Previous daf

1)

(a) The source of Rebbi Yossi, who says that a N'zir Olam may trim his hair every Erev Shabbos is - the princes, who were accustomed to doing so.

(b) Rebbi learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yamim" "Yamim" from Batei Arei Chomah that he may do so once a year, despite the fact that he himself rules that the "Yamim" mentioned with regard to the minimum period that one may redeem a house in a walled city refers to two days - because a two days growth can hardly be considered 'heavy' (that needs to be trimmed), the logic behind the concession.

(c) He nevertheless arrives at once a year - because even though the seller of a house in a walled city cannot redeem his house for two days, he does have a maximum time period of one year in which to redeem it. And it is that aspect of "Yamim" that he learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

(a) He learns from Batei Arei Chomah, rather than from ...

1. ... "Vayehi Mikeitz Shenasayim Yamim (regarding Par'oh's dream), where Yamim means two years - because it is preferable to learn "Yamim" without "Shanim" from "Yamim" without "Shanim" that from "Yamim with "Shanim".
2. ... "ad Chodesh Yamim" (regarding the quails) where it means once a month - because, in similar vein, he prefers to learn "Yamim" without "Chodashim" from "Yamim" without Chodashim.
3. ... "mi'Yamim *Yamimah*" (where it means four times a year [once every three months]) - because it is better, he says, to learn "Yamim" from "Yamim" than to learn it from "Yamimah".

(b)The principle of Rebbi Yishmael 'Mah Hi 'Shivah' 'Mah Hi 'Bi'ah' (that one can just as well learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ba" from "Shav" as one can from "Ba", seeing as they have a similar meaning), only applies when the alternative of learning from exactly the same word does not exist - but when one has the option of learning "Yamim" from "Yamim", then Chazal will not learn it from "Yamimah" (bear in mind that the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that was handed to Moshe at Sinai was "Yamim" "Yamim", and Chazal had later to work out which two Pesukim were implied).

(c) In any event, (even if we were to reject this distinction) we could not apply this particular 'Gezeirah-Shavah - because there is no indication that the four days annually that the girls would go out to mourn for the daughter of Yiftach occurred evenly (once every three months), perhaps they were spread out unevenly. So we better off learning from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' which *is* clear, than from one that is not.

(a) Rebbi Nehora'i learns that the concession of a N'zir Olam trimming his hair applies once every thirty days - from the Kohanim, who were obligated to cut their hair once a month.

(b) Despite the fact that the Din of Kohanim is derived from the Din of a regular Nazir (whose Nezirus lasts for thirty days), we need to learn the Din of a N'zir Olam from Kohanim (and cannot learn it directly from that of a regular Nazir) - because it is not logical to derive a Din concerning permanent Kedushah from one of temporary Kedushah (so we learn it from Kohanim, who also have permanent Kedushah - Tosfos).

(c) Rebbi Yossi says once a week. In what way, we ask, does a Nazir Olam then differ from anyone else, who also shaves once a week. The questioner knew very well that a N'zir Olam is obligated to bring Korbanos when he trims his hair, whereas an ordinary person is not. Yet he declined to make this distinction to answer the Kashya - because he was only concerned with the time period involved regarding the two cases, not other distinctions, of which there are a number (see also Rosh).

(d) We give two answers to this Kashya. One of them, that an ordinary person is permitted to shave his hair on Erev Yom-Tov that falls during the week, whereas a N'zir Olam is not - the other, with regard to shaving on Friday morning, which others are permitted to do, but a N'zir Olam is not.

(a) When the Navi describes Avshalom going to fulfill his Neder at the end of forty years - he is referring to forty years from the time that the people asked Shmuel for a king. He cannot be referring to the end of forty years of David ha'Melech's reign - because David only reigned for forty years, and it is evident from Pesukim that his reign continued for another five years after the incident with Avshalom.

(b) The Pasuk connects Avshalom with Yisrael asking for a king - because the incident with Avshalom ended in his rebelling against David, and their requesting a king too, was considered by the Navi as an act of rebellion (Tosfos).

