ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 17
NAZIR 17 - Dedicated in memory of Menachem Mendel ben Yitzchak, who had a
great love for Torah and Am Yisroel.
(a) The Beraisa makes a distinction between 'Tamei she'Nazar' - who, after
sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah on the third and seventh days,
Tovels and proceeds to count thirty days of Nezirus de'Taharah already from
the seventh day, and 'Tahor she'Nitma', who cannot begin counting until he
has also brought his Korban Nezirus Tamei (a Chatas ha'Of, an Olas ha'Of and
a lamb for an Asham) on the eighth day.
(b) The basis for this distinction is - the fact that the former is not
obligated to bring a Korban for his Tum'ah, whereas the latter does.
(c) Despite the fact that a Tamei she'Nazar still has to wait for nightfall
to become Tahor, his Nezirus can nevertheless take effect - because the
Tum'ah of a T'vul Yom (who is only waiting for nightfall) is too weak to
prevent the Nezirus from taking effect (Tosfos).
(a) The problem from the previous Beraisa with Resh Lakish, who holds that
Nezirus be'Tum'ah is not effective is - that if, as he maintains, the
Nezirus of a Tamei she'Nazar is not effective at all, why should the seventh
day be considered the first day of his thirty-day term?
(b) We cannot answer that 'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma' speaks when he reaffirmed
his Nezirus after becoming Tahor - because then the Tana ought to have
included this distinction in the Beraisa (Tosfos).
(c) The Tana does not include the distinction that ...
1. ... Nazir Tahor she'Nitma who drinks wine receives Malkos, whereas a
Tamei she'Nazar does not, according to Resh Lakish - because we are only
concerned with rectifying the Nazir, not with one who sins (as we shall see
(d) So Mar bar Rav Ashi subsequently amends Resh Lakish's opinion to read -
that he does not receive Malkus for his Tum'ah, (but he concedes that he his
Nezirus takes effect).
2. ... Nazir Tahor she'Nitma brings a Korban for becoming Tamei, whereas a
Tamei she'Nazar does not, according to Rebbi Yochanan - because that is
inherent in the distinction that the Tana already makes.
(a) Resh Lakish now agrees with Rebbi Yochanan in all other regards - and a
Tamei she'Nazar who shaves or who drinks wine whilst he is still Tamei will
(b) Their bone of contention is - whether he is Chayav Malkos for Tum'ah
(like he is Chayav for drinking wine and shaving), because the Torah only
precluded him from a Korban of Tum'ah (Rebbi Yochanan), or whether he is
precluded from Malkos of Tum'ah, too (Resh Lakish).
(a) According to Resh Lakish, the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Mi she'Nazar
ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros ... ve'Eino Meivi Korban Tum'ah', not to imply that
he does receive Malkos, but to balance the Seifa, which states 'Yatza
ve'Nichnas, Oleh Lo min ha'Minyan, '*u'Meivi Korban Tum'ah.
(b) And he explains that the Beraisa 'Ein Bein Tamei she'Nazar le'Nazir
Tahor she'she'Nitma Ela Tamei she'Nazar Shevi'I she'Lo Oleh Lo le'Minyan ...
', does not mean to imply that as far as Malkos is concerned, they are the
same - but that they are the same regarding shaving and drinking wine.
(c) 'le'Tiglachas Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin' means that as far as the Mitzvah of
shaving on the seventh day of his Taharah is concerned, they have the same
Din (this is Rava's She'eilah on Amud Beis).
(d) Despite the fact that, according to Resh Lakish, there is a distinction
regarding Malkos of Tum'ah, between a Tamei she'Nazar and a Nazir Tahor
she'Nitma, the Tana nevertheless declines to mention it - because he is
concerned with rectifying the Nazir, not with the Din of one who sinned.
(a) According to Resh Lakish, the Tana does not make a distinction between a
Tamei she'Nazar (who is permitted to be Metamei himself again) and a Nazir
Tahor she'Nitma, who is not (since this is a Takanah and not a Kilkul) -
because this statement a fallacy, and in fact, even a Tamei she'Nazar is
forbidden to become Tamei (even though he does not receive Malkos for doing
(b) Resh Lakish - has no answer to the Beraisa which sentences a Tamei
she'Nazar who shaves, drinks wine or becomes Tamei, to Malkos. It proves him
(c) He did not answer that the Beraisa speaks when he was 'Yotze ve'Nichnas
Shanah ve'Taval', like he himself answered above in this very Beraisa -
because it appears that the prohibition of Tum'ah, like that of shaving and
drinking wine, takes effect immediately. But above, where he maintained that
the Isur of Tum'ah does not effect anyway as long as the Nazir remains in
the cemetery, all that was needed was to find a case where Tum'ah is
(a) Rava asked whether 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros' requires a time
period before receiving Malkos or not. He thought that he might - because we
find such a Halachah by someone who becomes Tamei in the Beis Hamikdash.
(b) The She'eilah cannot pertain to a case where they warned him not to
undertake the Nezirus, and he did - because then, it is obvious that he
would be Chayav immediately (in the same way as a Nazir Tahor who entered a
cemetery after being warned is Chayav immediately).
