REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 28
(a) We now know that a son cannot be Yotze with the Korban (even 'min
ha'Kalah el ha'Kalah' or 'min ha'Chamurah el ha'Chamurah') or even with the
money that his father left.
What do we learn from the Pasuk "Korbano al
Chataso" (written in connection with a Chatas Se'irah)?
(b) Now that we know that a person cannot even change his own Korban from
one Chet to another, what do we learn from "ve'Chiper ha'Kohen al Chataso"
(written in connection with the Chatas Kisbah)?
(c) Why do we need a special D'rashah for money? Why can we not learn this
from the case of the Korban itself?
(d) What is the basis of
- ... the distinction between the animal and the money?
- ... the link between the Me'ilah and the Kaparah?
(a) What are we trying to prove when we ask (with regard to 've'Eino
Megalei'ach al Beheimas Aviv') 'Mai La'av Afilu Ba'alas Mum'?
(b) We answer (like we answered earlier) 'Lo, Temimah'.
What can we infer
from there regarding a blemished animal?
(c) What problem do we have with that from the Beraisa 'Ma'os she'Hifrish
(d) What do we answer?
(a) According to the Tana Kama, once the blood of one of the Nazir's
Korbanos has been sprinkled, a Nezirah's husband can no longer annul his
What is the significance of the sprinkling of the blood in
(b) Why does the Tana Kama not contend with the fact that the Nezirah still
has to shave her hair, making her ugly?
(c) What are the ramifications of the Mishnah's ruling?
(d) According to Rebbi Akiva, the criterion is not the sprinkling of the
blood, but the Shechitah of one of the three animals.
Does it make any
difference which animal's blood has been sprinkled, according to ...
- ... Rebbi Akiva?
- ... the Tana Kama?
(a) Tosfos is uncertain whether the Nezirus will be annulled Bedieved if her
husband nevertheless annulled it.
Why might his Hafarah be effective, even
though the Torah forbids it? Who gives the Chachamim tha authority to
sanction what the Torah has forbidden?
(b) What is Tosfos conclusion?
(a) Everyone agrees however, that the Nezirah's husbend can still annul his
wife's Nezirus if she is Tamei, even *after* the blood of one of her
Korbanos has been sprinkled.
Why is that?
(b) Seeing as the reason for this concession is based on 'Inuy Nefesh', why
does the Tana talk about 'Nivul' (ugliness)?
(c) As far as the Rabbanan is concerned, Tosfos explains, the Tana would
have said 'Mishum Inuy' rather than 'I Efshi be'Ishah Menuveles', and it is
because of Rebbi Akiva that he uses the more complicated Lashon.
(d) Why else might the Tana Kama have used this Lashon, even according to
(a) Rebbi Meir (or Rebbi) is more lenient than the Chachamim. He permits the
husband to annul his wife's Nezirus even after the blood of one of her
Korbanos has been sprinkled.
Answers to questions
Why is that? What is the basis of the
Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim?
(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Meir (or Rebbi) disagree with the Rabbanan's
(c) Rebbi Eliezer too, permits the husband to annul his wife's Nezirus even
after the blood of her Korban Taharah has been sprinkled, but because she is
not yet permitted to drink wine.
What is the basis of the Machlokes Rebbi
Eliezer and the Chachamim?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about the lambs of Shavu'os, which were
Shechted she'Lo Lishman or before or after their specified time? What
happens to the blood and to the body of the Korban?
(b) What does she'Lo Lish'mah?
(c) On Shabbos however, the blood should not be sprinkled.
What does the
Kohen achieve if he nevertheless does sprinkle it?
(d) What does Rebbi Zeira ask from this Beraisa on Rebbi Akiva, who forbade
the annulment of the woman's Nezirus after the Shechitah of one of her
Korbanos (because of the loss of her Korban)?
(a) Why did Rebbi Zeira not ask from the Mishnah earlier, which permits the
designated Olah and the Shelamim of a Nezirah (whose husband annulled her
Nezirus) to be brought she'Lo Lishman?
(b) We prove from the case of the lambs of Shavu'os that in our case too,
one should be able to sprinkle the Korban she'Lo Lish'mah.
Does it make
any difference that there, both the Shechitah and the Zerikah are performed
she'Lo Lish'mah, whereas here, the blood will be sprinkled she'Lo Lish'mah,
even though the Shechitah was performed Lish'mah?
(c) How do we then reconcile this with the Sugya in Menachos, where we
suggest that one may not sprinkle the blood of the lambs of Shavu'os, which
were Shechted Lish'mah, if the bread got lost after the Shechitah, implying
that one may only sprinkle the blood she'Lo Lish'mah if the Korban was also
Shechted she'Lo Lish'mah?
(a) The Mishnah states that a father can declare his son a Nazir.
(b) Can the son object?
(c) The Tana might mean that, even though the son has the right to object,
when his father makes the declaration, he does not need to consult him
What else might he mean?
(a) The Tana permits the son himself or any of his relatives to object and
stop the Nezirus.
When must they do this?
(b) Why did the Tana find it necessary to present two cases: one, where they
shave his head; two, where they object verbally?
(c) What else negates the son's Nezirus?
(d) The Tana may well not have included this in our Mishnah because, unlike
the two cases that he does include, it will even stop the Nezirus once it
has begun (though, according to some, *they* do too).
Why else might the
Tana have omitted it (besides the fact that he does want to get involved in
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the source that only the father may declare
his son a Nazir and not the mother is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai. What
does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina Amar Resh Lakish say?
Answers to questions
(b) If the source is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, then the same Halachah
precludes women from this particular right.
But if is a branch of Chinuch,
on what grounds is she precluded?