ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
***** PEREK KOL KINUYEI NEZIROS *****
Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Tosfos
instead of that of Rashi, since the latter is purported to have written by someone
other than Rashi. Also, our notes and comments do not necessarily have a bearing on
the practical Halachah.
(a) 'Kol Kinuyei N'zirus ki'N'zirus'. The Tana continues with cases of Yados
li'N'zirus - which are uncompleted declarations of N'zirus; whereas Kinuyin
are complete declarations, but not using the term 'Nazir' that the Torah
(b) The Tana lists the Kinuyin: 'Nazir, Nazik, Nezi'ach, Pezi'ach'. 'Nazir'
is included in the list - because it is the source Lashon, from which all
other Leshanos stem.
(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan in Nedarim, Kinuyin are expressions used by
Nochrim that mean Nazir. According to Tosfos, other words that mean Nazir in
other languages are also considered Kinuyin. They draw a distinction
however, between these three Leshonos - which do not require specific
Kavanah, and other words, which do (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).
(a) According to Resh Lakish, these Leshonos are expressions introduced by
the Chachamim - to avoid people having the intention of declaring 'la'Hashem
Korban' (which is a normal way of making a Neder to bring a Korban), and
retracting after saying 'la'Hashem', leaving them having said Hashem's Name
in vain. It is highly unusual however, to say Hashem's Name before one of
the Kinuyin (such as 'la'Hashem Konem').
(b) According to Tosfos, Yadei N'zirus are fully effective, in spite of the
fact that the Lashon is only mi'de'Rabbanan, because the Noder accepts
N'zirus with his full heart. According to Rebbi Yechiel however - someone
who accepted N'zirus through a Kinuy, would not be Chayav to bring a Korban
(because it would be bringing Chulin to the Azarah).
(a) 'ha'Omer Ehei, Harei Zeh Nazir' - falls under the category of a Yad
(b) If someone says 'Hareini ka'Zeh', he is a Nazir provided a Nazir is
passing in front of him. Seeing as we already know this from the earlier
cases in the Mishnah - the Chidush of this Mishnah lies in the inference
(that if he said 'Hareini' alone, he would not be a Nazir, even if a Nazir
was passing in front of him at that moment.
(c) 'Hareini Mesalsel, Hareini Mechalkel, Harei Alai Leshalei'ach Pera' - is
neither a Kinuy or a Yad. It is considered a direct N'zirus, which is
effective provided he is holding his hair.
(a) The reason that Nazir is in Seder Nashim rather than in Kodshim is -
because it stems from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (with regard to Gitin) "Ki
Matza Bah Ervas Davar"; the root of adultery is wine and Chazal have said
'Kol ha'Ro'eh Sotah be'Kilkulah, Yazir Atzmo min ha'Yayin'.
(b) We did not ask the same Kashya with regard to Nedarim - because it is
obvious that the Parshah of Nedarim belongs in Nashim, due to the fact that
it is written in connection with women (in Parshas Matos).
(c) We do not just accept the explanation given in Sotah (that Nedarim
follows Kesuvos, because it follows Perek Hamadir in Kesuvos, and Nazir
follows Nedarim because it is a branch of Nedarim - because that would not
be sufficient reason to take Nazir out of Kodshim, where it belongs (if
anything, the Tana should rather have placed Nedarim next to Nazir, in
(d) We nevertheless need the answer in Sotah (not making do with the answer
in our Sugya) - because then, the Tana should have placed Nazir after Gitin
(where it is hinted in the Torah).
(a) The Tana begins the Mishnah with Kinuyin, but first explains Yados.
Rava, basing himself on various Mishnahs (such as 'Bameh Madlikin, u'va'Meh
Ein Madlikin' and 'Bameh Ishah Yotz'ah u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', where the
Tana also does likewise) initially resolves this problem - by suggesting
that the Tana always explains the last-mentioned case first (as a matter of
(b) We have a problem with Rava's answer however, from the Mishnahs 'Bameh
Beheimah Yotz'ah, u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', and from 'Yesh Nochlin
u'Manchilin, Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin ... ' - where the Tana explains the
*first-mentioned* cases first.
(c) We answer that the Tana sometimes explains the first statement first,
and sometimes, the last. In the above cases, he explains the last case first
with regard to 'Bameh Ishah Yotz'ah u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah' - because when it
comes to personal Isurim, he prefers to mention the Chumra first; whereas
1. ... regarding 'Bameh Beheimah Yotz'ah, u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', he
explains the first case first, because he prefers to mention the lenient
case first when it comes to Isurim concerning his animal (whose Din is
altogether more lenient).
