(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 52


(a) What Shiur must a complete ant be for a person who eats it to be Chayav?

(b) What She'eilah does Rav ask regarding someone who eats an ant whose legs are missing?

(c) The Torah writes in Sh'mini (with regard to Sheretz) "Asher Yipol Meihem el Tocho" (implying even part of a Sheretz) and "Asher Yiga Bahem be'Mosam" (implying the whole Sheretz, and not just part of it).
How does the Beraisa explain this apparent contradiction?

(d) On what grounds did Chazal pick this Shiur?

(a) How does Rav Yehudah from Diskarta try to resolve Rava's She'eilah from this Beraisa?

(b) How does Rev Sh'mayah reject his proof?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Nazir is obligated to shave on a 'Shedrah and Gulgoles'.
What are the two possible explanations of this statement?

(b) Will this She'eilah also pertain to the Mishnah in Ohalos, which lists them among the things that are Metamei be'Ohel ha'Meis?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say about a spinal cord of a human being which has the majority of its ribs broken?

(b) What would he say in a similar case ...

  1. ... with regard to the spinal cord of a Kasher animal?
  2. ... if the Meis was lying in a grave?
(c) Can we infer from the Beraisa that if most of the ribs would not be broken, the spinal cord (even without the skull) would be Metamei (thereby resolving our She'eilah)?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah cites six cases (which will be explained shortly) where Rebbi Akiva was initially Metamei, and the Rabbanan were Metaher. The same Beraisa cites the case where they brought a box-full of bones to the Shul of the coppersmiths.
Where did they place it? How they safeguard the Kohanim who came to Daven in the Shul?

(b) What conclusion did Todos the doctor and all the doctors arrive at?

(c) Can we prove from there that even a spinal cord or a skull alone are Metamei?

(d) Since it appears that the bones were all broken anyway (and bearing in mind what we learned earlier, that the limb must be whole for the Nazir to shave on it) what difference would it have made even if the box had contained the bones of a complete spinal cord of one Meis?

(a) The six things that Rebbi Akiva was initially Metamei are 'Eiver min ha'Meis ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei Meisim, Eiver min ha'Chai ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei B'nei Adam', Chatzi Kav Atzamos ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei Meisim, Revi'is Dam ha'Ba mi'Sh'nayim, ve'al Etzem ki'Se'orah she'Nechlak li'Sh'nayim, ve'ha'Shedra ve'ha'Gulgoles'.
How do we reconcile this Beraisa, which states '*Chatzi* Kav Atzamos ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei Meisim' with the Mishnah in Ohalos, which gives the Shiur of Tum'as Ohel as 'Revi'is ha'Kav ... '?

(b) 've'al Revi'is Dam ha'Ba mi'Sh'nayim'.
How would the Din differ according to Rebbi Akiva, if there was a Revi'is Dam from *one* Meis?

(c) And what will the Rabbanan say by a Chatzi Log Dam that comes from two Meisim?

(d) How do we try to prove from this Beraisa that 'Shedrah and Gulgoles must mean both together?

Answers to questions



(a) We refute the above proof (that the Tana must be referring to the Shedrah and the Gulgoles together, in a number of ways). Instead, we might refute 'Etzem ki'Se'orah she'Nechlak' because it is only a Yachid (Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in a Beraisa) who disputes Rebbi Akiva (whereas all the other cases, he is arguing with the Chachamim).
Why ...
  1. ... else might we omit 'Etzem ki'Se'orah she'Nechlak'?
  2. ... might we omit 'Eiver min ha'Chai'?
  3. ... might we omit 'Revi'is Dam ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei Meisim'?
(b) Rebbi Akiva seems to have had a stronger Kabalah in this latter case than in the other six cases in the Beraisa. He also has a source from a Pasuk in Emor.
Which Pasuk?

(c) Rebbi Shimon's teeth turned black from all the fasts that he initiated, following the remark that he made about his Rebbe (Rebbi Akiva) which he subsequently considered in bad disrespectful.
What did he say?

(a) In a Mishnah in Iduyos, Beis Shamai say 'Rova Atzamos min Atzmin O mi'Sh'nayim O mi'Sheloshah'.
What do Beis Hillel say?

(b) How does Rebbi Yehoshua in a Beraisa reconcile Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel so that they are not actually arguing?

(a) How many bones is considered 'Rov Minyan'?

(b) What does Beis Shamai mean when he says ...

  1. ... 'mi'Sheloshah'?
  2. ... 'mi'Sh'nayim' (assuming that he means it literally)?
(c) In which two sets of limbs will one find almost the entire majority of bones?
(a) Shamai says 'Afilu Etzem min ha'Shedrah O min ha'Gulgoles'.
How do we try to resolve our She'eilah (whether one needs both the spinal cord and the skull for a Nazir to have to shave, or whether one of them will suffice) from Shamai and the Rabbanan?

(b) We refute this proof on the grounds that Shamai is different, because he is stringent. In that case, what will be their Machlokes? What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) Can we then prove that the Rabbanan, who are not strict, require both the spinal cord and the skull?

(d) Then why did the Rabbanan say 'Shedrah ve'Gulgoles' and not 'Shedrah O Gulgoles'?

(a) The Shiur for bones for which a Nazir has to shave is half a Kav.
Why does Rami bar Chama think that a quarter of a Kav might suffice for bones from a spinal cord and from the skull?

(b) How does Rava resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from our Mishnah, which states 'ha'Shedrah ve'ha'Gulgoles'?

(c) We query this proof however, from another statement of Rava.
Which statement?

(d) How does this repudiate Rava's proof from our Mishnah?

12) In light of Rava's second statement, how could he deign to bring his proof to resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah (according to the explanation of Rebbi Ya'akov mi'Kinun)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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