(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 17

NAZIR 17 - Dedicated in memory of Menachem Mendel ben Yitzchak, who had a great love for Torah and Am Yisroel.


(a) What distinction does the Beraisa make between 'Tamei she'Nazar' and 'Tahor she'Nitma' (on their seventh respective days)?

(b) What is the basis for this distinction?

(c) Seeing as a Tamei she'Nazar still has to wait for nightfall to become Tahor, how can his Nezirus take effect?

(a) What is the problem from the previous Beraisa with Resh Lakish, who holds that Nezirus be'Tum'ah is not effective?

(b) Why can we not answer that Nazir Tahor she'Nitma speaks when he reaffirmed his Nezirus after becoming Tahor?

(c) Why does the Tana not include the distinction that ...

  1. ... 'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma' who drinks wine receives Malkos, whereas a Tamei she'Nazar does not, according to Resh Lakish?
  2. ... 'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma' brings a Korban for becoming Tamei, whereas a Tamei she'Nazar does not, according to Rebbi Yochanan?
(d) How es Mar bar Rav Ashi subsequently amend Resh Lakish's opinion?
(a) Does Resh Lakish still argue with Rebbi Yochanan over Malkos for a Tamei she'Nazar who shaves or who drinks wine whilst he is still Tamei?

(b) Then what exactly is their bone of contention?

(a) According to Resh Lakish, why does the Tana of our Mishnah say 'Mi she'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros ... ve'Eino Meivi Korban Tum'ah', implying that he does receive Malkos? What does the Seifa say?

(b) And how does Resh Lakish explain the Beraisa 'Ein Bein Tamei she'Nazar le'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma Ela Tamei she'Nazar Shevi'I she'Lo Oleh Lo le'Minyan ... ', suggesting that as far as Malkos is concerned, they are the same?

(c) What does 'le'Tiglachas Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin' mean?

(d) If then, the Din regarding a Tamei she'Nazar and a Nazir Tahor she'Nitma differs as regards Malkos, then why does the Tana not mention it?

(a) In that case, according to Resh Lakish, why does the Tana not draw a distinction between a Tamei she'Nazar (who is permitted to be Metamei himself again) and a Nazir Tahor she'Nitma, who is not (since this is indeed a Takanah and not a Kilkul)?

(b) And what does Resh Lakish do with the Beraisa, which sentences a Tamei she'Nazar who shaves, drinks wine or *becomes Tamei* to Malkos?

(c) Why did he not answer that the Beraisa speaks when he was 'Yotze ve'Nichnas Shanah ve'Taval', like he himself explained this very Beraisa earlier?

(a) Rava asked whether 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros' requires a time period before receiving Malkos or not.
Why did he think that he might?

(b) Why can the She'eilah not pertain to a case where they warned him not to undertake the Nezirus, and he did?

(c) This Sugya may hold that one receives Malkos even for a La'av without any action, or that not leaving the cemetery is considered a 'La'av she'Yesh Bo Ma'aseh'.
How does the Rav ha'Magid resolve the problem of 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' (who, we normally hold, is not subject to Malkos)?

(a) How do we finally establish the case of Rava's She'eilah?

(b) What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c) What would be the Din if he removed the cover himself?

Answers to questions



(a) Rava then asks 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros Ta'un Gilu'ach O Lo'. What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(b) Will this She'eilah also extend to the shaving that is due to take place after the Nazir becomes Tahor and goes on to complete his Nezirus de'Taharah?

(a) From the Beraisa 'Mi she'Nazar, ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros, Afilu Hayah Sham Sheloshim Yom ... ve'Eino Meivi Korban Tum'ah' we attempt to resolve (by inference - Korban Tum'ah Hu de'Lo Maysi, Aval Giluchi Ba'i') Rav Ashi's She'eilah.
Which She'eilah?

(b) How do we refute the proof from there?

(c) And on what grounds do we refute the proof from the Beraisa 'Ein Bein Tamei she'Nazar le'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma Ela Tamei she'Nazar, Shevi'i she'Lo Oleh Lo min ha'Minyan ... ' (from which we can infer 'Ha le'Tiglachas, Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin')?

(d) If, in that case, Tamei she'Nazar and Nazir Tahor she'Nitma differ as regards shaving, why did the Tana not insert that distinction in the Beraisa?

(a) From where does the Tana of a Beraisa learn that the days that a Nazir is a Metzora Muchlat cannot be counted in the days of Nezirus?

(b) On what grounds do we refute this Limud?

(c) Why do we not then learn from Tum'ah that Tzara'as too, demolishes the entire Nezirus and that he must begin counting all over again?

(a) So we learn the Din of a Metzora from a Nazir be'Kever.

(b) What exactly, do we attempt to prove from there?

(a) We counter 'Lo, be'Tiglachas Taharah'.
What does the Beraisa then mean when it says 'u'Mah Nazir be'Kever she'Sa'aro Ra'uy le'Tiglachas, Ein Olin Lo min ha'Minyan, Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas, Lo Kol she'Kein'? What is the meaning of ...
  1. ... 'Nazir be'Kever she'Sa'aro Ra'uy le'Tiglachas'?
  2. ... 'Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas'?
(b) How do we try to prove that the Tana must be speaking about shaving after the days of Taharah, from the statement 'Yemei Chaluto she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas'?

(c) Why do we not consider the second shaving of the Metzora after he has counted his final seven days as 'Tiglachas de'Taharah'?

(d) How do we reject this proof (that the Tana is talking about Tiglachas de'Tum'ah)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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