ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 18
(a) When the Torah writes "ve'Timei Rosh Nizro" - it is talking about a
Tahor Nazir who becomes Tamei.
(b) The two obligations created by that Tum'ah are - shaving and bringing
two bird-offerings (as well as an animal guilt-offering).
(c) We use this Beraisa to resolve Rav Ashi's She'eilah - because the Tana
specifically goes on to preclude a Nazir ba'Kever from the two obligations.
(a) We learn from "ve'Timei Rosh Nizro" to exempt a Nazir be'Kever from the
above Dinim - because the phrase is superfluous, seeing as the Torah could
just as well have written "ve'Chi Yamus Meis Alav be'Fesa Pis'om, ve'Gilach
(b) Were it not for this Pasuk - we would have Darshened a 'Kal va'Chomer'
and said that if a Nazir Tahor who became Tamei is obligated to shave and
bring birds, then how much more so a Nazir be'Kever.
(a) We have already learned the Beraisa which presents the sole difference
between a Tamei she'Nazar and a Nazir Tahor she'Nitma as being whether the
seventh day counts as the first of the thirty days of Nezirus de'Taharah or
not. We establish the author of the Beraisa as being Rebbi, who argues with
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah. He says - that a Nazir Tahor she'Nitma begins
counting his Nezirus Taharah already on the seventh day.
(b) "ve'Kidash es Rosho ba'Yom ha'Hu". "ba'Yom ha'Hu" means ...
1. ... according to Rebbi - on the day that he brings his Korbanos (the
2. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - on the day that he shaves his hair.
(a) Rav Chisda establishes the author of the Mishnah in Kerisus which states
'Nazir she'Nitma Tum'os Harbeh Eino Meivi Ela Korban Echad' as Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah. The Mishnah is referring to a Nazir who became Tamei during
his term of Nezirus, and then he became Tamei again on each consecutive
(b) The author of this Mishnah could not be Rebbi if the Tana was speaking
in that case - because then, according to Rebbi, seeing as when he became
Tamei the second time, he was still within his first period of Nezirus, it
would be no different than becoming Tamei a number of times within one
period of Nezirus, which is considered like one Tum'ah (and the Tana would
not refer to it as 'many Tum'os').
(c) Whereas if the Nazir became Tamei on each consecutive *eighth* day
(rather than the seventh), seeing as the eighth day is the day that he is
fit to bring his Korbanos, he would be obligated to bring fresh Korbanos for
each Tum 'ah.
(a) Rebbi learns from the sequence of the phrases in the Pasuk "ve'Chiper
Alav me'Asher Chata al ha'Nefesh ... ve'Kidash es Rosho ba'Yom ha'Hu" - that
a Nazir who became Tamei only begins to count his Nezirus de'Taharah after
he has become fit to bring his Korbanos (i.e. on the eighth day).
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah counters Rebbi's proof - by pointing out
that we would know that, even without the words "ba'Yom ha'Hu", which the
Torah adds to teach us that he already begins to count on the *seventh* day.
(c) Rebbi learns from there that he begins to count on the eighth day even
if he did not bring his Korbanos then.
(a) Rav Chisda just established the Mishnah in Kerisus ('Nazir she'Nitma
Tum'os Harbeh ... ') like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah. Ee initially think
that the author could be Rebbi by establishing it on the night of the
eighth - because the time to bring the Korbanos has not yet arrived.
Consequently, it has the Din of the eighth day as regards Tum'ah (i.e.
should he become Tamei it is considered a new Tum'ah), but he will still
bring only one Korban (even according to Rebbi).
(b) We suggest that Rav Chisda nevertheless chooses to establish the Mishnah
like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah because he holds 'Laylah La'av Mechusar
Z'man' - meaning that, seeing as it is really the eighth day, and it is only
a matter of time until he is permitted to bring his Korbanos, the fact that
he is not yet permitted to bring them is irrelevant. Consequently, if he
became Tamei then, he would have to bring fresh Korbanos.
