ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 62
NAZIR 61, 62 - The preparation of the study material for these Dafim was
supported by a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, for
which the Kollel is grateful.
(a) As we learned earlier, "*Ish* Ki Yafli" (by Erchin) teaches us that even
though a Nochri cannot be Ma'arich, he can be Ne'erach. This D'rashah is
superfluous - seeing as we have already learned from "Ish Ish" by Korbanos
that Nochrim can declare Nedarim (and due to the Hekesh "Lindor Neder Nazir"
we compare Nezirus to Nedarim as closely as possible [see Rosh]).
(b) What we really learn from it is - that a Mufla Samuch le'Ish (a
twelve-year old boy who understands what Nedarim and Erchin are all about)
is included in the Parshah of Nedarim and Erchin.
(c) According to those who hold that a Mufla Samuch le'Ish is only
de'Rabbanan - we include a Nochri who is Mufla Samuch le'Ish.
(d) The logic to say that a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish by a Jew is only
de'Rabbanan, whereas by a Nochri it is d'Oraysa, is based on the Pasuk "Lo
Yachel Devaro", from which a Katan (including a Mufla Samuch le'Ish) is
automatically precluded (like he is from every La'av). Consequently -
whoever is precluded from 'Bal Yachel' is also precluded from 'Hafla'ah'; a
Nochri, who has no connection with 'Bal Yachel', is not precluded from
(a) The D'rashah of Mufla Samuch le'Ish works well according to those who
preclude a Nochri from being Ne'erach (from "B'nei Yisrael") and include him
in Ma'arich. It will not however, work according to those who learn the
reverse (that he can be Ne'erach but not Ma'arich) - because anyone above
the age of one month has an Erech.
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah finally Darshens "Ish Ki Yafli" (of Erchin) - to
preclude a Nochri who is a Gadol but who does not understand what Nedarim
and Erchin are all about from the Parshah of Nedarim (whereas the Neder of a
Jew under the same circumstances, would be valid).
(c) We reconcile this ...
1. ... with what we said above that this "Ish" comes to teach us that a
Nochri can be Ne'erach - by establishing that D'rashah as an Asmachta (a
support for that Halachah, but not a genuine D'rashah) Tosfos.
2. ... with the fact that even a Nochri Gadol who knows how to make a Neder
cannot be Ma'arich - by establishing this D'rashah by Nedarim exclusively
(and not by Erchin) Tosfos.
(a) We cannot learn the same thing from "Ish Ki Yafli" (written by Nezirus)
as we just learned from "Ish Ki Yafli" by Erchin - because it is not
necessary, since, seeing as Nezirus is compared to Nedarim, we know it
(b) Initially, we use this Pasuk to preclude Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos
(because 'La'asuyei' means to include the preclusion of) - e.g. if a Nazir
is passing and someone says 'Ehei', he is not a Nazir (according to this
opinion) because 'Ehei' implies 'Ehei be'Ta'anis' just as much as it does
(c) We reject this explanation - on the grounds that it is the opinion of
Rava, but what will Abaye, who holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Havyan
Yadayim' learn from it?
(a) Some texts reverse the opinions of Abaye and Rava) so that Abaye holds
'Lo Havyan Yadayim', and Rava, 'Havyan Yadayim'. We nevertheless continue
'Hanicha le'Rava' (despite the fact that we have just precluded Yadayim
she'Ein Mochichos) - by explaining 'La'asuyei' to mean that we include
Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, like the plain meaning of the word (Tosfos).
(b) Despite the fact that "Ki Yafli" implies an exclusion, we use it to
include - because the phrase appears twice, and we apply the principle 'Ein
Mi'ut Ahcar Mi'ut Ela Lerabos'.
(c) So we attempt to use "Ki Yafli" by Nezirus to learn like (Rebbi Yehudah
Omer) Rebbi Tarfon - who requires Nezirus to be clearly expressed (and not
be'Safek) in order to take effect.
(d) We reject this answer too - on the grounds that this D'rashah will then
be confined to Rebbi Tarfon, and will not go like the Rabbanan.
(a) We finally learn the two "Ki Yafli" (one in connection with Nedarim and
the other, in connection with Nezirus), like Rebbi Eliezer (though it is
unclear why do not ask again 'Hanicha le'Rebbi Eliezer, Ela le'Rabbanan Mai
Ika Lemeimar'?). One "Ki Yafli" is written - in connection with Nedarim
and the other, with Nezirus.
(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer - one "Ki Yafli" teaches us that, without
Charatah, the Neder stands (and cannot be annulled), and the other, that
with Charatah, it can.
(c) The Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer say - that the Heter of Hataras Nedarim
has no real source ('Heter Nedarim Porchin be'Avir').
