(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 15



(a) If someone undertook to be a Nazir as soon as his wife gives birth to a son and a Nazir for a hundred days, began observing the second Nezirus immediately, and his wife gives birth ...
1. ... within seventy days - he immediately observes the Nezirus for his son, and, at the end of thirty days, after shaving for that Nezirus, he completes the first one.
2. ... after seventy days - he begins to observe the Nezirus for his son, and, at the end of thirty days, after shaving for that Nezirus, he begins his first Nezirus all over again.
(b) The reason for this is - because a Nazir only shaves after a growth of at least thirty days, and in the later case, by the time he is eligible to shave, the hundred days will have already terminated).

(c) When Rav says 'Yom Shiv'im Oleh le'Ka'an u'le'Ka'an' - he means that the first half of the day counts as the thirtieth day of his first Nezirus, and the second half, as the first day of his second one.

(d) Despite what we learned in the first Perek that a Nazir for a hundred days may only shave on the hundred and first day, this Nazir is permitted to shave on the hundreth day - because shaving on the hundred and first day (and not on the hundreth) is only a decree (because of where the Noder specifically said 'Sheleimim', as we learned above). Consequently, seeing as, vis-a-vis the first Nezirus, the second half of the thirtieth day is considered the thirty-first, and the hundreth the hundred and first, we revert to the Torah-law, and permit shaving already on the hundreth day.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ad Shiv'im Yom, Lo Hifsid K'lum'. According to Rav - '*Ad* Shiv'im Yom' means until and including the seventieth day.

(b) The Tana says 'Lo Hifsid', and not 'Hirvi'ach', in spite of the fact that the Nazir gains the hundreth day, on which he is now permitted to shave - in order to counter 'Soser' in the Seifa (the opposite of which is 'Eino Soser' or 'Lo Hifsid').

(c) We try to interpret the Seifa of the Mishnah 'le'Achar Shiv'im, Soser Shiv'im' to mean 'Achar de'Achar' - meaning on the seventy-second day (whereas 'Achar' would mean the seventy-first).

(d) The reason for this adjustment is - because, according to Rav, even if the son had been born on the seventy first day, the father would have been permitted to shave on the hundred and first day, and it is only if he was born on the seventy-second, that the thirtieth day turns out to be on the hundred and second day (a day too late).

(a) The problem with the previous explanation is - that the Reisha stated 'Nolad Ad Shiv'im Lo Hifsid K'lum', when, according to Rav, the Tana could even have said 'Nolad le'Achar Shiv'im ... '. Consequently, we can imply from the Reisha that the Seifa means literally 'Achar' and not 'Achar Achar'.

(b) We therefore conclude that the Tana of our Mishnah does not hold like Rav, and that, according to him ...

1. ... 'le'Achar Shiv'im' - must be taken literally to mean on the seventy-first day.
2. ... the seventieth day belongs to the first term of Nezirus which is already in progress - but not to the second term.
(c) The Mishnah in the following Perek reckons the thirtieth day as both the last day of the first Nezirus and the first day of the second Nezirus (like Rav in our Sugya) - only because the thirtieth day concludes the first Nezirus; whereas the seventieth day in our Mishnah does not conclude the first term of Nezirus, in which it cannot also serve as the first day of the second Nezirus (though Rav holds that it can).
(a) According to the Tana of a Beraisa, someone who buries his dead three days before Yom-Tov is no longer obligated to keep the Dinim of Shiv'ah. For the Sheloshim to fall away - he would have to bury him eight days before Yom-Tov.

(b) Regarding the Shiv'ah, it is wearing shoes and Tashmish ha'Mitah that become permitted. Regarding the Sheloshim - it is shaving.

(c) The first of these two Dinim is not actually Halachah - because we rule in Mo'ed Katan that if the Aveil began his Aveilus even just one hour before Yom-Tov, the Shiv'ah falls away with the advent of Yom-Tov.

(d) According to the Tana Kama, even if the deceased relative was buried eight days before Yom-Tov, he will remain forbidden to shave after Yom-Tov - if he did not avail himself of the concession to shave 'li'Chevod Yom-Tov'.




