ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 33 & 34
(a) We learned that if the man coming towards the six travelers turned back,
then none of them is a Nazir. Based on an inference, the author of this
section of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Tarfon - because Rebbi Yehudah said
in his name 'Ein Echad Meihen Nazir, Lefi she'Lo Nitnah Nezirus Ela
(b) We probably quote Rebbi Yehudah (rather than Rebbi Tarfon in our
Mishnah) - because he adds Rebbi Tarfon's source from the Torah (Tosfos).
(a) We conclude that the author (of Hirsi'a le'Achorav) must be 'Rebbi
Yehudah di'K'ri' - who says that if someone undertook Nezirus on condition
that the pile of grain in front of him contained a hundred Kur, and he later
discovered that it had been stolen or lost, he is not a Nazir.
(b) Rebbi Shimon says - that he is.
(c) Rav Ashi in Nedarim does not seem to agree with our Sugya. He comments
there that Rebbi Yehudah, who invalidates the Nezirus due to the fact that
the pile was stolen - would really say the same thing even if the pile had
not been stolen (because he holds like the Rebbi Tarfon that he quoted
(d) Rav Ashi will explain our Mishnah - to go like the Tana in 'Hareini
Nazir', who says 'Hipilah Ishto, Eino Nazir' (because the Nezirus must
ultimately be clarified, in order to become valid) Tosfos.
(a) The Tana discusses a case if someone sees a Koy and declares Nezirus if
it is a Chayah, whilst his friend declares Nezirus if it is not. The third
friend says that he will be a Nazir if it is a Beheimah, and fourth friend,
if it is not.
(b) The fifth friend declares Nezirus if it is both a Chayah and a
Beheimah, and the sixth that it is neither - in which case it is an
individual species, and may not be bred with either a Beheimah or a Chayah.
(c) If it is both, the ramifications of saying that it is ...
1. ... a Chayah - are that its blood requires covering (after it has been
2. ... a Beheimah - that its Cheilev is forbidden.
(a) The seventh friend declares Nezirus if one of them is a Nazir - the
eighth friend, if one of them is not.
(b) The ninth friend declares Nezirus if all of them are Nezirim. This
feasible - when we explain 'Nezirim' to mean Safek Nezirim'.
(c) The Tana rules - that all of them are Nezirim.
(a) The theory that the Tana follows the opinion of Beis Shamai, who rule in
the previous Mishnah too that all of them are Nezirim, is unacceptable
(seeing as Tana'im do not go out of their way to teach us the rulings of
Beis Shamai), In fact, the author could even be Beis Hillel, who rule there
that they are not all Nezirim, meaning 'Vaday Nezirim', (but Safek Nezirim
(b) In fact, the author is Beis Hillel according to Rebbi Shimon - who ruled
that if the Nazir turned back, they are all Safek Nezirim, even though it is
a Safek which does not stand to become clarified (based on the fact that a
person tends to let himself into a Safek Nezirus).
(c) Some commentaries explain that the last three friends are ...
1. ... Vaday Nezirim - because one of them is indeed a Nazir (substantiating
number seven's Nezirus), one of them is not a Vaday (but a Safek [number
eight]), and all of them are Safek Nezirim (number nine).
(d) The problem with the nine Nezirim in our Mishnah is - why the Tana
seemingly omits the case where the last one says 'she'Kulchem Einam Nezirim'
(Tosfos. Perhaps he does so to balance the previous Mishnah, where he
deliberately omits this case, as we explained there).
2. ... Safek Nezirim - because what they may have meant is - that one of the
first ones is a Vaday Nazir (number seven), is definitely not a Nazir
(number eight), and that both of them are definitely not Nezirim (number
(a) Some explain our Mishnah to mean that all nine people are Nezirim (as we
explained it). Others explain - that it is one man who accepted nine
***** Hadran Alach Beis Shamai *****
(b) The problem with this is how it is possible to apply the last three
cases in the Mishnah ('she'Echad Mikem Nazir', 'she'Ein Echad Mikem Nazir'
'she'Kulchem Nezirim') to one person. We resolve it - by establishing that
nine men had previously accepted Nezirus in this way, and we are speaking
about a tenth man who took upon himself all of their Nezirus in the event
that they are all Nezirim.
***** Perek Sheloshah Minim *****
(a) Our Mishnah teaches us that Nezirus comprises three prohibitions. From
the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Kadosh Yih'yeh Gadeil Pera" - we learn that a Nazir is forbidden to
cut his hair.
