(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 44



(a) Regarding the three Halachos of a Nazir, the Tana lists the various Chumros of the one over the other. The Chumra of ...
1. ... Tum'ah and the prohibition of shaving over the prohibition of drinking wine - is that they both demolish the Nezirus (either completely or in part), whereas drinking wine does not.
2. ... Tum'ah over the prohibition of shaving - that whereas the former demolishes the Nezirus completely, the latter only demolishes thirty days.
(b) The Chumra of the prohibition of drinking wine over that of shaving and Tum'ah is the fact that it has no exceptions, whereas the other two do. The exceptions of ...
1. ... Tum'ah is - Meis Mitzvah.
2. ... the prohibition of shaving is - a Nazir who is a Metzora.
(c) In order not to learn one from the other, every detail has a specific source. For example, we might otherwise not permit any exceptions by Tum'ah (if not for a specific Pasuk) from wine, which does not demolish, yet it has no exceptions, Tum'ah, which does demolish, should certainly have no exceptions.

(d) We learn that a Nazir is obligated to render himself Tamei for a Meis Mitzvah - from the Pasuk "*le'Aviv* u'le'Imo Lo Yitama".

(a) From the Pasuk "mi'Yayin ve'Sheichar Yazir" we learn - that there are no exceptions regarding the prohibition of drinking wine, because wine of Mitzvah is included in the prohibition.

(b) And from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu, *Ki Tamei Nizro"* - we learn that Tum'ah demolishes the Nezirus but not shaving.

(a) If Reuven shaves Shimon who is a Nazir (assuming that Shimon assists Reuven) - both of them will receive Malkos.

(b) We learned in our Mishnah that the Halachah of Tum'ah is more stringent than that of shaving inasmuch as the former demolishes the entire Nezirus, whereas the latter only demolishes thirty days. We do not learn a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Tum'ah, that a Nazir who shaves must demolish his entire Nezirus and count again from the beginning - from the same Pasuk as the previous D'rashah "ve'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu, *Ki Tamei Nizro"*, implying that only Tum'ah demolishes the entire Nezirus.

(a) We learn from ...
1. ... "ve'Timei Rosh Nizro" - that it is only the Nazir himself who receives malkos for rendering himself Tamei, but not someone else who rendered him Tamei.
2. ... "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Rosho" - that someone else who shaves a Nazir is Chayav just like the Nazir himself, because "Lo Ya'avor" can also be read "Lo Ya'avir al Roshso"
(b) Even though wine, which does not demolish the Nazir's Nezirus, does not have any exceptions to its prohibitions, shaving, which does, has exeptions - because the Torah writes (by a Metzora) "Rosho" and "Z'kano", implying that even if he is a Nazir, the Metzora is obligated to shave.

(c) Nor can we say that if wine, which has no exceptions, does not demolish the Nezirus, 'Kal va'Chomer' shaving - because shaving has to demolish the Nezirus (not intrinsically, but) in order to allow a thirty-day growth before the final shaving.

(d) Conversely, we do not then learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (from shaving, which has exceptions) that wine demolishes thirty days of Nezirus - since after drinking wine, his hair is still intact, so there would be no point in demolishing anything.

5) We just asked why we do not learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (from shaving, which has exceptions) that wine demolishes thirty days of Nezirus. We could not have rejected the Kashya from the fact that someone who shaves a Nazir is Chayav like the Nazir himself, whereas someone who feeds a Nazir wine is not - because if the 'Kal va'Chomer' were to stand, someone who feeds a Nazir wine would also be Chayav Malkos, (Tosfos).




(a) The Tana of our Mishnah discusses the Dinim of shaving regarding a Nazir who became Tamei. His procedure is described clearly in the Torah - which prescribes shaving on the seventh day and bringing his Korbanos on the eighth.

(b) If he postponed shaving until the eighth day, Rebbi Akiva permits him to bring his Korbanos on the same day. Rebbi Tarfon however, queries him from the Din of Metzora (which initially, follows the same procedure as a Nazir Tamei). Rebbi Tarfon heard (from none other than Rebbi Akiva himself) - that a Metzora who did not shave until the eighth day must wait until the ninth before bringing his Korbanos.

(c) To answer Rebbi Tarfon's Kashya, Rebbi Akiva draws a distinction between a Metzora and a Nazir Tamei - in that the Taharah of the former depends on the shaving, whereas that of the latter depends on the days.

