ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 20
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, Queen Helen was only a Nazir
for fourteen years. He might disagree with the Tana Kama, maintaining that
she did not become Tamei, but had to repeat another seven years, like Beis
Hillel - or he might hold like Beis Shamai, and in addition to the seven
years that she had to repeat when she became Tamei, Queen Helen was also
given one extra month of Nezirus when she arrived in Eretz Yisrael.
(b) We prove from our Mishnah itself, that the first of the two
interpretations is the correct one - because following the Tana Kama's
statement ('Alsah le'Eretz Yisrael ... '), Rebbi Yehudah specifically
specifies 'fourteen years' and not 'fourteen years and thirty days'.
(c) It would be possible to establish a case of exactly fourteen years
according to Rebbi Yehudah in Beis Shamai - if she had arrived in Eretz
Yisrael thirty years before the termination of her first seven-year term,
and when she then became Tamei at the end of the thirty day penalty period,
she had to observe another seven years.
(d) We do not even consider this explanation however, for the same reason as
we quote the words of the Tana Kama, when we could equally well have proved
our point from the words of Rebbi Yehudah alone. We quote the Tana Kama -
to prove that he is not talking about a case when one of the terms is
absorbed within the other. Consequently, neither is Rebbi Yehudah (and we
cannot explain Rebbi Yehudah like Beis Shamai).
(a) According to Beis Shamai in our Mishnah, if one pair of witnesses
testify that someone undertook two sets of Nezirus, whereas another pair
testify that he undertook five, the entire testimony is canceled and he is
not a Nazir at all. According to Beis Hillel - two is included in five, in
which case the two testimonies do not clash.
(b) The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi
Yochanan ben Berokah - because he interprets the Machlokes between Beis
Shamai and Beis Hillel when there are two individual witnesses. But ...
(c) ... in the case in our Mishnah - when the testimonies of two pairs of
witnesses clash, even he concedes that 'two is included in five' (and their
testimony is accepted).
(a) Rav states that everyone agrees in a case of 'Month'. Rav Chama
disagrees with him. Assuming that Rav means ...
***** Hadran Alach Mi she'Amar *****
1. ... that even Beis Shamai agree that if one witness testifies 'five sets
of Nezirus and not two' and the other one says 'two and not five' that their
testimony is canceled - Rav Chama objects on the grounds that this is
obvious, and does not need to be stated.
(b) In Eretz Yisrael - they said 'Ein Hakchashah be'Moneh (like Rav Chama).
2. ... that the first witness said 'one, two', and the second one 'three,
four, five' - he objects on the grounds that this is not a contradiction,
seeing as the second witness is merely adding to the first one (meaning that
is he accepted two sets of Nezirus, he certainly accepted five).
(c) Rav in the Yerushalmi concurs with his opinion here (that by Month, Beis
Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that the testimony is contradictory). According
to Rebbi Yochanan there - they argue by Moneh, but by the case in our
Mishnah, Beis Shamai will agree that two is included in five, and the
***** Perek Mi she'Amar *****
(a) If Shimon and Levi heard Reuven declare himself a Nazir, Shimon said
'va'Ani' and so did Levi, they are all Nezirim. Should ...
1. ... Reuven then annul his Neder - then all the Nedarim are annulled.
(b) If Shimon says 'Pi ke'Fiv ve'Sa'ari ke'Sa'aro' - the Din is the same as
that of 'va'Ani'.
2. ... Levi annul it - then Levi's Neder alone is annulled, but not that of
(a) If ...
1. ... a man declares himself a Nazir, his wife says 'Ani' and he is Meifer
her Neder - his wife's Neder is annulled, but his Neder stands.
(b) The reason for this latter Halachah might be because a husband uproots
his wife's Nedarim from their inception (like a Chacham does), because then
his Neder would become nullified too (and he is not empowered to do so, as
we shall see later). If we hold that a husband only annuls it from now on -
then the reason is because 'va'Ani' is considered a Hakamah.
2. ... a woman declared herself a Nazir, her husband said 'va'Ani', and then
was Meifer her Neder - he cannot annul her Neder.
(a) If a man declared 'Hareini Nazir ve'At', he will need to annul his
wife's Neder - only if she responds by saying 'Amen'.
(b) Otherwise, 've'At' alone is not considered upholding her Neder (in this
case) - because she has not declared one (and he cannot do so against her
(c) In a case of 'Amrah Hareini Nezirah ve'Atah, ve'Amar Amen' - he cannot
annul her Neder (for the same two reasons that we mentioned above).
(a) Resh Lakish said in the presence of Rebbi Yehudah' Nesi'a - that Reuven
and Shimon in our Mishnah are both Nezirim only if they both managed to say
it 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of Reuven's declaration.
Resh Lakish is vindicated by a Beraisa - which specifically states that if
someone who said 'va'Ani' immediately after the Shiur of 'K'dei Dibur',
(which the Tana equates with 'Shalom Aleicha Rebbi') he is not a Nazir.
(b) That explains why only three people can become Nezirim by saying
'va'Ani', according to Resh Lakish - because 'Toch K'dei Dibur' comprises
three words (as we shall now see), so it is only three people who will
manage to say 'va'Ani' in 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the first one.
(c) 'Toch K'dei Dibur' comprises - the time it takes to say 'Shalom Alecha
(d) This caused Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a to disagree with Resh Lakish - because
according to him, a Talmid who wishes to say 'va'Ani' following his friend's
declaration of Nezirus, and just then his Rebbe walked past, will be unable
to do so. Consequently, it is more logical to say that Chazal gave a
fraction longer that 'K'dei Dibur' of 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi', to accommodate