THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
NEDARIM 2,3,4,5 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in honor of Rav
Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.
1) A PERSON WHO BECOMES A NAZIR WHILE STANDING IN A CEMETERY
QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish
Lakish regarding whether Nezirus takes effect when a person makes an oath of
Nezirus while he is standing in a cemetery. The Gemara cites the conclusion
of Mar bar Rav Ashi that both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that the
Nezirus takes effect, and the Machlokes is only concerning whether or not the
person receives Malkus.
2) WHEN DOES ONE TRANSGRESS "BAL TE'ACHER" OF NEZIRUS?
How can the person receive Malkus for becoming a Nazir while standing in a
cemetery? Even though he transgressed the Isur Lav of a Nazir becoming Tamei,
he did so passively, with no action, and therefore it is a "Lav she'Ein Bo
Ma'aseh." The Halachah is that one who transgresses a "Lav she'Ein Bo
Ma'aseh" does not receive Malkus!
(a) The RAN (DH Chaila) explains that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish are not
arguing about whether the person receive Malkus for transgressing the Isur of
becoming Tamei, but rather whether he receives Malkus for the other
prohibitions of Nezirus, such as consuming products of the vine (or cutting
his hair). Everyone agrees that he does not receive Malkus for becoming Tamei
because, like we mentioned, there was no action involved.
The RASHASH asks a number of questions on this explanation. If the person
does not get Malkus (according to Reish Lakish) for consuming grape products
and for cutting his hair even though there is an action involved, then
obviously Reish Lakish holds that the Nezirus has not yet taken effect at
all. Consequently, there should still be an Isur of Bal Te'acher if he delays
leaving the cemetery, because by staying in the cemetery he is not letting
the Nezirus take effect. Moreover, the Gemara says that according to Mar bar
Rav Ashi the Nezirus *does* take effect when he accepts it upon himself while
standing in the cemetery, and it is clear from the Gemara in Nazir (17a) that
he needs no further Kabalah when he leaves the cemetery!
The Ran apparently holds that according to Reish Lakish, the person cannot
become obligated to observe the Nezirus of Taharah while he is in the
cemetery (since he is Tamei in either case). Therefore, Reish Lakish holds
that since one cannot effect a "partial Nezirus," the person is not obligated
to observe Nezirus at all, even the laws of refraining from wine and cutting
hair. However, that does not mean that the Nezirus has not taken effect.
Rather, the Nezirus *does* take effect, but it is in a suspended mode,
waiting for a moment at which the person can be obligated to refrain from
Tum'ah. The moment that the Nezirus is able to take effect with regard to
Tum'ah, the laws of Nezirus for refraining from wine and cutting hair will
take effect as well. Hence, no new Kabalah is necessary when he leaves the
cemetery. Since no new Kabalah is necessary, the Gemara assumes at this point
that there is no Bal Te'acher (because as long as the Nezirus has taken
effect, even in a suspended mode, that is enough to constitute a fulfillment
of the oath of Nezirus). The Gemara concludes that even delaying that Nezirus
is considered Bal Te'acher, because the person delays *practicing* the
Nezirus of Taharah.
Prior to Mar bar Rav Ashi's teaching that the Nezirus remains in a suspended
mode, the Gemara thought that Nezirus does not take effect at all according
to Reish Lakish and that a new Kabalah is required, and that there would be
Bal Te'acher if he delays that new Kabalah.
(b) The ROSH here and TOSFOS in Nazir (17a) explain that when the Gemara says
that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue regarding Malkus, it is indeed
discussing Malkus for becoming Tamei. Both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish
agree that Malkus is given for consuming wine and cutting hair, because there
is no reason for the Nezirus not to take effect with regard to those laws.
The Machlokes is only with regard to Malkus for becoming Tamei.
