(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 62

NAZIR 61, 62 - The preparation of the study material for these Dafim was supported by a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, for which the Kollel is grateful.


(a) As we learned earlier, "*Ish* Ki Yafli" that is written by Erchin teaches us that even though a Nochri cannot be Ma'arich, he can be Ne'erach. Why is this D'rashah superfluous?

(b) So what do we really learn from it?

(c) And what do we learn from "*Ish* Ki Yafli" according to those who hold that a Mufla Samuch le'Ish is only de'Rabbanan?

(d) What is the logic to say that a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish by a Jew is only de'Rabbanan, whereas by a Nochri it is d'Oraysa?

(a) The D'rashah of Mufla Samuch le'Ish works well according to those who preclude a Nochri from being Ne'erach (from "B'nei Yisrael") and include him in Ma'arich.
Why will it not work according to those who learn the reverse (that he can be Ne'erach but not Ma'arich)?

(b) How does Rav Ada bar Ahavah finally Darshen "Ish Ki Yafli" (of Erchin)?

(c) How do we reconcile this ...

  1. ... with what we said above that this "Ish" comes to teach us that a Nochri can be Ne'erach?
  2. ... with the fact that even a Nochri Gadol who knows how to make a Neder cannot be Ma'arich? So how can we include a Mufla Samuch le'Ish?
(a) Why can we not learn the same thing from "Ish Ki Yafli" (written by Nezirus) as we just learned from "Ish Ki Yafli" by Erchin?

(b) Initially, we use this Pasuk to preclude Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos (because 'La'asuyei' means to include the preclusion of).
What are 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos'?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this explanation?

(a) Some texts reverse the opinions of Abaye and Rava) so that Abaye holds 'Lo Havyan Yadayim', and Rava, 'Havyan Yadayim'.
How can we then continue 'Hanicha le'Rava', seeing as we have just precluded 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos?

(b) How is it possible to use "Ki Yafli" to include, when it obviously implies an exclusion?

(c) So we attempt to use "Ki Yafli" by Nezirus to learn like (Rebbi Yehudah Omer) Rebbi Tarfon.
What does Rebbi Tarfon say? (d) On what grounds do we reject this answer too?

(a) We finally learn the two "Ki Yafli" like Rebbi Eliezer.
In which connection are the two "Ki Yafli's" written?

(b) How does Rebbi Eliezer explain them?

(c) What do the Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer say?

(d) Why do we not Darshen the word *"Ish* Ki Yafli" that is written by Nedarim?

Answers to questions



(a) We learned in the previous Mishnah that a man can stop his Eved from practicing Nezirus, but not his wife.
What Chumra does his Eved have over his wife ...
  1. ... as long as he is still serving him?
  2. ... after he has gone free?
(b) We have already learned that the source for the master's right to object is "Le'esor Isar al *Nafsho* (and an Eved is not his own master, as we learned earlier)".
What objection do we raise to Rav Sheishes, who establishes the case by an Eved who forbade one cluster of grapes on himself, leaving himself with the possibility of eating another cluster; whereas were he to declare Nezirus, he would be forbidden to eat all grapes (which in turn, would result in his becoming weak)?

(c) Abaye then tries to establish the case of Neder when grape-pits are lying in front of him and he forbids *them* with a Neder.
Why might this be a better answer than the previous one? What is the advantage of grape-pits over grapes in this regard?

(d) Then on what grounds do we discount this answer too? Why should he then not be required to annul the Neder either?

(a) Rava concludes that the reason that he cannot object in the case of Nedarim is based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "le'Hara O le'Heitiv" (written in connection with Shevu'os, to which Nedarim are compared).
What do we learn from there?

(b) How does this explain our Mishnah?

(c) Seeing as we learn Nedarim from Shevu'os in this regard, why do we not also learn Nezirus from Nedarim (to which it is compared in other regards)?

(d) Then why will the master's objection help?

(a) The Tana in the Beraisa said 'Lamah Rabo Kofo li'Nezirus, Aval Lo li'Nedarim ve'Lo le'Erchin' (see Mesores ha'Shas).
According to what we just learned, what major distinction can one draw between Nedarim and Erchin?

(b) What is the reason for this distinction?

(a) Should the Eved has left his master's presence (i.e. run away), Rebbi Meir forbids him to drink wine, Rebbi Yossi permits it.
What is the significance of running away? How will that cause the Eved to become free?

(b) We attempt to establish Rebbi Meir like Shmuel, whereas Rebbi Yossi disagrees.
What does Shmuel say?

(c) Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold like Shmuel.
In which way does the case now differ from the previous suggestion?

(b) Rebbi Yossi's reason is now so that the Eved should not return to his master in a weakened state.
But why does Rebbi Meir forbid him to drink?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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