(d) And if the Tana explains Yados first because it is learned from a
D'rashah ("Nazir Lehazir la'Hashem"), which is dear to him, he nevertheless
prefers to open the Mishnah with Kinuyin - which are the Ikar Neder of which
the Torah speaks.
2. ... regarding 'Yesh Nochlin u'Manchilin, Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin ... ' he
prefers to do likewise - in order to first mention the Ikar Din of Nachalah
(someone who has all the Dinim of an heir), and then of someone who is only
a partial heir.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah knows that 'Ehei' means 'Ehei Nazir' and not
'Ehei be'Ta'anis' - because he is speaking when a Nazir is passing in front
of the Noder at that moment.
(b) We try to prove from here that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Einan
Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'. We take for granted that it is a Yad, and that
'Ehei' implies more N'zirus than a Ta'anis - on the grounds that N'zirus can
always take effect immediately, whereas a Ta'anis cannot if the Noder has
already eaten that day (as is usually the case).
(c) We answer that Shmuel does indeed hold that 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos
Lo Havyan Yadayim' - in which case, the fact that a Nazir is passing in
front of him transforms the Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos into Yadayim
(d) Other texts reject the proof that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Einan
Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim' (a more conventional way of explaining a Sugya
that begins with the word 'Leima ... '. Tosfos prefer the first explanation
however - based on the Sugya in Kidushin, where he specifically concurs with
(a) And we know that the Noder does not simply intend to bring the Korbanos
on behalf of the Nazir who is passing in front of him (as if he had said
'Ehei bi'Mekomo') - because we are also speaking when he specifically had in
mind to be a Nazir like him.
(b) Had the Tana not taught us that his Neder is effective - we would have
thought that it is not, because a Neder requires 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin (that
the Noder's mouth and heart are of one accord), and in this case, it seems
that what he thought is not in keeping with what he said. The Tana's Chidush
is that since his thoughts clarify what he said (rather than clash with it),
it is considered 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin'.
(c) There is another text that assumes that we do not require 'Piv ve'Libo
Shavin', which we reject on the basis of the accepted Halachah, that a Neder
that is declared unintentionally, is not considered a Neder. We can prove
this from our very Sugya - because if it was, now that we have established
that in his heart, he intended to become a Nazir, why would we also require
a Nazir to pass in front of him?
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu" - that one
should perform Mitzvos beautifully (such as a beautiful Succah, a beautiful
Lulav, beautiful Tzitzis and a beautiful Sefer-Torah wrapped with a
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah nevertheless knows that 'Na'eh Nazir' refers to
N'zirus, and not to performing Mitzvos beautifully - because it speaks hen
he is holding his hair (indicating that what he is undertaking is to
beautify himself with regard to a Mitzvah connected with his hair).
(c) Even though Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar has taught us that N'zirus itself is
an Aveirah - that is only a Nazir Tamei, but not a Nazir Tahor (and 'Ehei
Na'eh' pertains to N'zirus of Taharah).
(a) Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who considers a Nazir a sinner, confines his
opinion to a Nazir Tamei - who (due to the extended period of N'zirus) will
most likely regret having declared N'zirus in the first place.
We just explained that the case of 'Ehei' speaks when a Nazir was passing in
front of him, and that of 'Ehei Na'eh' when he was holding his hair. It is
not possible to switch the answers, and say ...
(b) Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar does not consider a Nazir Tahor a sinner, despite
the fact that in a number of places, he specifically refers to a Nazir who
abstained from wine, a sinner, - because there, although he is guilty of
sinning slightly, the Mitzvah aspect of N'zirus outweighs the Aveirah;
whereas in the case of a Nazir Tamei, the Aveirah outweighs (or even
cancels) the Mitzvah.
1. ... in the case of 'Ehei Na'eh' when a Nazir was walking past - because
'Ehei Na'eh' is a complete Lashon, and if he had not been holding his hair,
even a Nazir walking past would not change its meaning from 'Na'eh
2. ... in the case of 'Ehei' that it speaks when he was holding his hair -
because, unless a Nazir was walking past, it would imply 'Ehei be'Ta'anis',
even if he was holding his hair.