The Gemara continues and says, "Alternatively, Rebbi Shimon does not hold of
the principle of Isur Chal Al Isur, like Rebbi Shimon says that if a person
eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur he is exempt from punishment for eating on Yom
Kipur."
What does the concept of "Isur Chal Al Isur" have to do with our Sugya?
Here, the Gemara is discussing only one Isur, the Isur of Nezirus. What is
the second Isur that is taking effect upon a pre-existing Isur? What two
Isurim are there?
In addition, why does the Gemara say that only Rebbi Shimon holds that a
second Isur cannot take effect on another Isur? All of the Tana'im agree
that an Isur cannot take effect on another Isur! Rebbi Shimon's opinion is
unique only in that he holds that even an "Isur Kolel" or an "Isur Mosif"
cannot take effect on a pre-existing Isur.
(a) TOSFOS (DH Rebbi Shimon) and the ROSH explain that the Gemara means to
say that Rebbi Shimon holds that an Isur cannot take effect on an Isur when
the second Isur is an "Isur Kolel." This means that even if the second Isur
includes more objects than the first Isur, the second Isur still cannot take
effect on the objects that were prohibited by the first Isur (but only on
the other objects). The Rabanan hold that the second Isur does take effect
on all of the objects, even those prohibited by the first Isur. How, though,
is this related to the verse of "v'Shechar" and to our Sugya?
The verse is teaching that if a person made a Neder or a Shevu'ah not to
drink wine, and then afterwards he accepted upon himself Nezirus, the
Nezirus will take effect and he will be prohibited from drinking wine
because of his Neder (or Shevu'ah) and because of the Isur of Nezirus, even
though, normally, an Isur cannot take effect upon another Isur. The Rabanan
do not need a verse to teach this because the Isur of Nezirus is an Isur
Kolel, and thus the Isur of Nezirus will prohibit it from wine either way.
Nezirus is an Isur Kolel because it also prohibits him from becoming Tamei
to Mesim and from shaving his hair.
The KEREN ORAH finds support for this interpretation from the Gemara in
Makos (22a). The Mishnah there says that if a person is both a Nazir and a
Kohen and he plows a field that is a cemetery on a day that is both Shabbos
and Yom Tov, then he could be Chayav for numerous sets of Malkus for his
single act. The Gemara proves that the Mishnah holds like Rebbi Shimon who
says that even an Isur Kolel cannot take effect on a previous Isur. The
SHA'AGAS ARYEH (#60) asks that if the Mishnah holds like Rebbi Shimon, then
how could a Kohen make himself a Nazir and be Chayav for becoming Tamei to
Mesim because of the Nezirus? The Nezirus is a second Isur of Tum'ah and it
should not take effect on the Isur Tum'ah of a Kohen! The KEREN ORAH points
out that according to what Tosfos here writes, the question does not
start -- even Rebbi Shimon agrees that Nezirus takes effect on a
pre-existing Isur because of the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of "v'Shechar!"
The logic of what the Torah is teaching through this Gezeiras ha'Kasuv,
according to Rebbi Shimon, might be that, normally, an Isur Kolel cannot
cause a new Isur to take effect where there is already an Isur, because the
other Isurim that do take effect do not force the new Isur to take effect on
the pre-existing Isur. For example, in a normal case of Isur Kolel, such as
the Isur of Neveilah and the Isur of Yom Kipur, the Isur of Yom Kipur
prohibits a person from eating all foods. The Rabanan say that since the
Isur takes effect with regard to permitted foods, it takes effect with
regard to Neveilah as well. Rebbi Shimon says that there is no need for the
Isur of Yom Kipur to take effect with regard to Neveilah; it can take effect
only with regard to permitted foods, and the Neveilah remains Asur only
because of the Isur Neveilah. In the case of Nazir, though, the Isurim of a
Nazir are linked to each other and interdependent because of the rule of
"Ein Nezirus l'Chatza'in" -- in order for one Isur to take effect, they must
all take effect. Therefore, when one accepts upon himself a full Nezirus, it
*must* take effect on the Isur of wine as well in order for it to take
effect on the Isur of Tum'ah and the Isur of shaving. Thus, the Isurim of
Tum'ah and shaving pull along, so to speak, the Isur of wine with them so
that it takes effect, even according to Rebbi Shimon.
However, the other Rishonim who offer different explanations might have
rejected this explanation because the Gemara should not have emphasized the
negative with regard to all other cases by saying that in all other cases an
Isur does not take effect on another Isur (in lieu of a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv
saying that it does). Rather, the Gemara should have emphasized the positive
with regard to Nezirus -- that Rebbi Shimon needs a verse to teach that in
the case of Nazir, an Isur *does* take effect on an Isur.
(b) The ROSH and RASHBA (Teshuvos 4:109) cite RABEINU TAM who explain that
Rebbi Shimon learns from "v'Shechar" the rule that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur."
The verse is teaching that if a person made a Neder or Shevu'ah not to drink
wine and then he became a Nazir, his Nezirus does not take effect.
The Rosh questions Rabeinu Tam's approach. Why must Rebbi Shimon learn that
"Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" from "v'Shechar?" The Gemara in Chulin (101a) cites
a different source to teach that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" according to Rebbi
Shimon! The Rashba (Teshuvos) answers that the source quoted in Chulin
teaches that a second Isur cannot take effect on a pre-existing Isur *which
came about by itself*, such as the Isur of Yom Kipur taking effect on an
Isur Neveilah. However, the verse here teaches that even if the first Isur
is a self-imposed Isur (Neder or Shevu'ah), nevertheless the second Isur
cannot take effect on it to prohibit it a second time. (The Gemara cites a
case of one who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur only as an example of Rebbi
Shimon's opinion in other places, but that is not what is learned from this
verse of "v'Shechar.")
The Rabanan, who argue with Rebbi Shimon, hold, according to Rabeinu Tam,
that an Isur does take effect on another Isur when the first Isur is
self-imposed. (The Rashba suggests further that perhaps these Rabanan hold
that a second Isur can take effect on another Isur even when it is not
self-imposed and even if it is not an Isur Kolel or Isur Mosif, in
contradistinction to the more common opinion of the Rabanan.)
It is clear from the Rashba that he does not consider the Isur of Nazir to
be an Isur Kolel with regard to a previous Neder or Shevu'ah not to drink
wine. Why is it not an Isur Kolel? After all, the Nezirus is adding an Isur
of Tum'ah and an Isur of shaving! (AVNEI MILU'IM, Teshuvah #15)
1. The AVNEI MILU'IM answers, based on TOSFOS in Yevamos (32b, DH Isur Kolel
Hu), that an Isur can only be called an Isur Kolel if it is the *same Lav*
that prohibits the objects that were heretofore permitted and the object
that was heretofore prohibited. In such a case, the Isur will take effect on
all the objects. In the case of Nazir, there are three different Lavim
involved -- wine, Tum'ah, and shaving, and thus when the other Lavim take
effect they cannot cause the Lav of drinking wine to take effect. (According
to this, if one made a Neder not to eat grapeseed and then he became a
Nazir, then the Nezirus *would* take effect because of Isur Kolel, according
to the Rabanan.)
The Avnei Milu'im asks, however, that there is another Isur that encompasses
all of the Isurim of Nazir: the Isur of "Lo Yachel Devaro," not to profane
his word. *That* Isur should be an Isur Kolel! The Avnei Milu'im answers
that the Isur of Bal Yachel applies only to the Isurim that one intended to
create with his word. When the individual Isur of drinking wine does not
take effect because Nezirus is not an Isur Kolel, then his word did not mean
to include that Isur, and thus his word did not include the Isur of Bal
Yachel for the Isur of wine either.