As far as our question that his becoming Tamei is a "Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh,"
these Rishonim explain that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish are addressing
the opinion of those who hold that one *does* receive Malkus for a Lav
she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. Alternatively, they do not mean literally that Malkus is
administered, but rather that it is an *Isur* of Malkus (that is, becoming
Tamei is Asur and it *would have been* punishable with Malkus had a Ma'aseh
Why, though, does Reish Lakish say that there is no Malkus for Tum'ah even
according to the opinion that there is Malkus for a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh?
It is because Reish Lakish holds that in order to take effect, the Isur of
Tum'ah must take effect at a state where it prohibits the person from
*becoming* Tamei, and not at a state where he is already Tamei. (That is, the
Isur of Tum'ah for a Nazir is *becoming* Tamei, and not *being* Tamei.)
(c) The MEFARESH in Nazir (17a) explains that the argument between Rebbi
Yochanan and Reish Lakish is with regard to Malkus for Tum'ah, like the Rosh
and Tosfos explain. However, he explains that according to Reish Lakish,
although the person is prohibited to consume wine and to cut his hair
immediately, nevertheless he is not prohibited to become Tamei until he *re-
accepts* upon himself the Isur Tum'ah of Nezirus after he becomes Tahor from
his present state of Tum'ah. If so, when Rebbi Yochanan says that the Nazir
is punishable with Malkus, it does not mean that he is given Malkus for
*making* himself a Nazir while in the graveyard. Rather, he is given Malkus
for making himself Tamei (in an *active* manner, Lav she'Yesh Bo Ma'aseh)
after he leaves the graveyard and is Metaher himself. Reish Lakish exempts
him from Malkus even in such a case, since the Nazir did not re-accept upon
himself the Isur Tuam'ah of Nezirus after becoming Tahor.
According to the Mefaresh, why does the Gemara not say that according to
Reish Lakish there should be an Isur of Bal Te'acher if he is not Mekabel the
Nezirus of Taharah immediately after leaving the cemetery and becoming Tahor?
Apparently, the Mefaresh holds that a declaration of Nezirus in a cemetery is
only an acceptance of *two thirds* of Nezirus (consuming grape products and
cutting hair); the person did *not* accept upon himself to become a Nazir
with regard to the Isur of Tum'ah of Nezirus in the first place, so he will
not transgress Bal Te'acher for delaying the acceptance of such a Nezirus.
How can we say that a person is able to accept Nezirus only for some parts of
the Nezirus and not for others? We know that there is no such thing as a
partial Nezirus, and if a person accepts Nezirus then all of the Isurim must
apply (Nazir 11a)! The answer is that this axiom applies only if he is not in
a cemetery, and the Isurei Tum'ah *can* apply. But if he is in a cemetery and
the Isurei Tum'ah *cannot* apply to him, then indeed a person is able to
accept upon himself a partial Nezirus.
(d) The SHA'AGAS ARYEH suggests that if the transgression of a prohibition
must, by definition, be *preceded* by an action, even if the transgression
itself involves an inaction, it is called a *Lav *she'Yesh* Bo Ma'aseh." He
proves this from examples of Isurim that are transgressed without an action,
and yet Malkus is administered. For instance, he cites the Gemara in Nazir
(40a) that discusses a Nazir who was carried inside of a box into a cemetery
(according to the view that a box separates between him and the Tum'ah), and
then another person came and removed the cover of the box. If the Nazir does
not leave the cemetery immediately but stays in his place, he will transgress
the Isur of becoming Tamei in a cemetery *and receive Malkus*. We see from
there that the action of going into the cemetery -- even though done in a
permissible manner -- makes the Isur into a "Lav she'Yesh Bo Ma'aseh." The
Sha'agas Aryeh cites support for this explanation from TOSFOS in Shevuos
(17a, DH O).
The Sha'agas Aryeh reasons that the requirement that a Nazir not enter a
cemetery is that a Nazir may not *be* in a cemetery (for that is how the
Torah describes the Isur), and not that a Nazir *must be outside of* a
cemetery. For this reason, the Isur of a Nazir entering a cemetery is
considered a "Kum v'Aseh," since it must be preceded by an action (entering
the cemetery), and therefore Malkus may be administered.
