ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 56
(a) Rav Chisda (who counts the 'Yemei Sifro' and 'Yemei Gamro' in the days
of Nezirus) has no answer to the Beraisa that we just discussed, neither
does he have an answer to the Beraisa that we are about to discuss. The Tana
learns that the days of a Metzora Muchlat do not count in the days of
Nezirus from the case of a Nazir who became a Tamei Meis - by means of a
'Mah Matzinu', since both are required to shave and bring a Korban.
(b) When the Tana says 'Yemei Tum'ah Megale'ach u'Meivi Korban, vi'Yemei
Chaluto Megale'ach u'Meivi Korban' - he is referring to the Asham Nazir
Tamei and the Asham Metzora, respectively.
(c) We refute this 'Mah Matzinu' on the grounds that 'Yemei Tum'aso' have a
Chumra over 'Yemei Chaluto' - inasmuch as they cancel the days of Nezirus
that preceded them (whereas the days of a Chalut do not).
(a) So we Darshen a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Nazir be'Kever - (a person who
declared his Nezirus in a cemetery), whose hair is eligible for the Mitzvah
of shaving for his Nezirus, yet his days are counted in his Nezirus, 'Kal
va'Chomer' will the days of a Muchlat (whose hair is not eligible ...
because it first needs to be shaved for the Mitzvah of shaving for his
Tzara'as) not be counted in his Nezirus.
(b) We Darshen the Yemei Sifro with a 'Mah Matzinu' from the Yemei Chaluto -
since both of them require shaving.
(c) We could have Darshened a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Nazir be'Kever, asks
Tosfos, seeing as his hair is eligible for the Mitzvah of shaving for his
Nezirus, whereas that of Yemei Sifro is not (as we just Darshened regarding
(d) That would have been preferable - because a 'Kal va'Chomer' is obviously
more powerful than a 'Mah Matzinu'.
(a) What a Metzora Musgar has in common with a Chalut (to make it possible
to Darshen a 'Mah Matzinu') - is that they are both Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav
(the Tum'ah of lying or sitting).
(b) Nevertheless, we cannot learn the former from the latter with regard to
the days of Tum'ah being precluded from the days of Nezirus - because a
Muchlat requires shaving, whereas a Musgar does not.
(c) We also include the days of Tum'ah of a Zav and a Zavah in the days of
Nezirus (since they do not require shaving either).
(d) We proved from this Beraisa that the days of a Metzora Muchlat are not
counted in his Nezirus. The Tana cannot be referring to a short Nezirus
(where not more than thirty days of Nezirus remain after he has shaved) -
because then, how could he say 'Tomar bi'Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Mevatlin
Bahen es ha'Kodmin', seeing as he has to have thirty days for his hair to
grow long in any case.
(a) In our Mishnah, Rebbi Eliezer cites Rebbi Yehoshua, who says - that any
Tum'ah from a Meis for which a Nazir is not obligated to shave (such as all
those listed in the previous Mishnah) does not obligate one for entering the
Beis ha'Mikdash either.
(b) Rebbi Meir's objection to this is - why it should be any worse than a
Tum'as Sheretz, which does not require a Nazir to shave, yet obligates
someone for entering the Beis ha'Mikdash.
(c) When Rebbi Eliezer (or Rebbi Elazar) in a Beraisa heard Rebbi Meir query
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Pasar Rosh (who stated the same Chidush as Rebbi Eliezer
in our Mishnah - he commented that he had heard the very same thing from
Rebbi Yehoshua bar Mamal quoting Rebbi Yehoshua.
(a) From the fact that in our Mishnah Rebbi Eliezer quotes Rebbi Yehoshua
(bar Chananya) whereas in the Beraisa, he (or Rebbi Elazar) quotes Rebbi
Yehoshua bar Mamal quoting Rebbi Yehoshua - we extrapolate that whenever
there is a chain comprising three Tana'im (or Amora'im), one is entitled to
quote the first and the last names (but to omit the middle one) when
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolate the same thing from the Mishnah in
Pe'ah, which cites Nachum ha'Lavlar who received from Rebbi Meyasha, who
received from his father ... from the pairs ... from the Nevi'im Halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai - from the fact that the Tana omits Yehoshua and Kalev
(though it is unclear why Kalev, who is not usually included in the chain of
tradition, is mentioned here).
(c) These Tana'im stated the Halachah that if someone sows patches of mint
or mustard-seeds in two or three location, he is obligated to leave Pe'ah in
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns that a Nazir is obligated to shave for a Revi'is
ha'Log of blood - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a bone the size of a barley
for which a Nazir is obligated to shave even though it is not Metamei
be'Ohel, how much more so a Revi'is of blood which is Metamei be'Ohel.
The outcome of the She'eilah is - that the Halachah to which Rebbi Yehoshua
was referring is that of a Nazir shaving on an 'Etzem ki'Se'orah' (and the
Din of a Revi'is of blood we learn from "ve'al Kol Nafshos Meis").
(b) Rebbi Eliezer rejected the 'Kal va'Chomer' without saying why. To
substantiate Rebbi Eliezer's ruling, Rebbi Yehoshua commented - that,
although Rebbi Akiva's 'Kal va'Chomer was in principle, correct, it was not
workable in this case, because one cannot Darshen a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a
(c) The Halachah to which Rebbi Yehoshua was referring might be the fact
that a Nazir shaves on an 'Etzem ki'Se'orah'. Alternatively - he might have
been referring to the fact that a Revi'is of blood is Metamei be'Ohel.
(d) If the Halachah is the fact that a Revi'is of blood is Metamei be'Ohel,
Rebbi Yehoshua will then explain the Pasuk "ve'al Kol Nafshos Meis" (from
which Rebbi Akiva Darshened earlier 'one Revi'is from two Meisim',
precluding the need for the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai) - to imply a half a
Log of blood (because of the word 'Nafshos', which means two Revi'is). So we
need the Halachah to teach us to explain the Pasuk like Rebbi Akiva.
***** Hadran Alach Kohen Gadol *****