ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 15
(a) If someone undertook to be a Nazir as soon as his wife gives birth to a
son and a Nazir for a hundred days, began observing the second Nezirus
immediately, and his wife gives birth ...
1. ... within seventy days - he immediately observes the Nezirus for his
son, and, at the end of thirty days, after shaving for that Nezirus, he
completes the first one.
(b) The reason for this is - because a Nazir only shaves after a growth of
at least thirty days, and in the later case, by the time he is eligible to
shave, the hundred days will have already terminated).
2. ... after seventy days - he begins to observe the Nezirus for his son,
and, at the end of thirty days, after shaving for that Nezirus, he begins
his first Nezirus all over again.
(c) When Rav says 'Yom Shiv'im Oleh le'Ka'an u'le'Ka'an' - he means that the
first half of the day counts as the thirtieth day of his first Nezirus, and
the second half, as the first day of his second one.
(d) Despite what we learned in the first Perek that a Nazir for a hundred
days may only shave on the hundred and first day, this Nazir is permitted to
shave on the hundreth day - because shaving on the hundred and first day
(and not on the hundreth) is only a decree (because of where the Noder
specifically said 'Sheleimim', as we learned above). Consequently, seeing
as, vis-a-vis the first Nezirus, the second half of the thirtieth day is
considered the thirty-first, and the hundreth the hundred and first, we
revert to the Torah-law, and permit shaving already on the hundreth day.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ad Shiv'im Yom, Lo Hifsid K'lum'. According
to Rav - '*Ad* Shiv'im Yom' means until and including the seventieth day.
(b) The Tana says 'Lo Hifsid', and not 'Hirvi'ach', in spite of the fact
that the Nazir gains the hundreth day, on which he is now permitted to
shave - in order to counter 'Soser' in the Seifa (the opposite of which is
'Eino Soser' or 'Lo Hifsid').
(c) We try to interpret the Seifa of the Mishnah 'le'Achar Shiv'im, Soser
Shiv'im' to mean 'Achar de'Achar' - meaning on the seventy-second day
(whereas 'Achar' would mean the seventy-first).
(d) The reason for this adjustment is - because, according to Rav, even if
the son had been born on the seventy first day, the father would have been
permitted to shave on the hundred and first day, and it is only if he was
born on the seventy-second, that the thirtieth day turns out to be on the
hundred and second day (a day too late).
(a) The problem with the previous explanation is - that the Reisha stated
'Nolad Ad Shiv'im Lo Hifsid K'lum', when, according to Rav, the Tana could
even have said 'Nolad le'Achar Shiv'im ... '. Consequently, we can imply
from the Reisha that the Seifa means literally 'Achar' and not 'Achar
(b) We therefore conclude that the Tana of our Mishnah does not hold like
Rav, and that, according to him ...
1. ... 'le'Achar Shiv'im' - must be taken literally to mean on the
(c) The Mishnah in the following Perek reckons the thirtieth day as both the
last day of the first Nezirus and the first day of the second Nezirus (like
Rav in our Sugya) - only because the thirtieth day concludes the first
Nezirus; whereas the seventieth day in our Mishnah does not conclude the
first term of Nezirus, in which it cannot also serve as the first day of the
second Nezirus (though Rav holds that it can).
2. ... the seventieth day belongs to the first term of Nezirus which is
already in progress - but not to the second term.
(a) According to the Tana of a Beraisa, someone who buries his dead three
days before Yom-Tov is no longer obligated to keep the Dinim of Shiv'ah. For
the Sheloshim to fall away - he would have to bury him eight days before
(b) Regarding the Shiv'ah, it is wearing shoes and Tashmish ha'Mitah that
become permitted. Regarding the Sheloshim - it is shaving.
(c) The first of these two Dinim is not actually Halachah - because we rule
in Mo'ed Katan that if the Aveil began his Aveilus even just one hour before
Yom-Tov, the Shiv'ah falls away with the advent of Yom-Tov.
(d) According to the Tana Kama, even if the deceased relative was buried
eight days before Yom-Tov, he will remain forbidden to shave after Yom-Tov -
if he did not avail himself of the concession to shave 'li'Chevod Yom-Tov'.
