ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 25
(a) We learned above a number of times that the unspecified money of a Nazir
goes li'Nedavah. Considering that the money includes that of a Chatas - we
might have expected the money to go to the Yam ha'Melach.
(b) We could ask from Shelamim too - which are normally eaten, whereas
Nedavah is completely burnt.
(c) We extrapolate from the fact that the header is 've'Hayu Lo Ma'os
S'tumin' and not 'Hayu Lo Ma'os S'tumin' that the Kashya is based on the
Mishnah in Me'ilah ('ha'Mafrish Ma'os li'Neziruso ... . Meis, ve'Hayu Lo
Ma'os S'tumin ... ') rather than our own Mishnah ('ha'Ishah she'Nadrah
be'Nazir'). The reason for this is - because the Mishnah in Me'ilah speaks
when the Nazir said 'le'Korbanos Nezirusi' (specifically implying *all* of
her Korbanos), giving rise to the Kashya; whereas our Mishnah speaks when
the woman just said 'li'Nezirus', in which case she could later use all the
money to purchase an Olah (as we explained earlier), thereby dispensing with
the Kashya altogether (Tosfos).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan answers the initial Kashya with the principle 'Halachah
Hi be'Nazir. If the money incorporated only the Olah and the Shelamim - they
would buy with half of it an Olah, and with the other half, a Shelamim
(b) We could also give the reason that we cannot answer here that the owner
could theoretically have purchased an Olah with it (like we answered
above) - because the case here speaks after the owner's death, in which case
that argument is not applicable.
(c) Resh Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan. He learns from the Pasuk
"le'Chol Nidreihem u'le'Chol Nidvosam" - that whatever remains from a Neder,
goes to Nedavah.
(d) Resh Lakish ...
1. ... interprets the word 'Nidreihem' to incorporate the money of Mosar
Chatas (despite the fact that a Chatas is an obligation and not a Neder) -
because the source of the Chatas Nazir is the Neder Nezirus that the Nazir
2. ... uses this Pasuk to teach us about the money that remains from a Nazir
rather than money which remains from other Korbanos (i.e. when the price of
animals dropped) - because in those cases, there is no reason that one
should not still be able to use the money for what it was originally
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the money of the Chatas in the case of
Ma'os Mefurashin goes to the Yam ha'Melach, because that is part of the
'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'. Resh Lakish learns this from Tana de'Bei Rebbi
Yishmael - who says that the child and the Temurah (the exchange) of a
Chatas must die.
(b) If the child of a Chatas (and a Temurah) must die - it stands to reason
that the same will apply to money that is leftover, because they all fall
under the heading 'Mosar Chatas').
(c) According to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, the Pasuk "(Rak) Kodoshecha
Asher Yih'yu Lach u'Nedarecha" refers to - the children and the Temurah of
Olos and Shelamim.
(d) He then learns from ...
1. ... the continuation of the Pasuk "Tisa U'vasa el ha'Makom Asher Yivchar
Hashem" - that they should be taken to Yerushalayim.
2. ... the Pasuk "ve'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - that, once there,
one does not withhold from them water and food and let them die.
3. ... its continuation "ve'ha'Basar Tochel" - that (even though the
beginning of this Pasuk is confined to Olos) the same applies to Shelamim.
4. ... the word "Rak (Kodoshecha Asher Yih'yu Lach u'Nedarecha)" - that
although this is what is done with Mosar Olah and Shelamim, it is not the
case with Mosar Chatas and Mosar Asham.
(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael states ...
1. ... 'ke'Derech she'Atah Noheg be'Olah Nehog *bi'Temurasah'*, failing to
mention 'bi'Veladeihem' (like he does by Shelamim) - because an Olah, by
definition, must be a male, in which case, it cannot have children.
(b) A Temuras Asham is - sent into the field to graze until it obtains a
blemish, when it is redeemed, and the money used to buy an Olah; whereas a
Temuras Olah and a Temuras Shelamim are actually brought as an Olah and a
2. ... 'Yachol af V'lad Chatas u'Temuras Asham Kein', switching from 'V'lad
Chatas' to 'Temuras Asham' - because an Asham too, can only be a male.
(c) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael. He learns from
the Pasuk "Asham Hu" - that it is only the Asham itself that is brought as
an Asham, but not a Mosar Asham.