This might be the reasoning of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Nezirus 5:21, see LECHEM
MISHNAH), who rules l'Halachah that Malkus is given to a person who accepts
Nezirus while standing in a cemetery.
QUESTION: The Gemara says that if a Nazir purposefully makes himself Tamei,
he transgressed the Isur of Bal Te'acher (for delaying his fulfillment of
Nezirus b'Taharah). This implies that he receives Malkus immediately for the
Isur of Bal Te'acher.
However, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (6b) teaches that one transgresses Bal
Te'acher for delaying the bringing of a Korban only if he delays it for three
Regalim. Why, then, should the Bal Te'acher of Nezirus apply immediately,
especially if the Isur of Bal Te'acher of Nezirus is derived from Bal
Te'acher of Nedarim?
(a) The RITVA in Rosh Hashanah explains that with regard to delaying Tzedakah
and other Mitzvos, there is no leeway of three Regalim. Rather, one
transgresses Bal Te'acher right away. The only reason one does not transgress
Bal Te'acher for Korbanos until after three Regalim have passed is because
the Torah does not require a person to go out of his way and make a trip to
the Beis ha'Mikdash as soon as he sanctifies an animal as a Korban, but
rather the Torah lets him wait until the time that he normally goes to the
Beis ha'Mikdash -- at the time of the Regel. If he delays bringing the Korban
three times (after three Regalim), then he transgresses the Isur of Bal
Te'acher. In the case of Tzedakah or other Mitzvos, there is no need to go to
the Beis ha'Mikdash, and therefore if one delays the Mitzvah one transgresses
Bal Te'acher right away.
Still, though, we should at least learn from Bal Te'acher of Korbanos that
one has a leeway period of three time units before he transgresses Bal
Te'acher. Why should the Isur apply *immediately*?
It could be that the Torah gives three Regalim for Bal Te'acher of Korbanos
*because* the Torah does not require him to bring it immediately. Since he
need not bring it immediately it is more likely that he might forget to bring
it at the first Regel, and therefore the Torah gives him three Regalim to
remember to bring it. In contrast, something for which one transgresses Bal
Te'acher immediately does not have three time periods, because there is no
excuse for forgetting to do it right away.
This seems to be the opinion of TOSFOS here (3b) as well.
(b) The RAN says that the reason the Torah gives three Regalim is because
when a person makes a Neder to bring a Korban, he has in mind not to bring it
right away but to give himself up to three Regalim to bring it. If, however,
a person explicitly obligates himself to bring the Korban immediately, then
indeed he would transgress Bal Te'acher immediately if he delays. Similarly,
when a Nazir makes himself Tamei he transgresses Bal Te'acher right away,
because he has shown, by declaring that he is a Nazir earlier, that he wants
the Nezirus to take effect immediately. Hence, if he is Metamei himself, he
transgresses Bal Te'acher immediately.
However, if it is true that we assume that the person intended to give
himself time (up to three Regalim) to bring the Korban, then why is it that
he transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh if he does not bring the Korban during the
very first Regel that arrives (Rosh Hashanah 6b)? He never intended or
promised to bring it by that time!
The answer must be that when a person commits himself to bring a Korban,
regardless of how much time he gives himself the Torah obligates him with a
Mitzvas Aseh to rush and bring it as soon as possible. (This Mitzvas Aseh
might also apply to a person who accepts upon himself Nezirus by saying, "I
will be a Nazir before two years pass;" see Ran at the beginning of the Daf.)
(c) The ROSH writes that the Isur of Bal Te'acher is *always* transgressed
*only* after three Regalim. That is, the Isur of Bal Te'acher is not simply
delaying the Korban or the Neder, but rather delaying it for three Regalim
from the point when he had to bring it. A person must bring the Korban at the
first Regel because of the Mitzvas Aseh. If he delays his obligation until
three Regalim have passed, he then transgresses Bal Te'acher.
For this reason, the Rosh explains that in all of the cases of Bal Te'acher
mentioned in our Gemara, the Isur takes effect only after three Regalim.
