ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 3
NAZIR 3 (21 Tishrei, Hoshana Raba) - dedicated by Gedalyah Jawitz of
Wantagh, N.Y., honoring the Yahrtzeit of his father, Yehuda ben Simcha Volf
(a) We already explained in our Mishnah that 'Hareini ka'Zeh' is a Nazir,
only if a Nazir walks past at the time. For N'zirus to take effect whilst he
is holding his hair - he will have to say 'Hareini ba'Zeh'.
(b) 'Hareini Mesalsel' too, is a Nazir, provided the Noder is holding his
hair. If he were not, he would be undertaking to study Torah in depth.
(c) The Pasuk "Salselah u'Seromimcha" means - turn it over (learn it in
depth) because it will elevate you".
(a) 'Harei Alai Lishlo'ach Pera, Harei Zeh Nazir'. Based on the Pasuk
"Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim" - this might be an undertaking to grow one's
hair and become a Nazir.
(b) We initially think that, based on the Pasuk "ve'Sholei'ach Mayim
al-P'nei Chutzos", it might mean that he is undertaking to cut off his hair
(to send it away). We ultimately interpret this Pasuk (in the same way as we
interpreted the previous one) to mean that Hashem waters the fruit to make
(c) If "ve'Sholei'ach Mayim ... " had meant to send the water away - we
might have interpreted "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim" to refer to their
moving away (Tosfos - though it is not clear what the Pasuk would then mean
[see Rashi in Shir ha'Shirim]).
(d) We can indeed learn that 'Shalach' means to let grow, on the basis of
one Pasuk, even though, more often than not, the word means to send away
(which as we just saw, has the opposite connotation) - because logically,
the Noder had in mind to become a Nazir rather than to cut off his hair
(a) We initially learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (with regard to the
Kohanim) "u'Pera Lo Yeshaleichu" from Nazir "Gadeil Pera" - that a they are
not permitted to allow a growth of hair of more than thirty days.
(b) This indicates - that "Gadeil Pera" means letting the hair grow
(N'zirus), rather than cutting it off.
(c) We could not learn this from the Pasuk "u'Pera Lo Yeshaleichu" without
the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because, without the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', the Pasuk
could be referring to a growth of even just two days (which has nothing to
do with N'zirus, since 'S'tam N'zirus Sh'loshim Yom', and the Noder did not
mention two days - Tosfos).
(d) The Noder must say 'Harei Alai le'Gadeil Pera' in order to be a Nazir,
and not just 'Harei Alai Pera' - because 'Pera' on its own implies to
uncover (as in the Pasuk in Naso "u'Para es Rosh ha'Ishah").
(a) 'Harei Alai Tziporin, Rebbi Meir Omer, Nazir'. According to Resh
Lakish, Rebbi Meir learns this from the Pasuk "Ad di Sa'areih ke'Nishrin
Rabah, ve'Tufrohi ke'Tziparin" - because the Noder is probably referring to
the "Tziprin" (birds - that a Nazir brings as a Korban) that the Pasuk
juxtaposes there with hair.
(b) The indication that the Noder was referring to N'zirus - lies in the
fact that either a Nazir was passing in front of him or that he was holding
his hair when he made the declaration.
(c) The Rabbanan say - that we cannot take for granted that the Noder meant
birds of N'zirus just because the Pasuk juxtaposes Tziprin and hair.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, even Rebbi Meir does not rely on the
juxtaposition of Tziparin to hair. The basis of Rebbi Meir's opinion is -
the suspicion that the Noder accepted to become a Nazir, who brings birds
should he become Tamei.
(b) We know that he did not undertake to bring birds ...
1. ... as a gift-offering - because then he would have said 'Harei Alai
Kan', since that is the regular Lashon that was used for that purpose.
(c) And we initially think that he did not undertake to bring the
bird-offering on behalf of the Tahor Nazir, should he become Tamei and be
required to bring birds - because it speaks when he specifically had in mind
to become a Nazir (Tosfos).
2. ... on behalf of a Metzora - because here too, we are speaking when a
Nazir is passing in front of him.
3. ... on behalf of a Tamei Nazir - because the Nazir in question happens to
(a) When we just asked 've'Dilma Harei Alai Tziprei Metzora ka'Amar', we
could not have answered there too, that it speaks when he had in mind to
bring the birds of a Nazir - because firstly, N'zirus is more difficult to
accept than bringing the birds of a Metzora, and secondly, the Lashon
'Tziprin' is written in connection with a Metzora (as opposed to a Nazir,
where the Torah writes 'Torim'). Consequently, unless a Nazir was walking
past, having in mind N'zirus would constitute 'Ein Piv ve'Libo Shavin'
(seeing as his declaration implies the Korban of a Metzora, and he had in
mind to become a Nazir).