(d) In spite of the fact that 'V'lad Chatas Meisah' is a 'Halachah le'Moshe
mi'Sinai' (implying that other Korbanos are precluded from this Halachah),
Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael nevertheless requires the Pasuk "ve'Asisa
Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" to teach us that 'V'ladei Kodshim u'Temurasam'
(Shelamim and Olos) are not taken to Yerushalayim to die - because we might
otherwise have thought that the Mosar Chatas dies wherever it is located,
whereas the Mosar Chatas and Shelamim must be taken to Yerushalayim to die
(a) We have already learned that 'V'lad Chatas Meisah' is a Halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai'. The reason Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael needs to learn it
from the Pasuk "*Rak* Kodoshecha Asher Yih'yu Lecha u'Nedarecha" is - to
preclude (not a Chatas, as we initially thought), but - an Asham, from the
Din of Olah and Shelamim).
(b) But the Din of Asham too, is incorporated in the 'Halachah le'Moshe
mi'Sinai' - which states 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, be'Asham Ro'eh'.
(c) In that case, back comes the Kashya 'Why does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael
require the Pasuk for Chatas and Asham'. As a matter of fact, the Pasuk
teaches us that someone who does bring a Mosar Chatas or Asham for the
purpose that they were originally intended, transgresses, not only a
Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, but also Asei.
(a) The problem that we have with Rebbi Akiva, who learns that Mosar Asham
is not brought as an Asham, from the Pasuk "Asham *Hu*" is - why he requires
a Pasuk, when there is a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'?
(b) We answer according to Rav Huna Amar Rav - who says that if, after
sending the Mosar Asham into the field to obtain a blemish ('Nitko
li'Re'ayah') - but before it actually became blemished, one Shechted it as
an Olah, the Korban is Kasher.
(c) The reason for this is - because in any case, after it was blemished,
the animal stood to be Shechted and the money used to purchase an Olah.
(d) Rebbi Akiva now Darshens "Asham *Hu*" - to teach us that, in the event
that he Shechted it before even sending it into the field, it is not Kasher.
(a) We cannot establish that the Pasuk comes to teach us an Asei (like we
explained above according to Rebbi Yishmael) - because "Asham Hu" does not
imply an Asei (like "Rak Kodoshecha ... Tisa u'Vasa" does) Tosfos.
(b) Rebbi Akiva said 'Eino Tzarich', when really we do need the Pasuk to
teach us an Asei (which, as we just explained, we cannot derive from his
Pasuk) - because he misunderstood Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael. He thought
that he does not learn the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' at all, in which
case "Rak ... " is needed for the basic Halachah (that Mosar Chatas and
Asham are not brought as such, and) not for the Asei (Tosfos).
(c) According to the outcome of our Sugya, Rebbi Akiva himself does not
learn Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael's D'rashah from "Asham Hu". He nevertheless
expects Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael to do so - because, still based on his
previous misunderstanding, he argues that Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael would
not need "Rak ... " just to learn that Mosar Chatas and Asham are not
brought, because that he could learn from "Asham Hu". He himself however,
who learns the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', would need "Rak ... " for the
Asei (leaving "Asham Hu" for the D'rashah of Rav Huna Amar Rav) Tosfos.
(d) In fact - there is no dispute between Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael and
Rebbi Akiva. Both learn the Sugya like Rebbi Akiva, only Rebbi Akiva did not
realize that Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael agreed with him.
(a) Rabeinu Tam reconciles ...
1. ...Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah from "Asham *Hu*" ('Nitak In, Lo Nitak, Lo')
with the Sugya in Shevu'os, which describes 'Ro'eh as a 'G'zeirah
de'Rabbanan' - by omitting the words 'Nitak In, Lo Nitak, Lo' from the text.
(b) The reason for the decree - is because *before* the Kaparah has been
effected, Ro'eh is d'Oraysa, so they decreed after the Kaparah on account of
2. ... the Sugya in Shevu'os with the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, which
clearly states 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, *be'Asham Ro'eh*' - by changing
the text of the 'Halachah ... ' to 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, be'Asham
(a) The Sugya in Pesachim discusses whether Rav Huna Amar Rav requires
Akirah or not, and it is with regard to that our Sugya asks (not 'Ta'ama',
but) 'Mai Ta'ama'. Akirah means - that when the owner Shechts it as an Olah,
he must specifically have in mind to replace the Asham status with that of
(b) The answer to the Kashya is 'de'Amar K'ra "Hu", 'be'Havayasa Yehei',
according to those who say ...
1. ... that the Asham does require Akirah is - that "Hu" implies that it
will remain an Asham, unless he changes its status.
2. ... that it does not is - that "Hu" implies that, after the Kaparah, it
will remain Kasher (to be brought as an Olah), without the need to
specifically say so.