REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
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
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 ...
- ... with what we said above that this "Ish" comes to teach us that a Nochri can be Ne'erach?
- ... 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).
'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
(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.
Answers to questions
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
(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 ...
(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)".
- ... as long as he is still serving him?
- ... after he has gone free?
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
(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
(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
What does Shmuel say?
(c) Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?
(a) We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold like Shmuel.
Answers to questions
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?