ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 42
NAZIR 41 & 42 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for Torah and those who study it.
(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika extrapolates from the Beraisa that we quoted
earlier ' ... O she'Shayru Sh'tei Sa'aros, Lo Asah K'lum' - that in all
areas of Halachah other than that of Nazir, 'Rubo ke'Kulo' is d'Oraysa.
(b) Bearing in mind that the Torah has already written "ve'Gilach" - we
learn this from the Pasuk "ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yegalchenu", which is now
redundant, to teach us he must shave off all his hair (and not just most of
(c) When Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina queried this on the grounds that the
Pasuk refers to a Nazir Tamei, whereas the Beraisa refers to a Nazir Tahor,
they laughed at him - because, seeing as we learn the Din of shaving with a
razor by a Nazir Tamei from that of a Nazir Tahor, it is obvious that we
will now use the same Limud to learn that a Nazir Tahor needs to shave all
his hair from a Nazir Tamei.
(d) One might one call this episode poetic justice - because the object of
the laughter was Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, the very Amora who bore the
title 'Mechku Alav be'Ma'arva', because he used to laugh when others made
(a) Abaye asked a She'eilah (which remains unresolved) about a Nazir who
left two hairs unshaven - and then, after his hair grew, he cut those two
hairs. On the one hand, he did cut off all his hair, but on the other, at no
stage was he without all his hair (which seems to have been the Torah's
(b) Rava too, asked a She'eilah, about a Nazir who left two hairs unshaven
and then shaved one of them before the remaining hair fell out. Rav Acha
mi'Difta however, objected to the She'eilah - on the grounds that seeing as
eventually, he did shave off all his hair except for one hair, why should he
not have fulfilled the Mitzvah? What does it matter that he cut the second
last hair a little later than the rest (the Torah does not require him to
cut it all off in one sitting)?
(c) We therefore amend the She'eilah to read (instead of 've'Gilchah Achas,
ve'Nashrah Achas'), 've'Nashrah Achas, ve'Gilchah Achas'.
(d) And we amend Ravina's reply 'Gilu'ach Ein Ka'an, Se'ar Ein Ka'an' (even
though one hair is not a sufficient Shiur for the Mitzvah of shaving, seeing
as now there is only one hair left, he is Patur) - to read 'Af-al-Pi
she'Se'ar Ein Ka'an, Mitzvas Gilu'ach Ein Ka'an' (because he failed to
complete the Mitzvah initially, nor did he do so subsequently).
(a) Our Mishnah states 'Nazir Chofef u'Mefaspes be'Sa'aro' (despite the fact
that both of these are likely to remove hair).
1. 'Chofef' means - washing one's hair with soap.
(b) The author of the Mishnah must then be - Rebbi Shimon (who holds 'Davar
she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar).
2. 'Mefaspes' means - separating the strands of hair.
(c) This does not mean that the Seifa, which forbids the Nazir to comb his
hair, goes like the Rabbanan (Rebbi Yehudah), who hold 'Davar she'Ein
Miskaven, Asur' - because the Tana assumes that someone who combs his hair
has the specific intention of removing hairs that have already come begun to
come loose, in which case it is a 'Davar ha'Miskaven' which even according
to Rebbi Shimon, is Asur.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah, forbids a Nazir to wash his hair with
earth 'Mipnei she'Maseres es ha'Se'ar'. He might mean 'Mipnei she'Hi Maseres
... ' (because this particular kind of earth, removes hair) - or he might
mean 'Mipnei ha'Maseres' meaning that he decrees all kinds of earth on
account of that kind.
(b) This She'eilah remains unresolved.
(a) A Nazir who drinks wine all day ...
1. ... after having been warned once - will receive one set of Malkos.
(b) The same distinction will apply to the two other areas of Nezirus,
Tum'ah and shaving.
2. ... after being warned prior to each time he drinks - will receive as
many sets of Malkos as there were warnings.