Hence, the Rosh explains that if a Nazir becomes Tamei, he only transgresses
Bal Te'acher if he does not become Tahor for three Regalim.
Why, then, does the Gemara say that that a Nazir transgresses Bal Te'acher
only if he was Metamei himself purposefully, b'Mezid? The main point is that
he purposely was not *Metaher* himself b'Mezid; it does not matter how he
The Rosh answers that that is indeed how we must understand the phrase,
"she'Timei Atzmo b'Mezid" -- it means that he purposely *remained* in his
state of Tum'ah.
1) A NEDER HAS NO "KITZUSA" WHILE NEZIRUS DOES
OPINIONS: The Beraisa earlier (3a) cites the verse, "Ish... Ki Yafli li'N'dor
Neder, Nazir l'Hazir la'Shem..." (Bamidbar 6:2). This verse serves as a
Hekesh between Nedarim and Nezirus and teaches that certain laws of Nedarim
are learned from Nezirus, and certain laws of Nezirus are learned from
Nedarim. One of the laws of Nezirus that is learned from Nedarim is the
Halachah that a father may annul the oath of Nezirus of his daughter, and a
husband may annul the oath of Nezirus of his wife, just like the husband or
father may annul the woman's Nedarim.
The Gemara here asks why a Hekesh is needed to teach this Halachah of Nezirus
when it could be learned through a "Meh Matzinu." The Gemara answers that a
"Meh Matzinu" would not suffice, because there is a difference between a
normal Neder and an oath of Nezirus. A normal Neder has no "Kitzusa," and
therefore -- we might have thought -- that is why a father or husband may
annul the Neder of his daughter or wife. But an oath of Nezirus *does* have
"Kitzusa," and thus we might have thought that a father or husband may *not*
annul the oath of Nezirus of his daughter or wife.
What is the meaning of this difference, "Kitzusa," between Nedarim and
(a) The RAN and other Rishonim explain that this means that since a Neder has
no limit in time (the Isur that one makes can apply indefinitely), therefore
the Torah gives the woman's husband, or the girl's father, the right to annul
her Neder so that she should not suffer forever from it. An oath of Nezirus,
on the other hand, creates a temporary Isur (for 30 days), and since this is
not a long period of time for her to have to suffer from the Isurim of
Nezirus, we might have thought that the Torah did not give the father or
husband the right to annul her Nezirus.
This explanation, though, is somewhat problematic. A Neder can also be made
for a short period of time (for example, "Bread is Asur to me for thirty
days"), and thus we should be able to learn that a husband can annul his
wife's Nezirus from that type of Neder. If so, the Gemara's question remains
-- why do we need a Hekesh when we can learn this Halachah from a "Meh
Matzinu" from the type of Neder which is temporary?
It seems that according to the Ran, before learning the Hekesh we thought
that indeed, a husband cannot annul his wife's Neder if she only prohibited
herself from a food for thirty days. It is only after the Hekesh is applied
to Nazir that we know a husband can annul a short-term Neder.
(b) The OR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Nedarim 12:19) suggests a novel explanation for
the meaning of "Kitzusa," according to which the Gemara must be learned
exactly the opposite from the way the Ran explains it.
"A Neder has no "Kitzusa" means that it has no *minimum* time that it has to
be in effect. A Neder for one day is also a valid Neder. Hence, if a girl
makes a Neder, her father can annul it so that it will no longer be in effect
from now on, and the Neder that she had made was a valid Neder while it
lasted. In contrast, Nezirus *does* have "Kitzusa," a minimum time that it
has to be in effect, for a Nezirus less than thirty days is not a Nezirus.
Hence, we might have thought that a father cannot annul the Nezirus of his
daughter from now on, since a Nezirus cannot be sliced into a time period of
less than thirty days.
(According to this approach, if a girl took an oath of Nezirus to become a
Nazir for 50 days, even before the Hekesh is applied we would know that her
father can annul it after 30 days have passed, since she has observed the
minimum number of days of Nezirus -- see AYELES HA'SHACHAR.)