REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 26
NAZIR 26 -Dedicated l'Zecher Nishmat Benyamin Leib ben Aharon, and Harav
Hillel Lieberman HY"D, by a friend of the Kollel.
(a) We quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Halachah Hi be'Nazir'.
the Tana of a Beraisa say about Ma'os S'tam of a Metzora Ani (shall we say),
who became rich ...
(b) What did the Metzora declare when he designated the money, 'Harei Eilu
le'Tzara'ti' or 'le'Korbanos Tzara'ti'?
- ... in his lifetime? What must he purchase with that money?
- ... after his death?
(c) How else might we establish Rebbi Yochanan's case?
(d) Seeing as a Metzora (as well a Yoledes and a Zav, who also bring a pair
of birds) has the same Din as a Nazir, why did Rebbi Yochanan seemingly
restrict his statement to 'Nazir'?
(a) What was Rebbi Yochanan coming to exclude, when he said 'Halachah Hi
be'Nazir (ve'Chol de'Dami Lei' - Tosfos)?
(b) What would he then do with the money in such a case (when the Noder was
(c) What is the underlying reason for this distinction?
(d) We just said in the previous case that someone who says 'Harei Eilu
le'Chovasi' cannot use the designated (but unspecified) money for whichever
Korban he chooses; whereas Chayvei Kinin can. The difference might lie in
the fact that the Korbanos of a Nazir, a Yoledes or a Metzora are all of the
same kind (e.g. Korbenos Nazir - as we just explained), and initially he
could have bought a Chatas or an Olah from all the money, he can do likewise
when he becomes rich; whereas the Chatas and the Olah, which are two
independent Korbanos, the money is automatically designated for both
Korbanos, not just one of them. How else might we differentiate between the
(a) If, in the previous case, he died leaving unspecified money, it goes to
the Yam ha'Melach.
Why does it not go to Nedavah?
(b) If the money was specified however, then the money of the Chatas goes to
the Yam ha'Melach, whereas if they later became mixed up, the mixture goes
to Nedavah. According to Rav Ashi's first Lashon, even if the man had said
'Eilu le'Chatasi, u'le'Olasi u'le'Shalmi', it would be considered
What is the *practical* difference between whether he said
'Eilu le'Chatasi, Eilu le'Olasi, ve'Eilu le'Shalmi' or 'Eilu le'Chatasi,
(c) What is the *Halachic* difference between the two cases?
(a) What does Rav Ashi say in the second Lashon, regarding S'tam Ma'os from
which the value of his Chatas was separated?
Answers to questions
(b) And what does Rava say about Ma'os S'tumin from which the equivalent of
the value of the Chatas was removed?
(c) According to Resh Lakish, who learns from a Pasuk that Mosar Neder goes
to Nedavah, why should there be a difference between Mosar Nedavah which
contains the money for a Chatas and Mosar Nedavah which does not?
(d) How do we know for certain that Rava is correct?
(a) What does the Beraisa (which substantiates Rava) say in the case of
'Eilu le'Chatasi, ve'ha'Sha'ar le'Sha'ar Nezirusi'? What happens ...
(b) Why does the Tosefta establish the Beraisa when the Noder died?
- ... to the money of the Chatas?
- ... to the money of the Olah and the Shelamim?
(c) Why is there ...
- ... Me'ilah for using *all* the remaining money? Is 'all' specific?
- ... no Me'ilah for using only part of it?
(a) And what does the Beraisa say in the case of 'Eilu le'Olasi,
ve'ha'Sha'ar le'Sha'ar Nezirusi'? What happens ...
(b) Why is there no Me'ilah for using part of that remaining money?
- ... to the money of the Olah?
- ... to the money of the Chatas and the Shelamim?
(c) How do we reconcile this with the fact that the money goes to Nedavah,
which, after all, is an Olah (to which Me'ilah does apply)?
(a) Rav Huna Amar Rav explains that the Beraisa is speaking when the
deceased man left money, but not when he left animals.
What would the Din
be if he left animals?
(b) This cannot be speaking when he left a female lamb (for his Chatas), a
lamb (for his Olah) and a ram (for his Shelamim), because that is obvious
and Rav would not be teaching us any Chidush; and besides, that is already
contained in a Mishnah.
For what other reason can we not establish Rav
(c) Then how *do* we establish Rav? What is the case?
(d) What happens then to the animals?
(a) How does Rav Nachman qualify Rav's previous ruling? When do the three
animals not die?
What does Rabeinu Tam say about someone who retained these blemished animals
for a long period of time?
(b) Seeing as even when they are not blemished they are unfit to be brought
as the Korbanos for which they were designated, why should blemished animals
be different than unblemished ones?
(c) But how can they have Kedushas ha'Guf, considering that they are unfit
to be brought as Korbenos Nazir?
(d) And seeing as, even though the animals are not blemished, they will be
sold and it is the money which will be used to purchase Korbanos, why are
they not considered S'tumin (like blemished ones), even though they do have
(a) Rav Nachman restricts 'Ma'os S'tumin Yiplu li'Nedavah' (in our Mishnah),
to money, but not to pieces of silver.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak agrees with him with regard to beams of wood,
but not with regard to pieces of silver.
Why is that?
(c) How will we explain the preclusion of beams of wood or pieces of silver
according to Resh Lakish, who learns Ma'os S'tumin from a Pasuk, and not
from a Halachah?
(d) And what is then the Machlokes between Rav Nachman and Rav Nachman bar
Yitzchak regarding pieces of silver?
(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who assumes that the above Amora'im derive their
views from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai ('Ma'os', ve'Lo Naska ... , and that
Rav Nachman considers Naska to be 'Ma'os's, because that is what it stands
to be used for) queries this Halachah on the grounds that, by the same
token, we ought then to say 'Ma'os ve'Lo Ofos'.
What does this mean (see
(b) Why can this not pertain to chickens and the like (which are unfit to be
brought as Korbanos, and) which, in turn, are unfit to be used as Korbanos
(like pieces of silver and planks, which we just precluded from 'Ma'os')?
(c) Why do we initially think that the Kashya on birds must pertain to a
case of someone who is Chayav Kinin (e.g. a Metzora) and not to the case of
(d) How is it in fact, possible to establish it even by a Nazir as well?
(a) What does Rav Chisda say about the two birds brought by someone who is
Chayav to bring a a Kein? How do they become fixed?
Answers to questions
(b) What problem does Rav Shimi bar Ashi now have with regard to the
Halachah 'Ma'os ve'Lo Naska ... ve'Lo Ofos', as we explained above?