ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 21
NAZIR 21 & 22 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for Torah and those who study it.
(a) We attempt to prove Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a (who requires 'Toch K'dei
Dibur' of 'Shalom Alechah Rebbi' plus) wrong, from our Mishnah, which lists
twice 'va'Ani' - implying that the maximum number of people who can join the
list is three (as we shall see shortly), because 'Toch K'dei Dibur'
comprises the three words and no more.
(b) One cannot however, ask on Resh Lakish, that the Tana ought to have
added one 'va'Ani' - because the main purpose of the Tana is to teach us
that the second one too, can connect with the first (which is certainly
'Toch K'dei Dibur' [and it is obvious that the third person is able to
connect with him too], and) not to teach us the limits of 'Toch K'dei Dibur'
(which contains no Chidush) Tosfos.
(c) We refute the disproof from our Mishnah against Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a -
on the grounds that 'the Tana is not a peddler, who needs to list
(d) The reason that the Tana mentions even the second 'va'Ani', is because
he talks about 'Rishon' and 'Acharon', insinuating that there is a middle
(a) We have assumed until now that all subsequent Nodrim (who say 'va'Ani')
actually connect with the initial Noder. The alternative would be - that
each one connects to the one before him.
(b) The ramifications of this She'eilah are - regarding more than three
people who say 'va'Ani' (according to the second side of the She'eilah, even
if there are a hundred, the Neder of each one is effective, provided he
declared 'va'Ani' 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the one before him.
(c) There is no proof from our Mishnah, which only lists 'va'Ani' twice that
each one is connected to the original Noder - because 'the Tana is not a
peddler, who needs to list everything' (as we explained above).
(d) Despite the fact that the Tana holds that each Noder is connected to the
previous one, he says ...
1. ... 'Hutar ha'Rishon, Hutru Kulan' (not to imply that if the second one
were to annul his Neder, the Neder of those following him would remain
intact, but) because he wants to say 'Hutru Kulan', which would not be the
case if he referred to the middle one.
2. ... 'Hutar ha'Acharon, ha'Acharon Mutar' (implying that only the third
one is permitted, but not those that follow him) - because in fact, the
third one is the last one, and there is nobody that follows him.
(a) On the other hand, even if the Tana would holds that all the Nodrim are
connected to the first one, he says with regard to the last one 'Hutar
ha'Acharon ... ' (not to imply that if the middle one would annul his Neder,
all the subsequent ones would be permitted too [a proof for the second side
of the She'eilah], but) - because 'Acharon' actually refers to the middle
one (since it is the one after the first one).
(b) The Tana refers to the middle one as 'Acharon' - to balance 'Rishon'
mentioned in the Reisha.
(c) We finally cite a Beraisa, which learns specifically like the first side
of the She'eilah - by adding 'Hutar Emtza'i, Heimenu u'le'Matah Mutar,
Heimenu u'le'Ma'alah, Asur'.
(a) The Beraisa makes a distinction between someone who says 'Yedei Nezirah,
ve'Raglei Nezirah' and one who says 'Roshi Nezirah, Keveidi Nezirah'. The
former is not a Nazir, the latter is - because in the former case, the limb
that he declared a Nazir is one which is not crucial to life, whereas in the
latter case, it is.
(b) Rav Yehudah explains that, when our Mishnah says 'Pi ke'Fiv ve'Sa'ari
ke'Sa'aro' - it is not referring to the declaration of Nezirus on that limb,
but that his mouth should be forbidden to drink wine or that his hair should
grow, like that of a Nazir.
(a) We ask - whether a husband's Hafarah of his wife's Nedarim works
retroactively (like that of a Chacham), or whether he only annuls it from
(b) The ramifications of this She'eilah are - when a man annulled his wife's
Nezirus after her friend had heard her and said 'va'Ani'.
(c) Another ramification will be when a Nezirah drank wine or made herself
Tamei Meis before her husband annulled her Nezirus (Tosfos).
(d) Despite the fact that a Chacham uproots the Neder retroactively, a
husband might not be able to do so - because, whereas a Chacham relies on
the remorse of the Noder (who is sorry for ever having declared the Neder, a
husband does not (Tosfos).
(a) We initially try and prove that a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim
retroactively from the fact that, in our Mishnah, when a woman declared a
Neder Nezirus and, after saying 'va'Ani', her husband annuled her Neder, his
annulment is void (because he is not empowered to annul his own Nedarim, as
we explained earlier). In fact, though, it would not be effective even if it
worked only from now on - because 'va'Ani' is a Hakamah, after which,
Hafarah is no longer effective.
(b) It will be effective however - if the husband first annuls his Hakamah.
(a) The Beraisa discusses the Korbanos of a Nezirah whose husband has
annulled her Nezirus. Assuming that the animal which she designated as her
Chatas was ...
1. ... his - after her husband annulled her Nezirus, it should be allowed to
graze until it obtains a blemish, after which he may redeem it (because he
only designated it should she need it - nevertheless, the Rabbanan required
redemption, so that people should not say that Hekdesh can go out to Chulin
(b) We try and resolve our She'eilah from here - because if a husband would
uproot his wife's Neder retroactively, there would appear to be no logical
reason for her Chatas to have to die.
2. ... hers - it must die.
(c) We refute the proof however, on the basis of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar - who
says the Chatas also comes to atone for her having abstained from that what
the Torah permits, a sin which requires atonement even after her Nezirus has
been annulled. Consequently, the Chatas retains its identity, even after the
(d) The Chatas cannot be sent in a field to graze, so that, when it obtains
a blemish, the owner will be able to redeem it - because of the Halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai 'Chatas she'Meisu Ba'alehah (to which this is similar,
seeing as she requires a Kaparah [like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar], but cannot
receive it) Tamus'.
(a) We attempt to resolve our She'eilah from the next Mishnah, which
sentences a Nezirah who drank wine or made herself Tamei Meis to Malkos,
ostensibly, despite the fact that her husband had annulled her Nezirus - in
which case, in which case the Hafarah must take effect from now on (and not
(b) We do not at first want to establish the Beraisa when her husband had
not yet annulled her Nezirus - because that would be so obvious there would
appear to be no point in mentioning it.
(a) We nevertheless establish the Beraisa when her husband had not yet
annulled her Nezirus - because of the Seifa, which goes on to teach us that
if he did, and she, unaware of the fact that he had, 'contravened' her Neder
Nezirus, she does not receive Malkos.
(b) The Tana find it necessary to teach us that she does not receive Malkos
in this case - because we might otherwise have thought that she would
receive Malkos de'Rabbanan for her evil intentions (which indeed, Rebbi
(c) He could have taught us a bigger Chidush still - that even if she would
have drunk wine or made herself Tamei Meis *before* her husband annulled her
Nezirus, she would not receive Malkos (seeing as we are currently holding
that her husband annuls her Nedarim retroactively). He chose to present the
Chidush the way he did - because of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that she does
indeed receive Makas Mardus (even if it was *after* his annulment that she
'contravened' her Neder).