ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 7
NAZIR 6 & 7 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for Torah and those who study it.
(a) If someone says ...
1. ... 'Hareini Nazir Achas Gedolah' - he means that he accepts one Nezirus
of thirty days (as indeed all three cases do), but that it is very hard for
him to do so.
(b) We interpret his words leniently in this latter case. If not for the
Mishnah, we would have thought that he must become a Nazir until the end of
his life (because, seeing as it takes five hundred years to walk from one
end of the world to the other.
2. ... 'Hareini Nazir Achas Ketanah' - and that it is not hard at all.
3. ... 'Hareini Nazir mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sof ha'Olam' - that it is as hard for
him as traveling to the end of the world.
(c) The Mishnah later says that if someone says 'Hareini Nazir mi'Ka'an
ve'Ad Makom P'loni', if there are ...
1. ... less than thirty days walking distance from where he is to that
place - he is a Nazir for thirty days.
(d) The reason that we do not say there (even in the latter case) too, like
we say in *our* Mishnah, that what he really meant was that the Nezirus is
hard on him like it is to walk to that place, and he is a Nazir for thirty
days is - because it speaks when he had already set out on the journey, in
which case he probably meant to undertake Nezirus for the duration of the
journey, to offset the potential danger with the merit of the Nezirus.
2. ... more than thirty days - he is a Nazir for as many days as it takes to
(a) In the latter case in our Mishnah, we do not declare him a Nazir for as
many days as there are Parsah from one end of the world to the other,
explains Rav Papa - because it speaks when the Noder lives in a place where
they do not measure distance in Parsah (though it is unclear why we do not
count in the same way however many of whatever measures they do use to
(b) We cannot explain this last Kashya on the Mishnah later ('Hareini Nazir
mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Makom P'loni') which we were just discussing - because since
we are talking about when he had already set out on the journey, it is more
logical to explain that he only intends to be a Nazir for the duration of
his journey and no longer.
(c) The Beraisa say that someone who declares himself a Nazir like the dust
of the earth or like the hair of his head ... - is a N'zir Olam (who shaves
once every thirty days and brings his three Korbanos.
(d) Nevertheless, we do not say in our Mishnah that he is a Nazir for as
many times as there are inns from one end of the world to the other -
because, whenever the time period is fixed (like traveling from one end of
the world to the other, which is known to be five hundred years walking
distance), we say that, since the Noder did not state that time period, he
actually accepted a minimum Nezirus of thirty days, and when he said 'to the
end of the world, he meant that the Nezirus was as difficult to him as
walking to the end of the world.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that someone who declares Nezirus for ...
1. ... as long as he lives, or forever - is a N'zir Olam, who has to shave
every thirty days and bring his Korbanos.
(b) This distinction proves - that there is a difference between Nezirus
which has a fixed time period and one which doesn't.
2. ... for a hundred or even a thousand years - he is a Nazir forever.
(c) The Din in our Mishnah is not the same as the Din in the Beraisa
however. Someone who says 'until the end of the world' is not a Nazir for
one long period until the day of his death - because he added the words
'*mi'Ka'an ve'Ad* Sof ha'Olam', which has the connotation of being as
difficult as walking to the end of the world.
(a) Rabah differentiates between our Mishnah ('mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sof ha'Olam'),
and the Mishnah later ('ka'Afar ha'Aretz u'che'Sa'ar Roshi ... '). In his
opinion - the reason that we are more stringent in the latter is because
each speck of dust and each hair on a person's head is separated from the
next one (and so his statement implies many separate periods of Nezirus),
whereas when we say 'mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sof ha'Olam' (which deals with time),
the days are all joined, implying only one Nezirus.
(b) His explanation is not disproved from the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vayehi
Erev, Vayehi Voker, Yom Echad" (which appears to divide the days) - because
even though each day is a separate entity, it is nevertheless joined to the
(c) Rava has a different approach to explain the Seifa of our Mishnah.
According to him, the Seifa is connected to the Reisha - where the Noder
said 'Hareini Nazir Achas' (clearly implying only one Nezirus).
(d) The previous Amora'im disagree with Rava - inasmuch as in their opinion,
'Hareini Nazir Achas' pertains to the first two cases in the Mishnah, but
not to the third case.
(a) If someone says 'Hareini Nazir ve'Yom Echad' - he is a Nazir for sixty
days, because it is as if he said 'Hareini Nazir ve'Nazir Yom Echad'.
(b) In spite of having taught us this, the Tana of our Mishnah nevertheless
adds the case of 'Hareini Nazir ve'Sha'ah Achas' to teach us the same
thing - because otherwise, we might have thought that he will be a Nazir for
thirty-one days, because it will suffice to turn the hour into a full day.
(c) And having taught us that, he nevertheless deems it necessary to add
the case of 'Hareini Nazir u'Mechtzah' to teach us the same thing yet
again - because otherwise, we would have thought that when he says an hour,
we need to turn it into a full term of Nezirus, seeing as there is no such
thing as hours by Nezirus; but 'Nezirus and a half', we would have
interpreted to mean one and a half Nezirus, to render him a Nazir for
(d) There is no such thing as Nezirus for less than thirty days.
(a) The Tana say that someone who says 'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim Yom
ve'Sha'ah Achas' - is a Nazir for thirty-one days (because there is no
Nezirus for hours (only days).
(b) According to Rav, if a person says ...
1. ... 'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim-ve'Echad Yom' - he is a Nazir for thirty-one
(c) The reason for the difference is - because in the latter case, he added
the extra word 'Yom'.
2. ... 'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim Yom ve'Yom Echad' - he is a Nazir for sixty
(d) Rav seems to refer to our Mishnah when he says 'Lo Shanu Ela de'Amar
Sheloshim ve'Echad Yom'. This is because, our Mishnah, which discusses
'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim Yom ve'Sha'ah Achas', is the continuation of the
latter case of the previous Mishnah ('Hareini Nazir ve'Sha'ah Achas'). The
equivalent continuation of the former case ('Hareini Nazir ve'Yom Echad') is
the case referred to by Rav.
(a) Rav follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in Bava Basra. The Mishnah there
say that the sale of a house - does not include pits and enclosures, even if
he added the depth and the height in the sale.
Rav holds like Rebbi Akiva - in the last point; namely, that when one adds
words that are self-understood to any form of transaction, one does so to
add a point that is not self-understood. Consequently, when the Noder said
'Sheloshim Yom ve'Yom Echad' (adding the extra Yom), he intends to add to
the inferred thirty-one day Nezirus.
(b) According to Rebbi Akiva, the path leading to the pits and to the
enclosures however, is included in the sale. The Rabbanan say - that it is
(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether a person sells with a generous
heart (Rebbi Akiva) or not (the Rabbanan).
(d) Rebbi Akiva will agree with the Rabbanan that he retains the path for
his own use - if he specifically precluded pits and enclosures from the sale
because, seeing as they are precluded anyway, he clearly meant to preclude
the path leading to them.