(a) Rabah Amar Rav Huna extrapolate from the fact that, after writing "Lo
Yitama" (with regard to a Nazir), the Torah writes "Lo Yavo" - that once a
Nazir becomes Tamei, he will not contravene the Din of Nazir by becoming
Tamei again. In fact, he will only receive two sets of Malkos if he enters
an Ohel where a Meis is lying and they warn him not to contravene both "Lo
Yavo" and "Lo Yitama" simultaneously (which will be explained later).
(b) Rav Yosef disagrees. According to him - Rav Huna specifically said that
if a Nazir is standing in a cemetery and they hand him a Meis which he
touches, he will receive Malkos, even though he is Tamei already.
(c) It makes no difference whether the Meis was his relative or a stranger -
because a Nazir, like a Kohen Gadol, is forbidden to render himself Tamei
even for his seven relatives.
(a) Abaye asks on Rav Yosef from a Beraisa, which learns from "ve'Lo
Yechalel" - that if a Nazir is carrying a corpse, and they hand him his dead
relative or another Meis, he is Patur.
(b) If, as some texts read, we quote the Pasuk "Leheichalo" (in Emor -
because "ve'Lo Yechalel" is not talking about Tum'ah), we will account for
the fact that this Pasuk is written by Kohanim, and not by a Nazir - by
bearing in mind that we learn Nazir from Kohen (as we will see in Perek
(c) We reconcile this with our Mishnah, which specifically sentences a Nazir
who becomes Tamei twice to two sets of Malkos - by establishing the Mishnah
when the Nazir has already separated from the Tum'ah (in which case he is
*not* 'Mechulal ve'Omed'), and the Beraisa when he is still touching it
('Tum'ah be'Chiburin', in which case he *is*).
(d) If he is still connected to the Tum'ah when he touches the second Meis,
he does not transgress because, as we explained, he is 'Mechulal ve'Omed'.
'Mechulal ve'Omed' also manifests itself - when someone touches him whilst
he is still touching the Meis, inasmuch as he will become Tamei for seven
days (as if he had actually touched the Meis itself (whereas if he were to
touch him after he had separated from the Meis, he would only become Tamei
for one day.
(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yanai makes a distinction between
T'rumah and Kodshim on the one hand, where 'Tum'ah be'Chiburin' does apply
(to render them Tamei, requiring them to be burned) - and a Nazir and
someone bringing his Korban Pesach on the other (where it does not [to
demolish the former's Nezirus and obligate him to bring a Korban Tum'ah, and
to prevent the latter from bringing his Korban Pesach]).
Seeing as Abaye has just concluded that Rabah is speaking in a case of
Tum'ah be'Chiburin (which is when the Nazir will not be Chayav the second
time he becomes Tamei, because he is 'Mechulal ve'Omed'), we initially
establish 'Tum'ah u'Bi'ah' for which he will be Chayav two sets of Malkos -
when (mentioning both the La'av of "Lo Yitama" and of "Lo Yavo") they warned
him not to enter a house in which a dead person lay, as we explained
(b) The problem that this poses on Abaye's conclusion (that 'Tum'ah
be'Chiburin' is d'Oraysa) is - that Rebbi Yanai's distinction is only
possible if Tum'ah be'Chiburin is de'Rabbanan.
(c) To answer this, we differentiate between Chiburei Adam be'Adam (a third
person who is touching the second person who is touching the person touching
the Meis), which is de'Rabbanan - and Chiburei Adam be'Meis (the person who
is touching the person touching the Meis), which is d'Oraysa.
(d) In light of this explanation, the Sugya in Avodah-Zarah which states
that the Rabbanan decreed a seven-day Tum'ah by she'Lo be'Chiburin, and
Yossi ben Yo'ezer revoked it, is referring to the person who is touching the
person touching the Meis. Rashi interprets it literally, to refer to someone
who touched the person who touched the Meis after he separated from it.