(c) During the last five years of David's reign - there were three years of famine, David counted Yisrael (which resulted in a plague), and he set up the twenty-four Mishmaros (Tosfos).

(d) Four years elapsed between the tenth year of Shmuel's leadership, when they asked for a king, and the crowning of David ha'Melech as king, two and a half of which Shaul reigned (Tosfos).

(a) Rav Masna learns from "Kadosh Yih'yeh Gadeil Pera" that 'S'tam Nezirus Sh'loshim Yom' - from the word "Yih'yeh" whose numerical value is thirty.

(b) bar Pada learns from the twenty-nine times that one form of Nezirus or another appears in the Parshah of Nazir - that S'tam Nezirus is twenty-nine days.

(c) In fact, the Pasuk mentions one Lashon of Nazir or another *thirty* times. "Ki Nezer Elokav al Rosho" is excluded however, making it twenty-nine - because the word "Nezer" means a crown, and is not a direct derivative of 'Nazir' (Tosfos).

(a) Rav Masna disagrees on the grounds that at least some of those 'Nazir' are used for various Derashos. We learn from ...

1. ... "mi'Yayin ve'Sheichar *Yazir*" - that the Din of Nazir overrides even wine of Mitzvah (as we learned above).
2. ... "Ki Yafli Lindor Neder *Nazir Lehazir* la'Hashem" - that 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus'.

(b) 'Nezirus Chalah al Nezirus' means - that if someone says 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom ve'Nazir ha'Yom', he is obligated to observe a second term of Nezirus when the first one terminates (in spite of the fact that he said 'ha'Yom').

(c) Bar Pada agrees with the two Derashos that we just cited. He maintains however, that since there are so many other "Nazir" that are not subject to D'rashos, we are able to include even those that *are* in the total, to learn from there that 'S'tam Nezirus is twenty-nine days.

(d) bar Pada reconciles his opinion with our Mishnah, which states 'S'tam Nezirus Sheloshim Yom' - by including the thirtieth day, on which the Nazir is required to shave and bring his Korbanos, in the days of Nezirus (and until he has brought his Korbanos he is forbidden to drink wine and to render himself Tamei Meis - Tosfos).

7)

(a) bar Pada includes the thirtieth day in the days of S'tam Nezirus - because even though, according to him, a Nazir may shave and bring his Korbanos on the twenty-ninth day, that is only Bedieved. Lechatchilah, he is obligated to wait until the thirtieth day.

(b) The Mishnah later gives the day for a Nazir shaving as the thirty-first day - a problem with bar Pada, according to whom it should be permitted the latest on the thirtieth.

(c) The Seifa however - 'Im Gilach be'Yom Sheloshim, Yatza' seems to conform with his opinion.

(d) bar Pada accounts for the Reisha - by establishing a decree (even when one accepted S'tam Nezirus) on account of when he said 'Sheleimin' (a full thirty days), in which case he would only be permitted to shave and to bring his Korbanos on the thirty-first day.

(a) Rav Masna (who learns from "Yih'yeh" that S'tam Nezirus lasts thirty days) ascribes the Seifa of the Beraisa which renders a Nazir who shaved on the thirtieth day Yotze - to the principle 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo'.

(b) We know that bar Pada does not hold of 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' - - because if he did, the Mishnah would have rendered even someone who brought his Korbanos on the twenty-ninth day Yotze.

(c) We ask on Rav Masna from the Mishnah which at the beginning of the third Perek, which states 'Hareini Nazir Sheloshim Yom, Im Gilach Yom Sheloshim, Lo Yatza'. There is no Kashya from there on bar Pada (who learned above that Bedieved, he is Yotze on the thirtieth day) - because that is when he accepted S'tam Nezirus (which is twenty-nine days), but when he said explicitly thirty days, he will not be Yotze on the twenty-ninth.

(d) Rav Masna too - differentiates between when he accepted S'tam Nezirus, where we apply the principle 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' (on the thirtieth day itself, and where he said explicitly accepted thirty days, which, by virtue of this extra (unnecessary) Lashon, comes to include the entire day in the Neder (to negate 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo').