REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 6
NAZIR 6 & 7 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for Torah and those who study it.
(a) The Mishnah says in the third Perek that someone who accepts two Nezirus
upon himself must shave for the first one on the thirty-first day and for
the second one on the sixty-first. This is fine according to Rav Masna (who
holds 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo'), because in both cases, he is shaving on the
thirty-first day of his Nezirus.
What Chidush is the Tana coming to teach
us according to him (seeing as we have already learned that Lechatchilah,
one is obligated to shave on the thirty first day)?
(b) We ask on bar Pada however, from the Reisha, like we asked earlier (why
he should he not be permitted to shave on the thirtieth), and we answer from
the Seifa (that if he shaved Bedieved on the thirtieth and on the sixtieth,
he is Yotze), which bears him out (and go on to explain that the Reisha is
Asur Lechatchilah on the thirtieth on account of when he specifically
accepted thirty days).
What Chidush is this Mishnah coming to teach us,
that we do not know from the earlier Mishnahs?
(c) Seeing as we already know that 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' applies even at
the beginning of the day, from a regular case of someone who accepts the
Neder of Nezirus in the middle of the day (who nevertheless counts that day
as the first day of his Nezirus), what is the Chidush here?
(d) The Mishnah there continues 'Im Gilach Yom Shishim Chaser Achas Yatza
she'Yom Sheloshim Oleh le'Ka'an u'le'Ka'an'. According to Rav Masna, there
is no problem with the Mishnah.
But what is the Chidush?
(a) What is the problem with that Mishnah according to bar Pada?
Answers to questions
(b) And why is there no problem according to Rav Masna?
(c) How does bar Pada resolve the problem?
(a) The Mishnah there continues 'Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir Nitma Yom
Sheloshim, Soser es ha'Kol'.
What is the problem with this, according to
(b) bar Pada answers this by quoting the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer.
does Rebbi Eliezer say?
(c) What is the significance of the seven days?
(d) Does this mean that bar Pada holds like Rebbi Eliezer (and not like the
(a) Considering that Rav Masna holds 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo', why is the
previous Mishnah not a problem according to him as well (seeing as, if we
were to apply the principle, the Nezirus of the Nazir who became Tamei Meis
on the thirtieth day had already terminated)?
We have already learned that, in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, if the Nazir
became Tamei on the thirtieth day, he demolishes only seven days.
(b) The Tana later adds that if a Nazir who undertook Nezirus for a hundred
days, became Tamei on the hundred and first day, he must demolish thirty
days of his Nezirus and begin again.
How many days will he have to
demolish, if he became Tamei on the thirty-first day of a thirty day
(c) This Mishnah too, is a Kashya on bar Pada.
Why is this not a Kashya on
Rav Masna, according to whom he ought not to demolish not more than seven
(d) The initial Kashya on bar Pada is at first difficult to understand,
seeing as we could simply answer that the Nazir is obligated to demolish his
thirty day Nezirus mi'de'Rabbanan.
How does the Mishnah of the Nazir on
the hundred and first day resolve this problem?
his reason, according to Rav Masna?
(a) 'Hareini Nazir Me'ah Yom, Nitma Yom Me'ah, Soser es ha'Kol'.
Rebbi Eliezer hold?
(b) Why does this pose a Kashya ...
- ... on Rav Masna?
- ... on bar Pada?
(a) Resh Lakish therefore explains Rebbi Eliezer differently.
How does he
Darshen the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Nazir be'Yom Melos Yemei Nizro" in order to
(b) Like whom do we currently hold (like Rav Masna or bar Pada)?
(c) In that case, why does Rebbi Eliezer say that if he became Tamei on the
thirtieth day of a S'tam Nezirus, he only demolishes seven days, and not
(a) And how will Rav Masna now explain Rebbi Eliezer in the case of a Nazir
who became Tamei on the hundredth day? Why must he demolish thirty days?
Applying 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo, why will it not suffice to demolish just
(b) Then why does he not demolish all hundred days?
(c) This explanation however, is problematic, on two scores. Firstly, the
Tana ought to have stated that he is speaking when the Noder said a hundred
What is the second problem? How could the Tana then have
avoided the case of when the Nazir became Tamei on the thirtieth day
altogether, and taught us both of Rebbi Eliezer's Chidushim in the case of
when he became Tamei on the hundredth day?
(a) So how does Rabeinu Peretz (in Tosfos) relearn the Sugya, to establish
Resh Lakish like both bar Pada and Rav Masna? If we are holding like Rav
Masna too, what do we mean when we say 'Le'olam Lo Amrinan Miktzas ha'Yom
(b) In that case, why in the Reisha, does Rebbi Eliezer only require seven
days and not thirty?
(a) It seems from the Pasuk "Ad Melos ha'Yamim" that S'tam Nezirus is two
What does bar Pada say with regard to the Machlokes Rebbi Yashiyah and
From where does Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa learn that it is thirty?
(b) How does Rebbi learn this from "Ad Melos" itself?
(c) How do we try and connect the Machlokes Rav Masna and bar Pada with that
of Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi?
(d) But Rav Masna establishes both Tana'im like him.
In that case, what
is the basis of their Machlokes? Why does Rebbi Yashiyah learn from "Kadosh
*Yih'yeh*", and Rebbi from "Ad Melos"?
(a) Rebbi said 'Ei Eilu Hein ha'Yamim she'Tzerichin Hein Lemal'os, Hevei
Answers to questions
Why can "Yom Melos" not refer to ...
(b) What did the Rabbanan from Caesaria learn from the Pasuk in Bo
- ... Shabbos (which concludes the week), in which case S'tam Nezirus would be seven days?
- ... a year, which does fluctuate between twelve and thirteen months?