REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
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
What is the difference between a Kinuy and a Yad?
(b) The Tana lists the Kinuyin: 'Nazir, Nazik, Nezi'ach, Pezi'ach'.
'Nazir' included in the list?
(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.
What distinction do they draw
between these three Leshonos and other words?
(a) According to Resh Lakish, these Leshonos are expressions introduced by
Why did they institute them?
(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.
How does Rebbi Yechiel qualify Yadei N'zirus?
(a) 'ha'Omer Ehei, Harei Zeh Nazir'.
Under which category of Neder does
(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, what is the Chidush of this Mishnah?
(c) 'Hareini Mesalsel, Hareini Mechalkel, Harei Alai Leshalei'ach Pera'.
Is this a Kinuy or a Yad? Under which circumstances is such a Neder
(a) What is Nazir doing in Seder Nashim rather than in Kodshim?
(b) Why did we not ask the same Kashya with regard to Nedarim?
(c) Why do we 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)? What would the order
then have been?
(d) So why do we need the answer in Sotah? Why will the answer in our Sugya
(a) The Tana begins the Mishnah with Kinuyin, but first explains Yados.
How does 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 resolve this problem?
Answers to questions
(b) What problem do we have with Rava's answer from the Mishnahs 'Bameh
Beheimah Yotz'ah, u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', and from 'Yesh Nochlin
u'Manchilin, Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin ... '?
(c) We answer that the Tana sometimes explains the first statement first,
and sometimes the last.
Why in the above cases, does he explain the last
case first with regard to 'Bameh Ishah Yotz'ah u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', and
the first case first ...
(d) And if the Tana explains Yados first because it is learned from a
D'rashah ("Nazir Leshazir la'Hashem"), which is dear to him, then why does
he begin the Mishnah with Kinuyin?
- ... regarding 'Bameh Beheimah Yotz'ah, u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah'?
- ... regarding 'Yesh Nochlin u'Manchilin, Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin ... '
(a) How does the Tana of our Mishnah know that 'Ehei' means 'Ehei Nazir' and
not 'Ehei be'Ta'anis'?
(b) We try to prove from here that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos
Lo Havyan Yadayim'.
Why do we take for granted that it is a Yad? Why would
'Ehei' imply more N'zirus than a Ta'anis?
(c) We answer that Shmuel does indeed hold that 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos
Lo Havyan Yadayim'.
In that case, what does the fact that a Nazir is
passing in front of him achieve?
(d) Other texts reject the proof that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Einan
Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim' (presenting a more conventional way of
explaining a Sugya that begins with the word 'Leima ... '.
On what grounds
do Tosfos prefer the first explanation?
(a) And how do 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')?
(b) What is then the Chidush? What would we have thought had the Tana not
taught us that his Neder is effective?
(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 one declares unintentionally is not considered a Neder.
How can we
prove this from our very Sugya?
(a) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Beshalach "Zeh Keili
(b) Then how does the Tana of our Mishnah know that 'Na'eh Nazir' refers to
N'zirus, and not to performing Mitzvos beautifully?
(c) But surely, Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar has taught us that N'zirus itself is
an Aveirah, so how can 'Ehei Na'eh' pertain to N'zirus?
(a) Why does Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who considers a Nazir a sinner, confine
his opinion to a Nazir Tamei? What is the difference between the two?
We just explained that the case of 'Ehei' speaks when a Nazir passed in
front of him, and that of 'Ehei Na'eh' when he was holding his hair.
(b) How can we say that Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar does not consider a Nazir
Tahor a sinner, when in a number of places, he specifically refers to a
Nazir as a sinner because he abstained from wine?
could we not switch the answers, and say ...
Answers to questions
- ... that the case of 'Ehei' speaks - when he was holding his hair?
- ... that the case of 'Ehei Na'eh' - when a Nazir was walking past?