(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nazir 4



(a) Rava concludes that, seeing as 'Le'esor Yein Mitzvah ke'Yein ha'Reshus' (that Rebbi Shimon learns from "mi'Yayin ve'Sheichar Yazir" cannot come to include wine of Kidush and Havdalah (as we just explained) - it must come to include a case where someone makes a Shevu'ah that he will drink wine, and then declares Nezirus.

(b) The Rabbanan learn that Nezirus takes effect on a Shevu'ah - from the superfluous word "ve'Sheichar".

(c) Rebbi Shimon uses the superfluous word "Sheichar" to Darshen a 'Gezeirah-Shavah from Nazir to Mikdash - to teach us that, just as the prohibition of a Nazir is confined to wine (but not to other intoxicating beverages), so too is that of entering the Beis Hamikdash.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Shimon. He says in a Beraisa that someone who ate a preserved fig from Ke'ilah (which has an intoxicating effect), drank honey or milk and then entered the Beis Hamikdash - would receive Malkos (d'Oraysa).

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur is not Chayav Malkos (for eating Neveilah) - because he holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur.

(b) This provides us with an alternative way to interpret Rebbi Shimon's statement 'Le'esor Yein Mitzvah ke'Yein Reshus' - which can now speak when the Noder first made a Shevu'ah that he would not drink wine, and then he became a Nazir. Should he then drink wine, he will receive two sets of Malkos (due to the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of "mi'Yayin ... Yazir").

(c) The Rabbanan learn from "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" (from which Rebbi Shimon learns 'Eino Chayav ad she'Yador mi'Kulan') - that the various commodities which the Torah forbids by a Nazir combine to make up the Shiur for Malkos.

(a) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbanan's previous D'rashah. When we say 've'Rebbi Shimon Leis Leih Tziruf' - we mean that he does not require a D'rashah for Tziruf, seeing as in his opinion, Malkos does not require a Shiur anyway.

(b) He maintains that one receives Malkos for even a Kol she'Hu. He does agree however - that (wherever a Korban is required) one is not obligated to bring it unless one has eaten the Shiur of a k'Zayis.

(a) When the Tana of the Mishnah says ...
1. ... 'Hareini ke'Shimshon, ke'Ven Mano'ach, ke'Ba'al Delilah' - he means that all three are necessary (to ensure that the Noder is really referring to Shimshon ha'Gibor, and not to a different Shimshon).
2. ... 'Hareini ke'Mi she'Akar Dalsos Azah, ke'Mi she'Nakru P'lishtim es Einav' - he means either one, since neither of them are subject to misunderstanding.
(b) A regular N'zir Olam (a permanent Nazir) is permitted to trim his hair when it becomes too long, whereas a N'zir Shimshon may not - and he is also Chayav to bring a Korban should he become Tamei Meis, whereas a N'zir Shimshon is not.

(c) We do not include the third distinction: that a regular N'zir Olam can have his N'zirus revoked, whereas a N'zir Shimshon cannot - because we are only concerned with a Nazir who remains a Nazir in spite of the circumstances under discussion, whereas a Nazir who has his Neder revoked is no longer a Nazir.

(a) It is not the way of the Tana to ask 'Mah Bein N'zir Olam li'Nezir Shimshon' before having introduced a N'zir Olam. Consequently - we amend the Mishnah, which now commences with 'ha'Omer Hareini N'zir Olam, Harei Zeh N'zir Olam'.

(b) We learn the concession of a N'zir Olam trimming his hair from Avshalom. We know that Avshalom did not have a regular haircut when his hair became too long - because in the war against his father, his long hair became entangled in the branches of a tree as he rode past, and his horse rode on, leaving him hanging by his hair.

(c) After trimming his hair - a N'zir Olam has to bring a Chatas, Olah and Shelamim.

(d) The source for this Halachah is - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

6) Upon becoming Tamei Meis - a Nazir has to bring two pigeons or doves (one an Olah and one a Chatas) and a lamb for an Asham.




(a) We can infer from the Lashon 've'Eino Meivi Korban' that our Mishnah states regarding a N'zir Shimshon - that he is forbidden to become Tamei Meis.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, a N'zir Shimshon is permitted to render himself a Tamei Meis. Rebbi Shimon maintains 'ha'Omer N'zir Shimshon, Lo Amar K'lum' - because Shimshon did not accept his Nezirus personally, in which case it was not a Davar ha'Nadur. And one can only be Matfis a Neder on a Davar ha'Nadur.

(c) Clearly the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Shimon (in whose opinion there is no such thing as a N'zir Shimshon. The author could however be Rebbi Yehudah, who permits a N'zir Shimshon to make himself Tamei Lechatchilah. This is because, even though our Mishnah seems to imply otherwise, as we just saw, this is not in fact correct - because the Tana only said 've'Eino Meivi Korban' in order to be able to say 'Meivi Korban Tum'ah' in the case of a N'zir Olam But not to make any inferences from it).