(d) Consequently, seeing as the Metzora remains Tamei until after he has shaved on the eighth day, he is not permitted to bring his Korbanos before nightfall (until when he is called a T'vul-Yom, despite the fact that he Toveled on the seventh day); whereas a Nazir Tamei becomes Tahor after Toveling on the seventh day (irrespective of whether he has shaved or not), and his period of T'vul-Yom terminates with nightfall.

(a) Hillel (ha'Katan) quoting a Beraisa, says that a Nazir who shaved on the eighth day - must wait until the ninth, before bringing his Korbanos.

(b) We are trying to prove from there - that Rebbi Tarfon did not accept Rebbi Akiva answer to his query (because if he did, who would be the author of this Beraisa)?

(c) We know that Hillel is talking about a Nazir Tamei and not a Metzora - because of a tradition.

(d) Rava establishes the Beraisa when he did not Tovel on the seventh day either - making it possible for the author of the Beraisa to be Rebbi Akiva, since even he will concede that someone who did not Tovel until the eighth day, will be a T'vul-Yom until the eve of the ninth, and will have to wait for the ninth day before bringing his Korbanos.

(a) The Torah writes (in connection with the Korbanos that the Zav brings on his eighth day) "*u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yikach ... u'Va Lifnei Hashem* el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, u'Nesanam el ha'Kohen". The Beraisa comments on this Pasuk - that he is only permitted to enter the Machaneh Levi'ah after he Toveled and waited for nightfall.

(b) The companions of Rav Nasan bar Hoshaya extrapolate from the Tana's comment - that the T'vul Yom of a Zav has the Din of a Zav himself (who is forbidden to enter the Machaneh Levi'ah).

(c) The ramifications of this statement are - that someone is not even permitted to Shecht the Korbanos of a Zav and sprinkle their blood for him to eat them after nightfall. And this applies even to a Zav who saw only twice and who is not obligated to bring Korbanos (for his Zivus) Tosfos.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Vayikach Moshe es Atzmos Yosef Imo" - that (min ha'Torah) one is even permitted to bring a Meis into the Machaneh Levi'ah.

(b) Sha'ar Nikanor is the extremity of Machaneh Levi'ah. It was situated - at the entrance to the Ezras Nashim.

(c) The significance of the Sha'ar Nikanor with regard to Mechusrei Kaparah is - that all Mechusrei Kaparah were taken there for their purification ceremony (Rashi).

(a) On the understanding that the companions of Rav Nasan bar Hoshaya base their statement on the Lashon "*u'Va Lifnei Hashem* (as we pointed out earlier), Abaye extrapolates from the Pasuk (written in connection with a Tamei Nazir) "u'va'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yavi Sh'tei Sorim ... *ve'Heivi Keves ben Sh'naso le'Asham*" - that he would have to wait until he had Toveled and waited for nightfall (because 'T'vul Yom de'Meis ke'Meis').

(b) The Kashya that this poses on the companions of Rav Nasan bar Hoshaya is - that this thought process cannot be correct, since a Tamei Meis and certainly a T'vul-Yom of a Tamei Meis, are permitted to enter Machaneh Levi'ah, as we just proved.

(c) Abaye now disputes the statement of the companions of Rav Nasan bar Hoshaya. According to him - the Lashon "*u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yikach ... u'Va Lifnei Hashem* el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed ... does not imply that before Tevilah, the Zav is not permitted to enter the Machaneh Levi'ah (just as the Pasuk "u'va'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yavi Sh'tei Sorim ... *ve'Heivi Keves ben Sh'naso le'Asham*" cannot imply this), because we hold that a 'T'vul-Yom of a Zav is not like a Zav.

(d) The Tana of the Beraisa learns that until he has Toveled and waited for nightfall, the Zav is forbidden to enter the Machaneh Levi'ah - from the Pasuk "el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" (as we will now explain).

(a) Even though a T'vul-Yom who saw twice is permitted to enter the Machaneh Levi'ah, a T'vul-Yom who saw three times is not - because he is also a Mechusar Kipurim.

(b) Although the Pasuk (" ... u'Va Lifnei Hashem") is speaking about the Machaneh Levi'ah, it is nevertheless referred to as "Ohel Mo'ed" (which is normally reserved for the Machaneh Shechinah) - to compare the Machaneh Levi'ah with regard to a Mechusar Kaparah (who is also a T'vul-Yom) to a Mechusar Kaparah who is forbidden to enter the Machaneh Shechinah.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Tamei Yih'yeh" - that a T'vul-Yom is forbidden to enter the Machaneh Shechinah.
2. ... "Od Tum'aso Bo" - that a Mechusar Kaparah is forbidden too.
Next daf


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