Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IMPOSING NEZIRUS ON A SON

(a) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): A father can impose on his son for Chinuch (to train him in the Mitzvah).
(b) Question: If so, a mother should also be able!
(c) Answer: Reish Lakish holds, only a man is obligated to train his son in Mitzvos.
(d) According to R. Yochanan, who says the law is a tradition from Moshe from Mount Sinai, it is not difficult why one can impose on a son, but not a daughter (such was the tradition)!

1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, one should be able to impose even on a daughter!

(e) Answer: Reish Lakish holds, Chinuch only applies to a son, not a daughter.
(f) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult why the law applies only to Nezirus, not to other vows.

1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, it should apply to other vows too!

(g) Answer: It does!

1. The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush - even Nezirus, which entails revulsion, he can impose on his son.

(h) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult why the son or relatives can annul the Nezirus by protesting.

1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, why are they able to stop him from training his son?

(i) Answer: He holds, any training in Mitzvos which entails disgrace is not good for him.
(j) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult that we cut his sideburns when he shaves at the end.

1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, how can Chinuch, which is mid'Rabanan, override a Torah prohibition?

(k) Answer: Reish Lakish holds that cutting all the hair on the head is only forbidden mid'Rabanan.

1. The Mitzvas Aseh (training to be a Nazir) mid'Rabanan overrides the prohibition mid'Rabanan.

(l) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult that he brings sacrifices upon completing his Nezirus.

1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, he offers Chulin b'Azarah (profane things in the courtyard of the Temple)!

(m) Answer: Reish Lakish holds that the Torah permits this.
(n) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult that if he becomes Tamei, he brings birds, and a Kohen eats the sin-offering.

1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, these are not truly sacrifices - since the bird was not slaughtered, it may not be eaten!

(o) Answer: Reish Lakish holds as R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says that mid'Oraisa, fowl need not be slaughtered.
(p) Question: Does R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah really hold that way?

1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): The following is the source that a bird sin-offering can be brought by one in doubt if he must bring it, but it is not eaten.
2. "And one that has a flow (emissions), a male or female" - the Torah equates a male to a female.

i. Just as a male brings a sacrifice (sin-offering) if he definitely sinned (by mistake in Chayavei Kerisus), so a female (Zavah) brings a sacrifice if she definitely was a Zavah;
ii. Just as a male brings a sacrifice (conditional guilt-offering) when in doubt if he sinned (by Chayavei Kerisus), so a female brings a sacrifice when in doubt if she was a Zavah; iii. Just as a male brings the same species (a sheep) for a certain or dountful sin, also a female (a bird).
iv. Suggestion: Just as the sacrifice of a male is eaten (when he was in doubt if he sinned), also of a doubtful Zavah is eaten.

v. Rejection: No - by a male, there is only 1 prohibition on his sacrifice (if he really didn't sin, it is Chulin b'Azarah); by a female, there are 2.

(q) (Summation of question) Suggestion: The 2 prohibitions are an unslaughtered bird, and Chulin b'Azarah.
(r) Answer (Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika): Perhaps the 2 prohibitions are mid'Rabanan!

(a) Suggestion: The Tana'im also argue if the law is a tradition from Moshe from Mount Sinai, or because of Chinuch.

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): A man can impose Nezirus on his son until the son brings 2 hairs (of maturity); R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, until the son reaches the age of vows.
2. Suggestion: Rebbi holds that the law is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai, and applies even after the son is at the age of vows; R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that it is because of Chinuch - after the son is at the age of vows, he leaves the jurisdiction of the father.

(b) Rejection #1: No, both agree that the law is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai; they argue regarding the vows of a child close to adulthood.

1. Rebbi holds that such vows are only mid'Rabanan; the tradition from Sinai overrides it;
2. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that vows of such a child are mid'Oraisa.

(c) Rejection #2: Both agree that the law is because of Chinuch, and the vows of a near-adult are mid'Rabanan.

1. Rebbi holds that Chinuch, mid'Rabanan, overrides the Rabbinic law that such a child may take his own vows;
2. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that once the child is old enough to take his own vows, there is no Mitzvah on the father to train the child in Nezirus.

(d) Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue as Rebbi and R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

1. (Beraisa): R. Chanina's father imposed Nezirus on him. R. Gamliel was checking Chanina to see if he was already an adult (in which case the Nezirus is void); R. Yosi says, he was checking if he understood vows.
2. Chanina: Don't bother! If I am still a child - my father properly made me a Nazir;

i. If I am an adult, I accept Nezirus upon myself!

3. R. Gamliel: Surely, this child will make legal rulings in Yisrael (this soon happened).

(e) We understand, according to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - if Chanina was too young to take his own vow, his father can impose Nezirus on him.

1. Question: According to Rebbi - his father can make him a Nazir even if the child can take his own vows!