ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 46
NAZIR 46 - Dedicated by David and Jonas Waizer, l'Zecher Nishmas Reb Eliezer
("Leizer") ben Zvi ha'Cohen Waizer (Canarsie, N.Y.).
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Achar Yishteh
ha'Nazir Yayin" - that it is only after the completion of all the Avodos
(the shaving and the bringing of his Korbanos) that the Nazir is permitted
to drink wine (and to render himself Tamei Meis).
(b) The Chachamim learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "*ve'Achar* Yishteh
ha'Nazir Yayin" and "*Achar* Hisgalcho es Nizro"* - that just as the latter
Pasuk speaks after one solitary act, so too, does the former, and
consequently, the Nazir may drink wine even after the blood of just one of
his Korbanos has been sprinkled.
(c) They know that the Torah does not mean to permit the Nazir to drink wine
only) after both the shaving and the bringing of the Korbanos - because for
that one would not require a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
(a) Rav rules that the Tenufah is not crucial to the Nazir's drinking wine
and rendering himself Tamei. He cannot be going according to the Rabbanan -
because if the shaving (which is performed on the body of the Nazir) is not
crucial, how much more so the Tenufah (which is not).
(b) So he must be going according to Rebbi Eliezer (who holds that the Nazir
is only permitted to drink wine after the completion of the entire Avodah.
That is not so obvious - because the Tenufah is called 'Sheyarei Mitzvah'
(which we will now explain), in which case there is good reason to believe
that it is not crucial with regard to drinking wine either.
(c) We refer to the Tenufah as 'Sheyarei Mitzvah' - with regard to the
Kaparah of the Nazir, who has fulfilled his Mitzvah even though he did
perform it properly.
(a) We query Rav on the basis of the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein
she'Yesh Lo Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim', which we initially interpret
to mean - that just as someone who has no hands to perform the Tenufah can
become a Nazir, so too, is someone who has hands but does not perform it
Yotze (because Tenufah is not crucial to the Mitzvah - a Kashya against
(b) We know that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer and not the
Rabbanan - because the Tana quotes the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" and not
the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Achar" "Achar".
(a) In another Beraisa, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over a Nazir
Memorat - a Nazir whose hair has fallen out.
(b) Beis Shamai say 'Eino Tzarich Leha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho' - which Ravina
interprets to mean 'Eino Tzarich, ve'Ein Lo Takanah'.
(c) Beis Hillel then hold 'Tzarich Laha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho, ve'Yesh Lo
(d) Rebbi P'das adds that Beis Shamai and Rebbi Eliezer say the same thing.
In the Mishnah in Nega'im, Rebbi Shimon says that if the Metzora has no
right thumb or right big toe, the Kohen places the blood and the oil (used
during the Metzora's purification ceremony) on the spot where they ought to
be. The opinion of ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer is - that there is nothing he can do to become Tahor
(he remains a Metzora for the rest of his life).
2. ... the Rabbanan is - that if he has no right thumb and big-toe, he
places the blood and the oil on the left one.
(a) The Tana'im in both of the above Beraisos argue over whether 'Ba'inan
K'ra ke'Dichsiv' - whether one must take every detail specified by the Torah
as literal, or whether they can sometimes be taken as examples, but not
(b) The opinion of ...
1. ... Beis Shamai and Rebbi Eliezer in this matter - 'Ba'inan K'ra
(c) In light of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, we will
now explain the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Se'ar, Bein
she'Ein Lo Se'ar' - to mean that we compare (not 'Yesh Lo Se'ar' to 'Ein
Lo', but 'Ein Lo' to 'Yesh Lo'), to say that a Nazir who has no hair,
requires shaving just like one who does, and since this is not possible, he
is not Yotze.
2. ... Beis Hillel and Rebbi Shimon is - 'Lo Ba'inan K'ra ke'Dichsiv'.
(d) This explanation helps to vindicate Rav (from the Kashya that we asked
against him from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo
Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim') - because just as Beis Shamai in this
Beraisa is comparing 'Ein Lo Se'ar' to 'Yesh Lo Se'ar' (to teach us that
Se'ar is crucial to the Mitzvah), so too, in the previous, is he comparing
'Ein Lo Kapayim' to 'Yesh Lo Kapayim' to teach us that hands are crucial to
the Mitzvah of Tenufah (like Rav).
(a) In the second Lashon (which I am explaining according to our text,
following Tosfos DH 'u'Peliga' final explanation), it is Rava who says that
Tenufah is crucial.
