ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 11
(a) If someone declares over the glass of wine that was poured out for him
'Hareini Nazir Mimenu' - he is a full-fledged Nazir.
(b) The Chachamim ruled that, when another glass of wine was poured out for
that drunken woman who declared 'Hareini Nazir Mimenu', only that glass was
forbidden to her - because it is obvious that, under the circumstances, that
is what her Neder implies (and not to become a full-fledged Nazir).
(c) A story in a Mishnah inevitably comes to illustrate the Halachah
contained in the Mishnah. We therefore amend the story of the drunken woman
in our Mishnah (which currently clashes with the Halachah that precedes
it) - by adding 've'Im Shikor Hu ... Eino Nazir'.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that someone who declares Nezirus provided
he may continue to drink wine and become Tamei Meis - must observe all the
Dinim of Nezirus.
(b) According to the Tana Kama, if a Nazir claims that although he knew
about Nezirus, he was not aware that a Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, he
is nevertheless a full-fledged Nazir. Rebbi Shimon says - that he is not a
Nazir at all.
(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether a Nazir needs to accept all
the aspects of Nezirus (Rebbi Shimon), or whether even just one will suffice
to render him a full-fledged Nazir (the Tana Kama).
(d) In a case where the Noder claims that he thought that either the
Chachamim would permit him to drink wine, because he was an alcoholic, or
that they would permit him to bury the dead, since he was an undertaker,
according to ...
- ... Rebbi Shimon - he is a Nazir
- ... the Rabbanan - he is not.
(a) When we ask why Rebbi Shimon (who requires a Nazir to undertake all the
aspects of Nezirus) does not also argue with the Tana Kama in the Reisha,
where he said 'Hareini Nazir al-Menas she'Ehei Shoseh Yayin u'Metamei
le'Meisim' - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi replies that in fact he does argue with
him there too (because his statement refers to the Reisha as well as to the
(b) However, we have learned a Beraisa in support of Ravina who disagrees
with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and says - that Rebbi Shimon concedes in the
Reisha that the Noder is a Nazir, because he is 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv
ba'Torah' (has issued a stipulation that contravenes Torah law) in which
case we simply disregard it.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argues with Ravina. He does not consider
'al-Menas she'Ehei Shoseh Yayin ... ' to be 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv
ba'Torah' - because every 'al-Menas' is like 'Chutz', which is not
considered a condition, but a preclusion.
(d) By Kidushin however, if the man said 'al-Menas she'Ein Lach Alai She'er
K'sus ve'Onah', the Kidushin is not effective - because even if he had said
'*Chutz* mi'She'er K'sus ve'Onah', the Kidushin would have taken effect
unconditionally, due to the fact that there is no such thing as part
Kidushin. Whenever Kidushin takes effect, it takes effect in its entirety.
(a) We just learned that, according to Ravina, ' ... al-Menas she'Ehei
Shoseh Yayin' is considered 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah', even
according to Rebbi Shimon, whereas in the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Levi, Rebbi Shimon considers 'al-Menas' like Chutz (which is valid). The
technical difference between the two is - that whereas in the former case,
the Noder's original statement incorporates all contingencies, and his
condition comes later to preclude certain aspects from taking effect,
'Chutz' means that from the inception of the Neder he precludes the
specified aspects from taking effect, and there is no reason why they should
not do so.
(b) Any condition by Nezirus is not ineffective anyway, despite the fact
that Nezirus cannot be performed by a Sheli'ach (in which case it is not
similar to the condition of the B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuven, from which all
Dinim of T'nai are derived) - because although Nezirus itself cannot be
performed by a Sheli'ach, the Nazir's Korbanos can be brought on his behalf,
rendering Nezirus a Mitzvah that can be performed through a Sheli'ach.
(a) We also learned in the Seifa (in the case where the Noder claims that he
thought that either the Chachamim would permit him to drink wine, because he
was an alcoholic, or that they would permit him to bury the dead, since he
was an undertaker) that the Rabbanan say 'Harei Zeh Mutar', whereas Rebbi
Shimon holds 'Asur' (seemingly having switched their opinions from the
Reisha). Some switch the opinions in the Seifa to conform with the Reisha.