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor, Rebbi Ya'akov Oser' - ve'Rebbi Yossi Matir'.

(b) We try to connect the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon with that of Rebbi Ya'akov and Rebbi Yossi - by pairing Rebbi Yehudah with Rebbi Ya'akov, both of whom seemingly do not require a Davar ha'Nadur, and Rebbi Shimon with Rebbi Yossi, who do.

(c) We reconcile Rebbi Ya'akov (who validates 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor) with Rebbi Shimon (who invalidates 'Harei Alai N'zirus Shimshon') - by deriving Bechor from the extra word "Ish Ki Yidor Neder *la'Hashem*" (to include a Bechor, despite the fact that it is not a Davar ha'Nadur (and not because Rebbi Ya'akov does not require a Davar ha'Nadur).

(d) We conclude de'Kuli Alma Bainan Davar ha'Nidar' - because even Rebbi Yehudah only validates N'zirus Shimshon, either because it is similar to other Nezirim (like we included a Bechor because it is similar to other Korbanos), or because according to Rebbi Yehudah, either Shimshon later accepted Nezirus upon himself or because his father accepted it on his behalf (which is valid, as we shall see later - Rosh).

(a) Rebbi Yossi, who invalidates 'Harei Alai ki'Bechor' - learns from 'la'Hashem' to include 'Harei Alai ke'Chatas' or 'ke'Asham'.

(b) Despite the fact that one cannot volunteer a Chatas or an Asham any more than one can a Bechor, Rebbi Yossi nevertheless includes the former and precludes the latter - because someone who is Chayav to bring one, can designate whichever animal he chooses, whereas a Bechor is already designated by the Torah.

(c) Rebbi Ya'akov however, does not differentiate between them - because in his opinion, we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ha'Zachar Takdish" that one performs a Mitzvah by declaring it Hekdesh. Rebbi Yossi counters this - by pointing out that the designation of a Bechor (unlike that of a Chatas and an Asham) is nothing more than a formality, since it is Kadosh whether one designates it or not.

10) By a Nazir too, the Torah writes "Lehazir Nazir *la'Hashem*", yet Rebbi Ya'akov does not include a Nezir Shimshon from there - because he learns from there that one's Nezirus should be for the sake of Hashem, and not for any other ulterior motive (like the story of the man from the south and Shimon ha'Tzadik).


(a) The man from the south who came before Shimon ha'Tzadik explained to him that he undertook to become a Nazir (and shave off all his beautiful hair), after he saw his reflection in a well and thought to himself how handsome he was. In that case, he decided, he had to shave off all his hair to combat the Yeitzer ha'Ra of pride (a statement which deeply impressed Shimon ha'Tzadik).

(b) The Korban that Shimon ha'Tzadik ate on that unique occasion - was the Korban Asham of a Nazir who became Tamei.

(c) He quoted the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yafli ... Lehazir *la'Hashem*" - because he was convinced that that Nazir had truly undertaken his Nezirus for the sake of Hashem, and not for any ulterior motive.

(d) He declined to eat the Korban Asham of other Nezirim who became Tamei - because presuming their motives for adopting Nezirus as being self-motivated, once they became Tamei, they were probably remorseful for having accepted it in the first place. Consequently, the ensuing Korbanos were 'Chulin la'Azarah'.

(a) Nezirus Shimshon is not a Davar ha'Nadur - and Shimshon himself become a Nazir through the command of an angel (through a 'Hora'as Sha'ah').

(b) We said above that Shimshon willingly became Tamei Meis. We do not know this from the fact that he killed ...

1. ... a thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey - because he could have killed them by throwing it at them, in which case he would not have become Tamei.
2. ... thirty men and took their clothes - because he may have taken their clothes first and killed them afterwards.
(c) Despite the Pasuk, which first says "Vayach" and then "Vayikach" - he might have rendered them Gos'sin (about to die) and then took their clothes.

(d) We know that Shimshon willingly became Tamei Meis - from tradition (that he killed the men first, before taking their clothes).

(a) Rebbi learns the concept of a N'zir Olam (being allowed to trim his hair) - from Avshalom, by whom the Pasuk specifically writes that he did so.

(b) There is a Machlokes Tana'im as to how often he is permitted to shave. Rebbi learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Vayehi mi'Keitz Shenasayim *Yamim*" from "*Yamim* Tih'yeh Ge'ulaso" (written in connection with Batei Arei Chomah) - that a N'zir Olam is permitted to trim his hair once a year.

(c) Rebbi Nahara'i says, once every thirty days - and Rebbi Yossi, once a week.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,