(a) Aba Shaul disagrees with the Tana Kama in this last point. According to
him, the Aveil is permitted to shave after Yom-Tov whether he shaved before
Yom-Tov or not. He also argues with him regarding the eight days required to
negate the Din of Sheloshim. According to him - just as observing the
minimum three-day period of mourning before Yom-Tov negates the Din of
Shiv'ah, so too, does observing the *seven days* of Shiv'ah negate the Din
(b) Despite the fact that the Aveil has not observed a full day of the
Sheloshim - he has observed half a day, Aba Shaul nevertheless considers the
Sheloshim negated - because he holds 'Yom Shevi'i Oleh le'Ka'an u'le'Ka'an'.
(c) We cannot however, resolve the problem of Rav arguing with our Mishnah
by establishing him like Aba Shaul - because Aba Shaul might restrict his
ruling to Aveilus, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan, but when it comes to
Nezirus, which is d'Oraysa, he may well disagree with Rav.
(a) So we try to establish Rav like Rebbi Yossi, who says - that a Shomeres
Yom Keneged Yom for whom they Shechted the Korban Pesach and sprinkled its
blood, but who subsequently had a second sighting of blood ...
1. ... is not permitted to partake of it.
(b) The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi say - that she is also obligated to bring a
2. ... is nevertheless not obligated to bring a Pesach Sheini.
(c) Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because he holds that part of the day is like
the entire day. Consequently, she is considered Tahor as far as the previous
day's sighting is concerned (i.e. it does not combine with it to make her a
Zavah), and she is only Tamei from the time of the sighting - giving the day
a dual status (like Rav).
(d) We reject the text 'mi'Mai, ve'Dilma Mishum de'ka'Savar mi'Ka'an
u'le'Haba Hu Metamei' - on the grounds that that S'vara is actually part of
the proof for Rav, as we just explained.
(a) Rebbi Yossi's previous stance (where he holds that a Shomeres Yom
ke'Neged Yom is only Tamei from the time of the sighting) appears to clash
with his own opinion in another Beraisa, where he says in a similar case
(with regard to both a Zav who has already had two sightings and a Shomeres
Yom Keneged Yom) 'Af-al-Pi she'Metam'in Mishkav u'Moshav *Lemafre'a*,
Peturin mi'La'asos Pesach Sheini'.
(b) We resolve the two statements - by establishing the latter Beraisa
'Lemafre'a de'Rabbanan' (but min ha'Torah, he is only Tamei from the time
that he sees). They cannot therefore, bring a Pesach Sheini, because it
would be 'Chulin la'Azarah'.
(c) We try to prove this answer from the fact that they are Patur from
bringing the Pesach Sheini. We reject this proof however, on the grounds
that they might be Patur from Pesach Sheini even if they were Metamei
retroactively mid'Oraysa - because Rebbi Yossi holds that Tum'as ha'Tehom
(even of Zivus) does not apply to the Korban Pesach ('Halachah le'Moshe
(d) Any Tum'ah that was unknown at the time of the sprinkling of the blood
of the Pesach is considered 'Tum'as ha'Tehom'.
(a) Rebbi Oshaya quotes a Beraisa that a Zav who has a sighting on his
seventh day, demolishes the clean days that preceded the sighting. Rebbi
Yochanan asked him 'Lo Yistor Ela Yomo'? - a text which cannot possibly be
correct, since one either demolishes all seven days or nothing at all.
(b) He would not even demolish that day - because not to demolish seven days
(because part of the day is like the whole day) means that his second
sighting is considered like the first sighting of a Zav, which has the Din
of a Ba'al Keri, who is only Tamei until the evening, when he Tovels and is
(c) We therefore amend Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya to read 'Lo Yistor ve'Lo
Yomo' ('He should not even demolish that day either)?
(a) Rebbi Oshaya's comment that Rebbi Yossi agrees with Rebbi Yochanan is
difficult to understand - because whereas Rebbi Yochanan holds that the
Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom is Tamei only from the time of the sighting, Rebbi
Yossi explicitly said that she is Tamei retroactively.
(b) We resolve the problem comment however - by equating Rebbi Oshaya with
Rav who, we explained earlier, explains Rebbi Yossi to mean 'Tamei