(b) We cannot say the same here however (that since birds are mentioned by a
Tamei Nazir, to say that he means to become a Tahor Nazir is 'Ein Piv
ve'Libo Shavin') - because seeing as the Nazir who is walking past is Tahor,
both possibilities are equally plausible, in which case it does not leave
the realm of 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin'.
(c) Tosfos concludes however, that we cannot be speaking when the Noder had
in mind to become a Nazir who brings birds when he becomes Tamei, because
this idea is not mentioned in the Gemara. The reason that we assume that he
undertook to become a Nazir now (in spite of the difficulties involved),
rather than to bring the Korbanos of a Nazir who is Tamei is - because
N'zirus be'Taharah is something that can be immediately effective, whereas
there is no gurantee that there is a Tamei Nazir who requires Korbanos
(rendering it a 'Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam').
(a) In a case where the Noder says explicitly 'Tziprin ha'Semuchin le'Sei'ar
Alai', and no Nazir happens to be walking past at the time - Rebbi Yochanan
holds that he is not a Nazir, because all he accepted was to let his hair
grow long (Tosfos).
If the Noder would declare 'Harei Alai Nishrin' or 'Harei Alai Tufrin' - he
would not be a Nazir (despite the fact that they are even closer to Sei'ar
than Tziprin, because (unlike Tziprin) eagles [or eagles claws] have nothing
to do with N'zirus.
(b) And in a case where he says 'Tziprin', and a Nazir is walking past -
Resh Lakish holds that he is a Nazir, provided a Nazir is walking past (like
(c) Resh Lakish found it necessary to establish Rebbi Meir when the Noder
specifically said 'Tziprin ha'Semuchin le'Sei'ar' - because then he will be
a Nazir even if there is no Nazir walking past.
(d) In fact, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree all almost every case. The
only point over which they argue is when the Noder said explicitly 'Tziprin
he'Semuchin Alai', where, according to Rebbi Yochanan, a Nazir is
nevertheless required to walk past, whereas, according to Resh Lakish, he is
not (as we already explained).
(a) We try to prove from the Beraisa 'ha'Omer Yemin, Harei Zu Shevu'ah' -
that the Tana holds that people do tend to be Matfis on something which is
juxtaposed to something which in turn, is connected to Nedarim and Shevu'os
(like here, where the Pasuk in Daniel writes "Vayarem Yemino u'Semolo el
ha'Hashamayim Vayishava be'Chei ha'Olam".
(b) We counter this proof however, with a Beraisa which quotes a Pasuk in
Yeshayah "Nishba Hashem bi'Yemino" - from which the Tana of the Beraisa
extrapolates that 'Yemin' itself is a Lashon of Shevu'ah.
(a) Someone who declares N'zirus from grape-pits or skins, or from Tum'as
Meis (exclusively) - is a full Nazir.
Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "*mi'Kol* Asher Yei'aseh mi'Gefen
ha'Yayin" that only someone who undertakes a full N'zirus becomes a Nazir.
Even though that Pasuk speaks only about drinking wine and grape-products we
nevertheless extend this Halachah to the Dinim of shaving and Tum'ah -
because once we know of the obligation with regard to drinking wine, it
stands to reason that the same appleis to the other branches of N'zirus.
(b) The Tana needs to add 've'Chol Dikdukei N'zirus Alav' - to teach us that
he is even obligated to adhere to the Dinim of Tum'as Meis (even though a
N'zir Shimshon is not).
(c) The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Shimon - who holds that a
Noder only becomes a Nazir if he accepts all the branches of N'zirus.
(d) According to Rebbi Shimon - the Noder must either undertake to be a
Nazir S'tam, or he must specify all the branches of N'zirus.
(a) The Rabbanan learn from "mi'Yayin ve'Sheichar Yazir" - that someone who
accepts even just one branch of N'zirus is a full Nazir.
(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from there - that a Nazir is not even permitted to
drink wine of Mitzvah (such as wine of Kidush and Havdalah).
(c) We ask 'Harei Mushba ve'Omed Alav me'Har Sinai?' - a strange Kashya,
seeing as there seems to be no resaon why the La'av of N'zirus should not
override the Mitzvah Kidush over wine (even assuming that even the wine is
(d) So Rabeinu Tam amends the Kashya to read - 've'Chi Mushba ve'Omed Alav
me'Har Sinai?' (since when is Kidush over wine d'Oraysa in the first place)?