1. We decline to establish Rava like Rebbi Eliezer - because having already
stated 'Achar Ma'asim Kulam', it is obvious that the Tenufah too, is
(b) We prove from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo
Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim' that even Yesh Lo Kapayim' however, that
it *is* - because of the D'rashah of 'Zos Toras ... ", which implies that
the Torah is coming to include cases of Nezirus (rather than to exclude them
[because "Toras" always comes to include]).
2. On the other hand, we are initially hesitant to establish it like the
Rabbanan - because if shaving is not crucial, why should Tenufah be (as we
explained in the first Lashon)?
(c) When we say that the Tenufah is crucial - we mean (not to the Nazir
drinking wine [since it cannot possible be more crucial than shaving], but)
to the validity of the Korban that he brings.
(d) But we counter this from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" 'Bein she'Yesh
Lo Se'ar, Bein she'Ein Lo Se'ar', proving that we must be comparing 'Yesh Lo
Se'ar' to 'Ein Lo' (to learn that it is *not* crucial as we explained
earlier), by quoting the Beraisa of 'Nazir Memorat' - where Beis Hillel say
'Tzarich Leha'avir Se'ar al Rosho'. This implies that the hair is not
crucial (like bar Pada explained in the first Lashon), and if in the Beraisa
of hair, it is not crucial, the Tenufah, in the Beraisa of Tenufah, is not
(a) Ravina refutes this proof - by explaining Beis Hillel to mean 'Tzarich
Leha'avir Se'ar al Rosho, ve'Ein Lo Takanah' (thereby conforming with Rav's
(b) Wen Beis Shamai say 'Eino Tzarich Laha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho' - they must
therefore mean that he does not need to shave, and that he is nevertheless
(c) Ravina disagrees with Rebbi P'das' interpretation of the Machlokes
between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - inasmuch as, according to Rebbi P'das,
it is Beis Shamai who say 'Eino Tzarich, ve'Ein Lo Takanah', and Beis Hillel
who say 'Tzarich, ve'Yesh Lo Takanah'.
(a) If the Korban on which the Nazir shaved turned out to be Pasul, his
shaving is invalid (and he remains a Nazir). 'Pasul' means - that its either
its blood spilled, or its flesh left the precincts of the Azarah or it
(b) He is not even Yotze the remaining Korbenos Nazir that he subsequently
brought - because, since he shaved without even the blood of one of the
Korbanos having been sprinkled be'Hechsher, it is as if robbers had shaved
him after the completion of his term of Nezirus (Tosfos).
(c) The same applies to a Nazir who shaved on a Chatas which was Shechted
she'Lo li'Shemah, who subsequently Shechted his other Korbanos li'Sheman. A
Chatas is generally more stringent than an Olah or a Shelamim - inasmuch as
not only is one not Yotze the Chatas, but the Chatas is also Pasul
(Presumably, the Tana inserts this case here, to teach us that even Rebbi
Shimon, who argues by an Olah or a Shelamim she'Lo li'Sheman, will agree by
(a) He will then have to demolish ...
1. ... seven days, according to Rebbi Eliezer.
(b) In both of the above cases, the Nazir is not Yotze even the Korbanos
that he brought after he shaved - because he was unfit to shave at the time
that he brought them, and it is considered as if he had brought them within
his term of Nezirus (Tosfos).
2. ... thirty days, according to the Rabbanan.
(a) If, after shaving on the Olah or the Shelamim she'Lo li'Shemah, the
Nazir then brought his other Korbanos li'Sheman, according to the Tana Kama,
the same Din applies as in the above cases - because an Olah or Shelamim
that a person brings she'Lo li'Shemah is considered a Nedavah (with which
the owner has not fulfilled his duty), giving this case the same Din as the
previous one (Tosfos).
If a Nazir shaved before bringing his Korbanos, and then discovered that one
of them was Kasher - his shaving terminates his Nezirus, but the other
Korbanos must be brought again.
(b) In this latter Halachah however, according to Rebbi Shimon, although he
is not Yotze with the shaving, he is Yotze with the other Korbanos. The
reason for this, says Rav Ada bar Ahavah, is - because in the opinion of
Rebbi Shimon, if a Nazir shaves on Shalmei (or Olos) Nedavah, he is Yotze.
(c) He learns this from the Pasuk "al Todas Zevach Shelamav" (when it should
have written " ... Todas Shelamim") - that a Shalmei Nazir is compared to a
regular Shelamim in various regards.
(d) Rebbi Shimon learns from there that if a Nazir shaved on the Olah or the
Shelamim she'Lo li'Shemah, and then brought his other Korbanos li'Sheman, he
is Yotze those Korbanos - because the D'rashah also includes that if the
Todah is brought as a Shelamim, he is Yotze his Nezirus.