(b) According to the Mishnah Rishonah, one is only Chayav for drinking a
Revi'is (one and a half egg-volumes) of wine. Rebbi Akiva says - that one is
even Chayav for a k'Zayis of bread soaked in wine (considerable less than a
2. ... "*mi'Kol* Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin, me'Chartzanim" - that a
Nazir receive Malkos for eating a k'Zayis comprizing grapes, raisins pits
(c) According to the Tana Kama, a Nazir is Chayav even for eating a k'Zayis
of pits or of skins. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says - that at least two pits
and one skin are required before he can receive Malkos.
(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, "Chartzanim" are the skins and "Zagim", the
pits; whereas Rebbi Yossi holds the reverse. The sign he gives by which to
remember this is - the 'Zug' (bell) of an animal, which is on the outside
(whilst the clapper is on the inside).
(a) We infer from our Mishnah, which states that a Nazir transgresses when
he eats anything that is 'Yotze min ha'Gefen' - that he is not Chayav for
eating part of the vine itself.
(b) Others make the same inference from the Seifa 've'Eino Chayav Ela ad
she'Yochal k'Zayis min ha'Anavim'. They decline to learn like the first
opinion - because, in their opinion, 'Kol ha'Yotze min ha'Gefen'
incorporates the vine itself.
(c) Either way, this does not conform with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar - who
obligates even a Nazir who ate the leaves or the small branches of a vine.
(d) Both Tana'im derive their respective opinions from the Pasuk "mi'Yayin
ve'Sheichar Yazir ... mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin ... . Rebbi
Elazar Darshens this Pasuk in the form of a 'Mi'ut and Ribuy'. From ...
1. ... the latter Pasuk, he includes - everything.
2. ... the former one - he excludes the large branches.
(a) The Rabbanan add the Pasuk "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag", and Darshen all
three - in the form of 'P'rat u'Chelal, u'Ferat'.
(b) They subsequently Darshen the 'P'rat u'Chelal u'Ferat' (like they would
a 'K'lal u'Ferat u'Chelal') - to include whatever is similar to the P'rat'
(i.e. fruit and waste [such as unripe or wormy grapes]).
(c) They Darshen the P'rat in this way (in spite of the fact that it is
actual food) and not literally (confining the La'av to actual food) -
because whatever is food from the vine (grapes, raisins, wine and vinegar)
has already been mentioned in the Pasuk itself (Tosfos).
(d) In any event, it is quite inconceivable to exclude wormy grapes for two
reasons, one of them because it is no worse that vinegar, which the Torah
specifically includes. The other one - because what would the 'P'rat
u'Chelal u'Ferat' then come to include (Tosfos)?
(a) We ask why the Pasuk needs to add "Mechartzaim ve'ad Zag". True, we just
used that as the second P'rat. What we are asking however, is - why the
Torah places this second P'rat after the K'lal, and not simply add it to the
first P'rat (Tosfos).
(b) The Torah places it after the K'lal - to teach us that we cannot treat a
'K'lal u'F'rat' like a 'K'lal u'Frat u'Chelal'.
(c) Had there not been a P'rat after the K'lal - we would have used the
K'lal to include the branches and the leaves (because a 'P'rat u'Chelal'
works in the same way as a 'Mi'ut ve'Ribuy' (according to Rebbi Elazar).
(d) Rebbi Elazar conquers with Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in our Mishnah, who
learns from "Mechartzanim ve'ad Zag" - that one is only Chayav if one eats
at least two grape-pits and one skin.
(a) The 'P'ri referred to in the Beraisa is the fruit itself, and the
'Peso'les P'ri', vinegar. 'Af Kol P'ri' comes to include 'Guharki', and the
'Af Kol' of Peso'les P'ri, 'Invi Dichrin'.
1. 'Guharki' means - unripe grapes, and ...
(b) From "*ve'Ad* Zag" we include 'de'Bein ha'Beinayim' - small grapes which
will never ripen.
2. ... 'Invi Dichrin' - wormy ones.
(c) Despite having already included unripe grapes, we nevertheless need a
Pasuk to include these small grapes - because, unlike the unripe grapes,
they will never ripen.
(a) Others explain 'de'Bein ha'Beinayim' to mean the flesh between the pits
and the skin, an explanation which we initially reject - on the grounds that
this is the grape itself, which we already know from "Anavim" (Tosfos).
(b) We ultimately accept it (answering the previous Kashya in the process) -
by establishing it when he picked of the flesh and ate it (which is an
unusual way of eating it, and for which, if not for the D'rashah, he would
not be Chayav).