(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 33 & 34


(a) We learned that if the man coming towards the six travelers turned back, then none of them is a Nazir. Based on an inference, the author of this section of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Tarfon, because of what Rebbi Yehudah said in his name.
What did he say?

(b) Why do we quote Rebbi Yehudah? Why can we not learn this from Rebbi Tarfon's statement in our Mishnah?

(a) We conclude that the author (of 'Hirsi'a le'Achorav') must be 'Rebbi Yehudah di'K'ri'.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say there about a pile of produce that is stolen?

(b) What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) Rav Ashi in Nedarim does not seem to agree with our Sugya.
What does Rav Ashi comment there about Rebbi Yehudah, who invalidates the Nezirus due to the fact that the pile was stolen?

(d) How will Rav Ashi then explain our Mishnah? Who *is* the author?

(a) The Tana discusses a case if someone sees a Koy and declares Nezirus if it is a Chayah, whilst his friend declares Nezirus if it is not.
What do the third and fourth friends say?

(b) The fifth friend declares Nezirus if it is both a Chayah and a Beheimah, and the sixth that it is neither.
If it is neither, then what is it? What are the ramifications of this Halachah?

(c) If it is both, what are the ramifications of saying that it is ...

  1. ... a Chayah?
  2. ... a Beheimah
(a) The seventh friend declares Nezirus if one of them is a Nazir.
What does the eighth friend say?

(b) The ninth friend declares Nezirus if all of them are Nezirim.
How is this feasible?

(c) What does the Tana rule?

(a) This Tana appears to follow the opinion of Beis Shamai, who rule in the previous Mishnah too that all of them are Nezirim.
Since when do Tana'im go out of their way to teach us the rulings of Beis Shamai?

(b) In fact, the author is Beis Hillel according to Rebbi Shimon.
How is that?

(c) Some commentaries explain that the last three are ...

  1. ... Vaday Nezirim.
    Why is that?
  2. ... Safek Nezirim.
    Why is that?
(d) What is the problem with the nine Nezirim in our Mishnah? What does the Tana seemingly omit?
(a) Some explain our Mishnah to mean that all nine people are Nezirim (as we explained it).
How do others explain it?

(b) The problem with this is how it is possible to apply the last three cases in the Mishnah ('she'Echad Mikem Nazir', 'she'Ein Echad Mikem Nazir' 'she'Kulchem Nezirim').
How do we resolve it?

***** Hadran Alach Beis Shamai *****

***** Perek Sheloshah Minim *****


(a) Our Mishnah teaches us that Nezirus comprises three prohibitions. What do we learn from the Pasuk ...
  1. ... "Kadosh Yih'yeh Gadeil Pera"?
  2. ... "*mi'Kol* Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin, me'Chartzanim ... "?
(b) According to the Mishnah Rishonah, one is only Chayav for drinking a Revi'is (one and a half egg-volumes) of wine.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(c) According to the Tana Kama, one is Chayav even if one ate a k'Zayis of pits or of skins.
What does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah say?

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, "Chartzanim" are the skins and "Zagim", the pits. What does Rebbi Yossi say? What sign does he give by which to remember this?

Answers to questions



(a) What do we infer from our Mishnah, which states that a Nazir transgresses when he eats anything that is 'Yotze min ha'Gefen'?

(b) Others make the same inference from the Seifa 've'Eino Chayav Ela ad she'Yochal k'Zayis min ha'Anavim'.
Why do they decline to learn like the first opinion?

(c) Either way, this does not conform with the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(d) Both Tana'im derive their respective opinions from the Pasuk "mi'Yayin ve'Sheichar Yazir ... mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin ... . Rebbi Elazar Darshen this Pasuk in the form of a 'Mi'ut and Ribuy'.
What does he ...

  1. ... include from the latter Pasuk?
  2. ... exclude from the former one?
(a) The Rabbanan add the Pasuk "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag", and Darshen all three.
What form of D'rashah do they now make?

(b) How do they subsequently Darshen the 'P'rat u'Chelal u'Ferat'?

(c) On what grounds do they Darshen the P'rat in this way (in spite of the fact that it is actual food), and not literally (confining the La'av to actual food)?

(d) In any event, it is quite inconceivable to exclude wormy grapes for two reasons, one of them because it is no worse that vinegar, which the Torah specifically includes.
What is the other reason?

(a) We ask why the Pasuk needs to add "Mechartzanim ve'ad Zag".
But did we not just use that as the second P'rat?

(b) Why then, *does* the Torah place it after the K'lal?

(c) How would we have Darshened the Pasuk if there had not been a P'rat after the K'lal?

(d) With which Tana in our Mishnah does Rebbi Elazar conquer?

(a) The 'P'ri referred to in the Beraisa is the fruit itself, and the 'Peso'les P'ri', vinegar. 'Af Kol P'ri' comes to include 'Guharki', and the 'Af Kol' of Peso'les P'ri, 'Invi Dichrin'.
What is ...
  1. ... 'Guharki'?
  2. ... 'Invi Dichrin'?
(b) From "*ve'Ad* Zag" we include 'de'Bein ha'Beinayim'.
What does this mean?

(c) Having already included unripe grapes, why do we need a Pasuk to include these small grapes?

(a) Others explain 'de'Bein ha'Beinayim' to mean the flesh between the pits and the skin.
On what grounds do we initially reject this explanation?

(b) How do we ultimately accept it (answering the previous Kashya in the process)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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