(a) Aba Shaul disagrees with the Tana Kama in this last point. According to him, the Aveil is permitted to shave after Yom-Tov whether he shaved before Yom-Tov or not. He also argues with him regarding the eight days required to negate the Din of Sheloshim. According to him - just as observing the minimum three-day period of mourning before Yom-Tov negates the Din of Shiv'ah, so too, does observing the *seven days* of Shiv'ah negate the Din of Sheloshim.

(b) Despite the fact that the Aveil has not observed a full day of the Sheloshim - he has observed half a day, Aba Shaul nevertheless considers the Sheloshim negated - because he holds 'Yom Shevi'i Oleh le'Ka'an u'le'Ka'an'.

(c) We cannot however, resolve the problem of Rav arguing with our Mishnah by establishing him like Aba Shaul - because Aba Shaul might restrict his ruling to Aveilus, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan, but when it comes to Nezirus, which is d'Oraysa, he may well disagree with Rav.

(a) So we try to establish Rav like Rebbi Yossi, who says - that a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom for whom they Shechted the Korban Pesach and sprinkled its blood, but who subsequently had a second sighting of blood ...
1. ... is not permitted to partake of it.
2. ... is nevertheless not obligated to bring a Pesach Sheini.
(b) The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi say - that she is also obligated to bring a Pesach Sheini.

(c) Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because he holds that part of the day is like the entire day. Consequently, she is considered Tahor as far as the previous day's sighting is concerned (i.e. it does not combine with it to make her a Zavah), and she is only Tamei from the time of the sighting - giving the day a dual status (like Rav).

(d) We reject the text 'mi'Mai, ve'Dilma Mishum de'ka'Savar mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba Hu Metamei' - on the grounds that that S'vara is actually part of the proof for Rav, as we just explained.

(a) Rebbi Yossi's previous stance (where he holds that a Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom is only Tamei from the time of the sighting) appears to clash with his own opinion in another Beraisa, where he says in a similar case (with regard to both a Zav who has already had two sightings and a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom) 'Af-al-Pi she'Metam'in Mishkav u'Moshav *Lemafre'a*, Peturin mi'La'asos Pesach Sheini'.

(b) We resolve the two statements - by establishing the latter Beraisa 'Lemafre'a de'Rabbanan' (but min ha'Torah, he is only Tamei from the time that he sees). They cannot therefore, bring a Pesach Sheini, because it would be 'Chulin la'Azarah'.

(c) We try to prove this answer from the fact that they are Patur from bringing the Pesach Sheini. We reject this proof however, on the grounds that they might be Patur from Pesach Sheini even if they were Metamei retroactively mid'Oraysa - because Rebbi Yossi holds that Tum'as ha'Tehom (even of Zivus) does not apply to the Korban Pesach ('Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai').

(d) Any Tum'ah that was unknown at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of the Pesach is considered 'Tum'as ha'Tehom'.

(a) Rebbi Oshaya quotes a Beraisa that a Zav who has a sighting on his seventh day, demolishes the clean days that preceded the sighting. Rebbi Yochanan asked him 'Lo Yistor Ela Yomo'? - a text which cannot possibly be correct, since one either demolishes all seven days or nothing at all.

(b) He would not even demolish that day - because not to demolish seven days (because part of the day is like the whole day) means that his second sighting is considered like the first sighting of a Zav, which has the Din of a Ba'al Keri, who is only Tamei until the evening, when he Tovels and is Tahor.

(c) We therefore amend Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya to read 'Lo Yistor ve'Lo Yomo' ('He should not even demolish that day either)?

(a) Rebbi Oshaya's comment that Rebbi Yossi agrees with Rebbi Yochanan is difficult to understand - because whereas Rebbi Yochanan holds that the Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom is Tamei only from the time of the sighting, Rebbi Yossi explicitly said that she is Tamei retroactively.

(b) We resolve the problem comment however - by equating Rebbi Oshaya with Rav who, we explained earlier, explains Rebbi Yossi to mean 'Tamei retroactively mi'de'Rabbanan'.

Next daf


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