Pasuk
"ve'Chiper Alav me'Asher Chata al ha'Nefesh" - that a Nazir is a sinner for
having abstained from wine (which the Torah does not forbid).
(b) He extrapolates from there - that someone who abstains from food (by
fasting) has certainly sinned.
(c) In spite of the fact that, according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, even a
Nazir Tahor has sinned, the Torah nevertheless writes 'me'Asher Chata al
ha'Nefesh specifically by a Nazir Tamei - because he sinned a second time
(this is because, seeing as overall, Nezirus is a Mitzvah, the Torah did not
want to bring out the sin aspect of Nezirus for the declaration itself, and
it is only when he becomes Tamei, revealing that he has accepted upon
himself levels that are beyond him, that the Torah mentions it).
(d) Nevertheless, she does not bring her Chatas even if she did not become
Tamei - because the Chatas of a Nazir Tahor is a lamb, and a Chatas
*Beheimah* is not brought on a Safek, only a Chatas ha'Of.
(a) Our Mishnah, in the case of someone who undertook Nezirus in a cemetery,
continues 'Yatza ve'Nichnas, Olin Lo min ha'Minyan', in itself, a senseless
statement - because why should going out and returning per se make any
(b) Shmuel answered 'Kegon she'Yatza ve'Hizah ve'Shanah ve'Taval'. The
Tana adds 've'Nichnas', not because it needs to, but to teach us that even
though he returned, and even before nightfall (in which case, he is still a
T'vul Yom), he may nevertheless begin counting his Nezirus de'Taharah.
(c) When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav why he did not explain this to
them, he replied - that he had assumed that they knew it already.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Yamim
ha'Rishonim Yiplu" - that a Tamei she'Nazar who became Tamei on his seventh
day of Taharah does not bring a Korban Tum'ah.
(b) Ula comments - that this is not the case with a Nazir *Tahor* she'Nitma,
according to Rebbi Eliezer, who must bring a Korban Tum'ah even if he became
Tamei on the first day of his Nezirus.
(c) Rava extrapolates Ula's comment - from the Pasuk "Ki Tamei Nizro",
implying that it only applies to a Tamei she'Nazar but not to a Nazir
(a) Abaye asks on Ula and Rava from a Beraisa. Based on the Pasuk
ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu", the Beraisa says that a Nazir for a hundred
days who became Tamei on the first day or on the last day - does not
demolish his Nezirus.
(b) This does not mean that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, if he becomes Tamei
on the hundreth day, he does not demolish his Nezirus at all. In fact - he
demolishes thirty days (from the Pasuk "ve'Zos Toras ha'Nazir be'Yom
Me'los" - see Tosfos).
(c) We nevertheless require the Pasuk "ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu". We
could not learn this from "ve'Zos Toras ha'Nazir be'Yom Me'los" (from which
we learned the same Halachah in the first Perek) alone - because if not for
the Pasuk "ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu" we would have explained "Yom
Me'los" to pertain to the hundred and first day (but on the hundreth day, he
would have to demolish all hundred days). And besides, without it, we would
not know that at least two days are required even at the beginning of the
term of Nezirus (Tosfos).
(a) If he became Tamei on the ninety-ninth day, says the Beraisa - he will
demolish all the previous days (because both 'Yamim ha'Rishonim and 'Yamim
ha'Acharonim' have been fulfilled).
(b) This will work even according to Rav Masna, who holds 'Miktzas ha'Yom
ke'Kulo' - because in spite of it, Lechatchilah he is obligated to observe
the entire hundreth day of Nezirus, as we learned in the first Perek.
(c) In any event, we see from this Beraisa that, according to Rebbi Eliezer,
even a Nazir she'Nitma requires at least two days both at the beginning and
at the end in order to demolish his Nezirus completely.
(a) When Rav Papa mean when he asked Abaye 'Halein "Yamim" de'ka'Amrinan
de'Nafak Chad u'Maschilin T'rein, O Dilma de'Nafkin T'rein u'Maschilin
T'lasa' - he meant to ask whether the two days at the beginning need to
include a full twenty four period of Nezirus de'Taharah (like there will
inevitably be at the end, where the hundreth day is always complete); or
whether until nightfall is considered one day, irrespective of when his
Nezirus began (and the following day is considered the second day).
(b) Abaye did not answer him ...