2. The RASHBA writes in his Teshuvah that the Isur of a Nazir drinking wine
is an Isur Cheftza, like a Neder, and that is why it could prohibit him from
drinking wine even if he made a Shevu'ah beforehand obligating himself to
drink wine, because a Neder prohibiting the item of a Mitzvah can permit him
to be Mevatel a Mitzvah, even though he is already sworn-in to observe the
Mitzvah. This is what the verse of "m'Yayin v'Shechar" is teaching, like the
Gemara says here (beginning of 3a).
However, the Rashba does not discuss the Isurim of Tum'ah and shaving. It
would seem clear that these are not Isurim of Cheftza, for the person is not
prohibiting any object with those Isurim, but rather he is prohibiting
*acts* (becoming Tamei, shaving). Moreover, there is no Gezeiras ha'Kasuv to
teach that these Isurim should take effect to be Mevatel a Mitzvah.
(However, see MAHARIT cited by the Avnei Milu'im there, who suggests a
possibility to explain how those Isurim are also Isurei Cheftza.)
Accordingly, the Rashba might hold that since the Isurim are intrinsically
different, an Isur Cheftza cannot take effect through "Kolel" on an Isur
Gavra. (M. Kornfeld)
3. The MINCHAS CHINUCH (#368) explains that since Nezirus cannot take effect
in part (l'Chatza'in), the other Isurim cannot take effect until the Isur of
wine takes effect. Therefore, there is no Isur taking effect that would
cause the Isur of wine to take effect through "Kolel." (This is a Chidush in
the definition of the principle that "Nezirus cannot take effect
l'Chatza'in." The Minchas Chinuch is teaching that even if the person will
have all of the Isurim of Nazir, it is not enough -- the Isurim must come
about because of the Lav of Nazir and not because of a pre-existing Isur
such as a Shevu'ah.)
(c) The MEFARESH, and as cited by the Rashba in the name of Rashi, explains
that the Gemara is not trying to explain the verse of "v'Shechar" any
longer. Rather, the Gemara is giving a new source for Rebbi Shimon's opinion
in the Mishnah, and the source is from an analogy to Rebbi Shimon's rule
that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur." Just like a second Isur cannot take effect on
a pre-existing Isur, so, too, and Isur of Tum'ah of Nezirus cannot take
effect if the Isur of wine of Nezirus already took effect. It seems that
Rashi is re-defining the case of our Mishnah. The Mishnah does not mean that
he *either* made himself a Nazir from wine *or* from shaving, but rather
that if he *first* made himself a Nazir from wine and then from shaving and
from Tum'ah, then the Rabanan hold that the laws of Nezirus still apply,
while Rebbi Shimon holds that the laws of Nezirus do not apply.
The Rashba wonders how this can be learned from an analogy to "Ein Isur Chal
Al Isur." Here, we are discussing different Isurim altogether, the Isur of
Tum'ah taking effect on the Isur of drinking wine! Moreover, according to
both the Rabanan and Rebbi Shimon, how could the first Isur of wine alone
take effect? Everyone agrees that "Nezirus cannot take effect l'Chatza'in!"
Perhaps the answer is that Rashi means as follows. According to the Rabanan,
if one first makes himself a Nazir from wine and then later adds the rest of
the Isurim of Nazir, then retroactively the Isur of wine will take effect
since it now has become revealed that it is just a part of the Isurim of a
full-fledged Nazir. (The Isur of wine is just extended a little longer back
in time than the rest of the Nezirus.) Rebbi Shimon, though, says that the
Isur of wine cannot take effect retroactively, because that Isur will not be
an Isur of drinking wine alone, but it will be a *Nezirus* from drinking
wine. Similarly, when he adds the Isur of Tum'ah, he is adding a *Nezirus*
from Tum'ah l'Mesim. Just like Rebbi Shimon holds that an Isur cannot take
effect on an Isur, so, too, a Nezirus cannot take effect on a pre-existing
Nezirus, even if the pre-existing Nezirus is slightly different with
different laws (i.e. a Nezirus from wine and not from Tum'ah).