(d) We do not Darshen the word *"Ish* Ki Yafli" that is written by Nedarim -
because, it seems, it is only written together with "Ki Yafli" and not to
teach us anything (Tosfos).
(a) We learned in the previous Mishnah that a man can stop his Eved from
practicing Nezirus, but not his wife. The Chumra that his Eved have over his
1. ... as long as he is still serving him is - that whereas once he annuls
his wife's Nedarim, they are permanently annulled (and he can no longer
uphold them), he can uphold his Eved's Nedarim even after having objected to
his practicing them.
(b) We have already learned that the source for the master's right to
object is "le'Esor Isar al *Nafsho*" (and an Eved is not his own master, as
we learned earlier)". The objection that we raise to Rav Sheishes, who
establishes the case by an Eved who forbade one cluster of grapes on
himself, leaving himself with the possibility of eating another cluster;
whereas were he to declare Nezirus, he would be forbidden to eat all grapes
(which in turn, would result in his becoming weak) - is based on the
likelihood that in the case of Neder too, there may well be no other bunch
available either (in which case, there too it will result in him becoming
2. ... after he has gone free is - that whereas his wife's Nedarim are
permanently revoked, the Eved's will then come into effect.
(c) Abaye then tries to establish the case of Neder when grape-pits are
lying in front of him and he forbids *them* with a Neder. He considered that
grape-pits had an advantage over grapes in this regard - inasmuch as
abstention from eating grape-pits (which are not generally edible) is less
likely to make a person weak than abstention from grapes (Tosfos).
(d) We discount this answer too - on the grounds that sometimes, a person
can be strengthened by eating grape-pits too, in which case the master
should not need to annul the Eved's Neder either (Tosfos).
(a) Rava concludes that the reason that the master cannot object in the case
of Nedarim is based on the Pasuk "le'Hara O le'Heitiv" (written in
connection with Shevu'os, to which Nedarim are compared) - from which we
compare a Neder to do good (e.g. to eat) to a Neder to do bad (to abstain
from food). Consequently - just like doing good is 'optional', so too, is
doing bad, precluding the abstention of an Eved from any food which weakens
him, causing his master a loss, which does not therefore take effect.
(b) Consequently, the reason that the master cannot force his Eved to break
his Neder is - because the Neder is not effective in the first place, and
not because he cannot do so (though it is unclear why the Tana refers to
this as a Chumra).
(c) We learn Nedarim from Shevu'os in this regard, but not Nezirus from
Nedarim (to which it is compared in other regards) - because, as we learned
in the first Perek, Nezirus is effective even on wine which he is already
obligated to drink, whereas Nedarim are not (so the Eved's Nezirus will take
effect here even without the master's objection, whereas his Nedarim will
(d) The master's objection will help however - on the basis of the Pasuk
"Le'esor Isar al *Nafsho*" as we learned a little earlier.
(a) The Tana in the Beraisa said 'Lamah Rabo Kofo li'Nezirus, Aval Lo
li'Nedarim ve'Lo le'Erchin' (see Mesores ha'Shas). According to what we
just learned, the major distinction that can one draw between Nedarim and
Erchin is - that whereas by Nedarim (which do not take effect), the master
does not *need* to annul the Eved's Nedarim, by Erchin (which do) he is not
*able* to annul them.
(b) The reason for this distinction is - that, whereas his Eved's Nezirus
will cause him a financial loss, his Erech will not, since he will anyway
only be obligated to pay once he is set free, or if someone gives him money
over which his master is to have no jurisdiction..
(a) Should the Eved has left his master's presence (i.e. run away), Rebbi
Meir forbids him to drink wine, Rebbi Yossi permits it. Running away causes
the Eved to become free - because the owner we presume, despairs of
retrieving him (giving him a Din of Hefker).
(b) We attempt to establish Rebbi Meir like Shmuel - who says 'ha'Mafkir
Avdo Yeitzei le'Cheirus, ve'Ein Tzarich Get Shichrur'. Whereas Rebbi Yossi
disagrees with Shmuel's Din.
(c) The basis of their Machlokes will then be that - according to Rebbi
Meir, the Eved is considered free and his Neder comes into effect in spite
of his master's objection; whereas, according to Rebbi Yossi, he is not free
until he receives a Get Shichrur, so his master's objection permits him to
(a) We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold like Shmuel - only now, the
Tana'im speak when the master did not despair, in which case he is not
really free according to either of them.
(b) Rebbi Yossi's reason is now so that the Eved should not return to his
master in a weakened state. The reason that Rebbi Meir forbids him to drink
is - a penalty to induce him to return.