REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 32
(a) Our Mishnah permits a Nazir whose Nezirus the Chacham declined to annul,
to include the days prior to his visit to the Chacham in his Nezirus.
this apply even if he had transgressed his Nezirus visiting the Chacham?
(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the Nazir must first count
the days that he transgressed, before counting his term of Nezirus. Rebbi
Yossi says 'Dayo bi'Sheloshim Yom'. For the author of our Mishnah to be
Rebbi Yossi, we establish it by a case of long-term Nezirus.
'Dayo bi'Sheloshim Yom' tally with our Mishnah ('Moneh mi'Sha'ah
(c) What will Rebbi Yossi say in case of a short-term Nezirus?
(a) How do we amend the Lashon in our Mishnah, to enable the author to be
the Rabbanan? Will it make any difference whether the Nezirus is short-term
Beis Shamai holds on the one hand, that 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh', and on the
other, that if a Chacham annulled it, the animal grazes (because it is not
really Hekdesh). What does Rebbi Yirmiyah extrapolate from this with regard
to Beis Hillel?
(b) In which case will they concede that the Noder does not need to count
*all* the first days all over again?
(a) What does Rav Nachman mean when he says (regarding the Ta'us of Ma'aser
Beheimah) 'Ta'uso ve'Lo Kavanaso'?
(b) What do Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna say?
(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman why, according to him, when Beis Shamai tried to
prove that 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh' from Ma'aser Beheimah, Beis Hillel did
not answer that Ma'aser Beheimah is different.
What did he mean?
(a) How does Rav Shimi bar Ashi resolve Rav Nachman with the Beraisa?
(b) However, Rav Shimi bar Ashi himself vindicates Rava's Kashya.
grounds does he refute his own 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(c) Then why did Beis Hillel not present this argument to refute Beis
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah teaches that if someone declared a Neder
Nezirus, and then discovered that his designated Korban had been stolen, a
Chacham could not annul the Nezirus on the basis of the theft.
Answers to questions
circumstances would he able to do so?
(b) Could Beis Shamai (who hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh') be the author of
(c) Why did the Nezirim return from Galus? What did they discover upon
(d) Nachum ha'Madi committed an error by annulling their Nezirus on the
basis of the Charatah which in turn, was based on the Churban (which is
What was the basis of his error?
(a) Rebbi Eliezer held 'Poschin be'Nolad'.
Seeing as he lived in that era,
what is the significance of the fact that he did not protest when the
Chachamim rebuffed Nachum ha'Madi?
(b) Rava rules that although we hold 'Ein Poschin be'Nolad', nevertheless
'Poschin bi'Tenai Nolad'.
What is 'T'nai Nolad'?
(a) Had Rav Yosef been alive in the time of Nachum ha'Madi, he would have
agreed with him on the basis of the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Heichal Hashem,
Heichal Hashem, Heichal Hashem".
What is the significance of this Pasuk
(b) What does Abaye learn from the Pasuk in Daniel "Shevu'ayim Shiv'im
Nechtach al Amcha ve'Al Arei Kodshecha"?
(c) Why was Nachum ha'Madi nevertheless wrong? Why, in spite of all these
Pesukim, was the Churban Bayis Sheini nevertheless considered unforeseeable?
(a) We have already explained the Mishnah of six Nezirim, in which Beis
Hillel say 'Ein Nazir Ela Mi she'Lo Niskaymu Devarav'.
What is obviously
difficult with this text?
(b) Rav Yehudah therefore amends the Mishnah to read 'Ein Nazir Ela Mi
she'Niskaymu Devarav'. Abaye prefers to retain the original text.
must we add to the Noder's wording in order to do that?
(c) Then what does the Tana mean when he says 'Mi she'Lo Niskaymu Devarav'?
(a) According to Rebbi Tarfon, not one of them is a Nazir.
Why is that?
(b) Why is the fourth friend who said 'Hareini Nazir, she'Ein Echad Mikem
Nazir', not a Nazir (bearing in mind that neither of the first two is a
(c) What would he have had to say in order to be a Nazir, according to Rebbi
(d) How does this now explain why the Tana omits the last case, where the
tenth friend said 'Hareini Nazir, Im Ein Echad Mikem Nazir'?
(a) In the event that the man coming towards them turned back, this Mishnah
holds that not one of them is a Nazir.
According to which of the above Tana'im are Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon
Considering that one of the first
two was definitely right, why is that?
(b) The author of our Mishnah must therefore be Rebbi Yehudah.
Rebbi Yehudah say?
(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, and he is a Safek Nazir.
What are the immediate ramifications of this ruling?
(d) In that case, why does he need to declare that, in case he is not a
Nazir, he undertakes Nezirus Nedavah?
Answers to questions