(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 31

NAZIR 31 - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Chaim Mordechai ben Harav Yisrael Azriel (Feldman) of Milwaukee (Yahrzeit: 19 Cheshvan) by the members of his family.


(a) Beis Shamai derive that 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh' 'Techilas Hekdesh from Sof Hekdesh.
What is Sof Hekdesh?

(b) What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (in Temurah) learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Vehayah Hu u'Semuraso *Yih'yeh* Kodesh"?

(c) On what grounds do Beis Hillel disagree with this?

(d) What problem do we have with a case of someone who declares an animal a Temurah from midday on?

(a) On the basis of the previous Kashya, Rav Papa changes our understanding of Beis Shamai.
How does he now explain the case in our Mishnah 'Amar Shor Shachor she'Yeitzei mi'Beisi Rishon, Harei Hu Hekdesh, ve'Yatza Lavan'?

(b) This explanation also extends to the other two cases in our Mishnah. How does it work in the case of Dinar Zafav she'Ya'aleh be'Yadi Rishon Harei Hu Hekdesh, ve'Alah shel Kesef'?

(c) Beis Hillel disagree on the basis of the Lashon used by the Noder. What does this refer to?

(d) Why does the Tana then refer to this as Hekdesh Ta'us, seeing as the Hekdesh takes effect exactly as he intended it to?

(a) Beis Shamai in the following Mishnah say about the designated Korban of a Nazir who then has his Nezirus annulled?

(b) What did Beis Hillel attempt to prove from Beis Shamai's very own words?

(c) Why does this Mishnah present Rav Papa with a Kashya?

(d) How does Rav Papa resolve this problem?

Answers to questions



(a) The following Mishnah speaks about six people traveling together when they see a man coming towards them. The first traveler declares that he is a Nazir if that person is Reuven.
What does the second one say?

(b) The third traveler declares that he is a Nazir if one of the first two is a Nazir.
What does the fourth one say? Is he disagreeing with the previous one?

(c) The fifth traveler declares himself a Nazir if both of the first two are Nezirim.
How is that possible?

(d) What does the sixth traveler declare?

(a) On what grounds do Beis Shamai hold that they are all Nezirim?

(b) In that case, they will also hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh'.
In which way does this case differ from that of someone who declares a Temurah to take effect from midday? Why there is the Hekdesh not effective immediately?

(c) How will Rav Papa reconcile his opinion (that Beis Shamai do not hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh') with that Mishnah?

(a) Abaye establishes our Mishnah as we thought at first (that it is the white animal which is Hekdesh, even though the Noder specifically said 'the first black one'.
How does he reconcile that with the case of someone who declares a Temurah to take effect from midday (where Beis Shamai agrees that we do not deviate from his words)? How does he change the case in the Mishnah to explain Beis Shamai)?

(b) What would Abaye say in the equivalent case if the Noder made his declaration with reference to the future, and then, when they told him that it was a white animal that emerged first, he said that, had he known that, he would have specifically said 'a white one'? Why the difference?

(c) In what way would this latter case differ from the case of Temurah, and from the Mishnah of the six travelers (where Beis Shamai hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh')?

(d) And what do Beis Hillel say?

7) How does Abaye explain the Mishnah, which says 'Dinar Zahav she'Ya'aleh Rishon ... ', and 'Chavis shel Yayin she'Ta'aleh Rishonah ... ' (in the future)?


(a) What does Rav Chisda mean when he says ...
  1. ... 'Uchma be'Chivra Lakya'?
  2. ... 'Chivra be'Uchma Lakya'?
(b) What is the problem with that from our Mishnah, where Beis Shamai declare the white ox Hekdesh? Why would we take for granted that the Noder had in mind a black one?

(c) How will Rav Chisda explain our Mishnah to conform with his opinion?

(d) On what grounds do we reject his answer? How is it clear that a person tends to be Makdish begrudgingly?

(a) Having concluded that a person tends to be Makdish begrudgingly ...
  1. ... how will we explain the Seifa of Chavis, seeing as oil is generally more expensive than wine?
  2. ... how will Rav Chisda explain the Reisha, where Beis Shamai considers the white ox Hekdesh, even though, in his opinion, it is more valuable?
(b) Based on these facts, why does the Tana of our Mishnah need to state all three cases? Why does it mention the case of ...
  1. ... the coins (the middle case)?
  2. ... the oxen (the Reisha)?
  3. ... the barrels (the Seifa)?
(a) Rav Chisda also said that a black ox is good for its skin, and a red one for its meat.
What is a white one good for?

(b) How does this appear to clash with his previous statement (that a black ox among white ones lessens their value)?

(c) We resolve these two statements by qualifying the first one.
How do we do that?

(d) How will Rav Chisda then explain our Mishnah, which considers black oxen superior?

(a) If the Chacham declined to annul the Nezirus, the Noder continues to count his Nezirus from the time of the declaration. As we learned earlier, Beis Shamai holds that the designated Korban of a Nazir who then has his Nezirus annulled - must graze in the field until it obtains a blemish, when it goes out to Chulin.
What did Beis Shamai respond when Beis Hillel attempted to prove from Beis Shamai's own words that he holds 'Hekdesh Ta'us Eino Hekdesh'? How did they attempt to prove from Ma'aser Sheini that 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh'?

(b) Why in fact, do Beis Shamai agree with Beis Hillel in the earlier case?

(c) We learned in Perek 'Mi she'Amar' that, assuming that the Chatas of a Nezirah was hers, it must die (whereas here we say that it grazes). This may be because a husband only negates his wife's Nedarim from now on (but not from their inception, or it may be because the Tana there is Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who requires that she brings a Chatas anyway (as we discussed there).
How in fact, could even Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar agree that even the Chatas grazes?

(a) Beis Shamai attempt to prove from Ma'aser Beheimah that Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh, as we just explained.
If the reason by Ma'aser Beheimah is because of Hekdesh Ta'us, then why are only the three animals in question Ma'aser, and not the eighth or the twelfth?

(b) How will Rav Papa, who learns that, at this stage, Beis Shamai hold 'Ta'us Hekdesh Eino Ta'us', explain Beis Shamai's answer, where he clearly holds 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh'?

(c) How do Beis Hillel counter Beis Shamai's proof from Ma'aser Beheimah? If the reason there is not because of 'Hekdesh Ta'us', then what is it?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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