(c) In fact, Rav Ada bar Ahavah counters, it is not a question of what Rav
Chisda holds, but what Rebbi and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (respectively)
hold, because their personal opinion in this point is linked to their
opinion in the Mishnah. The opinion (regarding 'Laylah Mechusar Z'man') of
1. ... Rebbi - is 'Laylah Mechusar Z'man', which is why he holds in our
Mishnah that the Nezirus de'Taharah begins only on the eighth (because the
night of the eighth day belongs to the seventh day. Consequently, he cannot
be the author of the Mishnah in Kerisus).
2. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah is 'Laylah La'av Mechusar Z'man', which
is why he holds that Nezirus de'Taharah begins already on the seventh
(because the night of the eighth day belongs to the eighth day).
(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Nitma ba'Shevi'i, ve'Chazar ve'Nitma ba'Shevi'i
Ela Meivi Ela Korban Echad'. We repudiate the word 'Gufa' from the text -
since 'Gufa always refers to something that was quoted verbatim earlier,
whereas this Beraisa is being quorted for the first time here.
(b) The Tana then says 'Nitma ba'Shemini, ve'Chazar ve'Nitma ba'Shemini,
Meivi Korban al Kol Echad ve'Echad.
(c) And he continues 'Maschil u'Moneh Miyad, Divrei Rebbi Eliezer'.
'Miyad' means on the seventh day.
(d) It cannot refer to the eighth day - because then his Tum'ah would only
demolish one day, for which, according to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, one
does not bring a Korban (According to the Hagahos ha'Gra, who has the text
'Divrei Rebbi' in this Beraisa, there is no problem).
(a) In the previous case, the Chachamim hold that the Tamei Nazir cannot
begin to count his Nezirus de'Taharah until he has actually brought his
Chatas. Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah goes even
further. According to him, he must also have brought his Asham.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "ve'Kadash es Rosho *ba'Yom ha'Hu* -
that he does not need to have actually brought his Korbanos, to begin
counting his Nezirus de'Taharah (like the Lashon of Rebbi earlier with
regard to his second Tum'ah [according to the Hagahos ha'Gra, it is Rebbi
who is speaking]), though according to Rebbi Eliezer, it refers to the
*seventh* day (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah), as we just explained.
(c) The Rabbanan learn from "ba'Yom ha'Hu" that he begins counting his
Nezirus de'Taharah as soon as he has brought his Chatas, even though he has
not yet brought his Asham. Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben
Berokah learns from "ba'Yom ha'Hu" - that he may begin counting even though
he has not yet brought his Olah.
(d) According to the Rabbanan - this does not require a Pasuk, seeing as the
Olah is merely a gift (and does not come, like the other Korbanos, as a
(a) The S'vara of the Rabbanan (that the Olah is merely a gift ... ) is
sound. Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah then require a
Pasuk to preclude it - because the Olah is mentioned together with the
Chatas, which is then followed by "ve'Chiper Alav, ve'Kadash Rosho ... "
(insinuating that it is nevertheless part of the Kaparah process).
(b) Once Rebbi Yishmael has a Pasuk, he knows that it is the Chatas that
determines the issue and not the Olah - because the chief Kaparah is
effected by the Chatas.
(c) In spite of the Beraisa currently under discussion, we know that Rebbi,
whom we quoted above as saying "ve'Kadash es Rosho ba'Yom ha'Hu", 'be'Yom
Hava'as Korbenosav', does not hold like the Chachamim (who requires the
Chatas to have actually been brought, before counting the Nezirus
de'Taharah) or like Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (who
even requires the Asham to have been brought, too) - because, unlike them,
he does not mention any thing about a Korban, only 'be'Yom Hava'as
(a) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "*ve'Hizir* la'Hashem es Yemei Nizro,
*ve'Heivi* Keves ben Shenaso le'Asham" - that he begins counting his Nezirus
de'Taharah even though he has not yet brought his Asham.
(b) Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah interprets "ve'Hizir
... ve'Heivi" to mean - he begins counting after having actually brought his
(c) According to the Rabbanan, we need "ba'Yom ha'Hu" - because otherwise,
we would have learned from "ve'Hizir ... ve'Heivi" that he may begin his
Nezirus de'Taharah even though he has not yet brought his Olah, from which
we would infer that the Asham *is* crucial.