(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 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.
Will 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.
How does 'Dayo bi'Sheloshim Yom' tally with our Mishnah ('Moneh mi'Sha'ah she'Nadar')?

(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 or long-term?

(b) In which case will they concede that the Noder does not need to count *all* the first days all over again?

3) 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?


(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.
On what grounds does he refute his own 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(c) Then why did Beis Hillel not present this argument to refute Beis Shamai's Kashya?

(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.
Under which circumstances would he able to do so?

(b) Could Beis Shamai (who hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh') be the author of this Mishnah?

(c) Why did the Nezirim return from Galus? What did they discover upon their return?

(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 Nolad).
What was the basis of his error?

Answers to questions



(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 here?

(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.
What 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 Nazir)?

(c) What would he have had to say in order to be a Nazir, according to Rebbi Tarfon?

(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.
Considering that one of the first two was definitely right, why is that?

(b) The author of our Mishnah must therefore be Rebbi Yehudah.
What does 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?

12) According to which of the above Tana'im are Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon arguing?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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