(c) This Sugya may hold that one receives Malkos even for a La'av where is
not action, or that not leaving the cemetery is considered a 'La'av she'Yesh
Bo Ma'aseh'. The Rav ha'Magid has no problem with La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh
(who, we normally hold, is not subject to Malkos) - because, according to
him, any La'av that can be contravened with an act, is subject to Malkos
even if one contravenes it without one.
(a) We finally establish the case of Rava's She'eilah - by a Nazir who
enters a cemetery in a box-like contraption, his friend came and opened the
roof and he did not leave the cemetery.
(b) The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether the Din of a minimum
time-limit (the time it takes to bow down 'Rashi') is restricted to Tum'ah
in the Beis Hamikdash, or whether it applies to outside the Beis Hamikdash,
(c) If he removed the cover himself - he would certainly be Chayav
immediately (because the She'eilah only applies where the Tum'ah was thrust
upon him through an O'nes (Tosfos).
(a) Rava then asks 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros Ta'un Gilu'ach O Lo'.
The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether shaving is applicable even
though there is no Korban Tum'ah, or whether the two are interdependent.
(b) This She'eilah will not extend to the shaving that is due to take place
after the Nazir becomes Tahor and goes on to complete his Nezirus
de'Taharah - because there, it is obvious that he is obligated to shave.
(a) From the Beraisa 'Mi she'Nazar, ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros, Afilu Hayah
Sham Sheloshim Yom ... ve'Eino Meivi Korban Tum'ah', we attempt to resolve
(by inference) Rav Ashi's She'eilah - whether 'Nazar ve'Hu be'Veis
ha'Kevaros' requires shaving at the termination of his Tum'ah or not.
(b) We refute the proof from there, by fusing the two issues (rather than
differentiating between them, i.e.) - the reason that he does not bring a
Korban Tum'ah is because he does not require shaving (since the two are
(c) And we refute the proof from the Beraisa 'Ein Bein Tamei she'Nazar
le'Nazir Tahor she'Nitma Ela Tamei she'Nazar, Shevi'i she'Lo Oleh Lo min
ha'Minyan ... ' (from which we can infer 'Ha le'Tiglachas, Zeh ve'Zeh
Shavin') by rather inferring 'Ha le'Malkos, Zeh ve'Zeh Shavin' (see above
(d) Even though that would mean that Tamei she'Nazar and Nazir Tahor
she'Nitma differ as regards shaving, the Tana declined to insert that
distinction in the Beraisa - because it is inherent in the existing
distinction 'Shevi'i she'Lo Oleh ... ', which teaches us that a Tamei
she'Nazar does not bring a Korban, which in turn, is due to the fact that he
does not need to shave (as we just explained).
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa learns that the days that a Nazir is a Metzora
Muchlat cannot be counted in the days of Nezirus - from a 'Binyan Av' from
the days when he is Tamei Meis.
(b) We refute this Limud however - on the grounds that not only are the days
of Tum'ah not counted, but they even demolish the entire Nezirus as well and
he needs to begin counting all over again (which a Metzora Muchlat does
(c) We cannot however, learn from Tum'ah that Tzara'as too, demolishes the
entire Nezirus - because of the Pasuk "Al Tum'aso", from which we deduce
that Tum'ah demolishes the Nezirus, but not shaving and Tzara'as (Tosfos).
(a) So we learn the Din of a Metzora from a Nazir be'Kever with a 'Kal
va'Chomer - if a Nazir be'Kever, whose hair is fit for shaving, yet his days
of Tum'ah are not counted in the Nezirus, the days of Tzara'as, which *are*
fit for shaving, should certainly not be counted.
(b) We attempt to prove from there - that after a Nazir be'Tum'ah (which we
presume the Tana is referring to) becomes Tahor, he is obligated to shave.
(a) We counter 'Lo, be'Tiglachas Taharah'. In that case, when the Beraisa
says 'u'Mah Nazir be'Kever she'Sa'aro Ra'uy le'Tiglachas, Ein Olin Lo min
ha'Minyan, Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas, Lo Kol she'Kein'? The
meaning of ...
1. ... 'Nazir be'Kever she'Sa'aro Ra'uy le'Tiglachas' is - that at the end
of the thirty days following the seven days of Tum'ah, he stands to shave.
(b) We try to prove that the Tana must be speaking about shaving after the
days of Taharah, from the statement 'Yemei Chaluto she'Ein Ra'uy
le'Tiglachas' - because if the Tana was speaking about shaving after the
days of Tum'ah, a Metzora who became Tamei too, requires shaving when his
2. ... 'Yemei Chaluto, she'Ein Ra'uy le'Tiglachas' is - that he does not
stand to shave when the days of his Tzara'as terminate, because he will then
be obligated to shave as a result of his Tzara'as.
(c) We cannot consider the second shaving of the Metzora after he has
counted his final seven days as 'Tiglachas de'Taharah' - because even during
those final days he renders anyone who touches him, Tamei (in which case his
shaving is a 'Tiglachas de'Tum'ah') Tosfos.
(d) We reject this proof (that the Tana is talking about Tiglachas
de'Tum'ah) - by concluding that the Tana is talking neither about Tiglachas
de'Tum'ah nor Tiglachas de'Taharah, but about Tiglachas di'Nezirus (which
pertains to a Nazir be'Kever [even when he is Tamei] but not to a Nazir who
is also a Metzora (since *he* shaves because he is a Metzora and not because
of his Nezirus).