(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 21

NAZIR 21 & 22 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for Torah and those who study it.


(a) How do we attempt to prove Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a (who requires 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of 'Shalom Alechah Rebbi' plus) wrong' from our Mishnah, which lists twice 'va'Ani'?

(b) Why is this not also a Kashya on Resh Lakish, according to whom the Tana ought to have listed three?

(c) How do we refute the disproof from our Mishnah against Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a?

(d) Then why does the Tana mention even the second 'va'Ani'?

(a) We have assumed until now that all subsequent Nodrim (who say 'va'Ani') actually connect with the initial Noder.
What is the alternative explanation?

(b) What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?

(c) Is there a proof from our Mishnah, which only lists 'va'Ani' twice that each one is connected to the original Noder?

(d) If the Tana holds that each Noder is connected to the previous one, why does he say ...

  1. ... 'Hutar ha'Rishon, Hutru Kulan', implying that if the second one were to annul his Neder, the Neder of those following him would remain intact?
  2. ... 'Hutar ha'Acharon, ha'Acharon Mutar', implying that only the third one is permitted, but not those that follow him?
(a) If, on the other hand, the Tana holds that all the Nodrim are connected to the first one, why does he say with regard to the last one 'Hutar ha'Acharon ... ', implying that if the middle one would annul his Neder, all the subsequent ones would be permitted too (a proof for the second side of the She'eilah)?

(b) Why does the Tana refer to the middle one as 'Acharon'?

(c) We finally cite a Beraisa, which learns specifically like the first side of the She'eilah.
What does the Beraisa teach us that is not contained in our Mishnah?

Answers to questions



(a) The Beraisa makes a distinction between someone who says 'Yedei Nezirah, ve'Raglei Nezirah' and one who says 'Roshi Nezirah, Keveidi Nezirah'. The former is not a Nazir, the latter is.
Why is that?

(b) How does Rav Yehudah reconcile this with our Mishnah, which states 'Pi ke'Fiv ve'Sa'ari ke'Sa'aro'? How does he establish our Mishnah?

(a) What She'eilah do we ask concerning a husband's Hafarah of his wife's Nedarim?

(b) What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?

(c) What other ramifications might we have stated?

(d) Seeing as a Chacham uproots the Neder retroactively, why might a husband not be able to do so?

(a) We initially try and prove that a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively from the fact that, in our Mishnah, when a woman declared a Neder Nezirus and, after saying 'va'Ani', her husband annulled her Neder, his annulment is void (because he is not empowered to annul his own Nedarim, as we explained earlier).
Why in fact, will his Hafarah not be effective even if it only works from now on?

(b) Under which condition will it nevertheless be effective?

(a) The Beraisa discusses the Korbanos of a Nezirah whose husband has annulled her Nezirus. What will happen to the animal which she designated as her Chatas, after her husband annulled her Nezirus, assuming that the animal was ...
  1. ... his? Why is that?
  2. ... hers?
(b) How do we try and resolve our She'eilah from here?

(c) We refute this proof however, on the basis of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar. What does he say? How will that explain the Beraisa?

(d) Why should the Chatas nevertheless be sent in a field to graze, so that, when it obtains a blemish, the owner will be able to redeem it?

(a) How do we attempt to resolve our She'eilah from the next Mishnah, which sentences a Nezirah who drank wine or made herself Tamei Meis to Malkos?

(b) On what grounds do we not at first want to establish the Beraisa when her husband had not yet annulled her Nezirus?

(a) Then how do we finally establish the Beraisa? Why is it now all right to do so?

(b) Why does the Tana find it necessary to teach us that she does not receive Malkos in this case? Is it not obvious?

(c) Why does the Tana not teach us a bigger Chidush still - that even if she would have drunk wine or made herself Tamei Meis *before* her husband annulled her Nezirus, she would not receive Malkos (seeing as we are currently holding that her husband annuls her Nedarim retroactively)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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