1. ... from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Eliezer said 'Lo le'Bo be'Yom',
implying that immediately after nightfall demolishes - because Rebbi
Eliezer's intention is to counter the Rabbanan, who say that the first day
does demolish (and not to convey the extent of his opinion) Tosfos.
(c) We also ask from the Beraisa that we quoted above 'Maschil u'Moneh Miyad
(ba'Shevi'i)', who brings a Korban Tum'ah if he became Tamei on the eighth
day (which is like the second day). Assuming that Rav Papa knew of that
Beraisa (which he may well have not), it is difficult to answer that here it
is different, because he had the seventh day, which is a complete day -
since the seventh day cannot really be complete, seeing as he requires
sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah and Tevilah before he can
begin Nezirus de'Taharah.
2. ... from the Beraisa, which, contrary to the Rabbanan, who hold that
Tum'ah demolishes even on the first day, says 'Nitma bi'Techilas Me'ah (Eino
Soser)', implying that second day does demolish - because 'Techilas Me'ah'
could well incorporate the second day (or we could answer like we answered
the previous Kashya) Tosfos.
3. ... from the Seifa of the current Beraisa, which holds that the
ninety-ninth day demolishes - because we cannot presume the same to apply to
the beginning, since the end is different, inasmuch as the hundredth day is
always complete anyway, as we explained earlier) Tosfos.
(d) In any event, in spite of that Beraisa - Rav Papa might be searching for
a source for this Halachah in a Pasuk?
(a) Abaye did not know how to answer Rav Papa. Rava answered him - that
"Yiplu" implying that only a minimum number of days is required for the
Tum'ah to demolish the Nezirus (i.e. it will do so on the second day even if
a full day of Nezirus de'Taharah did not elapse).
(b) Now that the Torah writes "Yiplu" to teach us that one does not require
two complete days, it nevertheless needs to write "Yamim" - to teach us that
at least one day of Nezirus de'Taharah is required (to preclude from the
opinion of the Tana Kama, who does not require even that).
(a) A Nazir in Chutz la'Aretz is obligated to go to Eretz Yisrael - in order
to bring his Korbanos and to conclude his Nezirus (Tosfos).
(b) According to Beis Shamai, once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael, he is
obligated to observe another thirty day term of Nezirus. Beis Hillel
maintain - that he is obligated to repeat his entire Nezirus.
(c) The reason for both opinions is - a penalty for declaring Tum'ah in a
Tamei location (like Tum'ah be'Veis ha'Kevaros).
(a) Queen Helen undertook a seven-year term of Nezirus - should her son
return safely from the war.
(b) This turned into a twenty-one year term - when, firstly, the Chachamim
made her repeat her term of Nezirus (when, towards the end of it, she
arrived in Eretz Yisrael), and secondly, when towards the end of her second
term, she became Tamei Meis.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah disagrees. According to him, she was only a
Nazir for fourteen years.
(a) The two possible levels of Tum'ah that Chazal decreed on Chutz la'Aretz
are - 'Mishum Gushah' (because of Tum'as Ohel of the ground), or because of
the air (even as regards someone who enters it in an enclosed box-like
(b) We suggest that Beis Shamai, who are lenient in our Mishnah, hold 'al
Gushah Gazru', and Beis Hillel, who are stringent, hold 'al Avirah Gazru'.
We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that if that was the
case, there would be no reason for Beis Shamai to decree only thirty days
(any more than Tum'ah in a Beis ha'Kevaros, which is only Tamei because of
Gushah, and yet it demolishes the entire Nezirus) Tosfos.
(c) So we switch the suggested opinions, submitting that Beis Shamai hold So
we switch the suggested opinions, submitting that Beis Shamai hold 'al
Avirah Gazru' and Beis Hillel 'al Gushah Gazru'. It is precisely because ...
1. ... Beis Shamai are stringent here, and hold 'al Avirah Gazru' - that
they only decreed a thirty-day Nezirus, since everyone will know that the
Nezirus here is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and will not confuse this case with a
Nazir who became Tamei in a Beis ha'Kevaros.
(d) We conclude that in fact, they both hold 'Mishum Avirah Gazru'. This
explains Beis Shamai admirably. The reason of Beis Hillel is - because
Chazal nevertheless decreed accordingly.
2. ... Beis Hillel are lenient here, only decreeing 'al Gushah', that they
need to be strict as regards the duration of the Nezirus, so that people
should not confuse it with a Nazir who became Tamei in a Beis he'Kevaros,
who must demolish his entire Nezirus.