Others retain the opinions as they stand. To justify this however - they
establish the Seifa, not in connection with the declaration of the Neder,
but in connection with its annulment, in which case, the reverse logic will
(b) The reverse logic applies like this - according to Rebbi Shimon, who
requires the Nazir to accept all aspects of Nezirus in order to become a
Nazir, also require him to annul all aspects of his Nezirus before his
annulment is effective; whereas the Rabbanan, who do not require the one, do
not require the other, either.
(c) We might even prove this answer from the Lashon of the Seifa - 'Aval
Savur Hayisi she'Chachamim Matirin Li', which clearly indicates that the
Seifa is speaking about someone who wishes to annul the Neder, and not
someone who wishes to declare it.
(a) We learned in Nedarim about four specific types of Nedarim: 'Nidrei
Ziruzin, Nidrei Hava'i, Nidrei Shegagos and Nidrei Onsin'. When Rav Yehudah
quoted Rav Asi as saying that these four Nedarim require Hatarah, Shmuel's
response was - that seeing as the Tana says about them 'Hitiru Chachamim',
how can anyone say that they require Hatarah?
(b) 'Nidrei Onsin' - are Nedarim which the Noder is unable to keep due an
O'nes. In our Mishnah too, the Noder is an O'nes - either because he cannot
live without wine or because he cannot avoid having contact with the dead,
for the sake of his livelihood.
(c) We finally establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan
in the Seifa of our Mishnah like that of Rav Asi and Shmuel - the Rabbanan
like Shmuel (who holds that Nidrei Onsin are permitted even without
Hatarah), and Rebbi Shimon like Rav Asi (who requires Hatarah).
(a) If our Mishnah was speaking when the O'nes was already known, we would
not be able to compare the O'nes in our Mishnah to the Mishnah of Nidrei
Onsin - where the O'nes occurred only after the Neder had been declared, and
consequently, at the time when the Neder was declared, the Noder meant the
Neder to be effective (explaining why some require the Neder to be
annulled); whereas in our Mishnah, where the O'nes was already known,
everyone will agree that the Noder did not really mean the Neder to take
effect, and no Hatarah is necessary?
(b) Rabeinu Tam nevertheless reconciles our Mishnah with the Mishnah of
Nidrei Onsin - by establishing our Mishnah too, when the Noder did not know
about the O'nes until later (i.e. at the time of the Neder, he was healthy
and wealthy and could manage without wine or without having to bury the
dead, but after the Neder, his fortunes changed).
(a) If someone declared 'Hareini Nazir va'Alai Legale'ach Nazir' and his
friend overheard and said 'va'Ani, ve'Alai Legale'ach' - if they were smart,
they would shave each other (thereby absolving themselves from any further
(b) Failing that, they will have to shave themselves, bring their Korbanos
and then each shave another Nazir and bring his Korbanos, on is behalf.
(a) We ask what the Din will be if someone declared 'Hareini Nazir va'Alai
Legale'ach Nazir' and his friend overheard and said 'va'Ani'. Either he
accepted the entire Neder, or only the first part or only the second part.
(b) From our Mishnah, where the second man said 'va'Ani, ve'Alai
Legale'ach' - it is evident that 'va'Ani' on its own only pertains to the
first half of the first man's Neder.
(c) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua tries to reject this proof from the Seifa
'Harei Alai Legale'ach Chatzi Nazir, ve'Shama Chaveiro, ve'Amar va'Ani, Alai
Legale'ach Chatzi Nazir' - where there is no second part to the Neder, yet
the second man made a double-statement (from which it seems that this is
simply a manner of speech, in order to stress a point, and we cannot infer
anything from it).
(d) Rava reinstates the proof from the Reisha however - because if we do
make the inference from the Reisha, then the Tana would at least teaching
something with the double Lashon (and as for the Seifa, he inserts the
double-Lashon because of the Reisha); whereas according to Rav Huna Brei
de'Rav Yehoshua, since the Tana is not teaching us anything at all, why does
he insert the double Lashon either time?