REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 10
(a) According to Beis Shamai, if a man says 'Amrah Parah Zu Hareini Nezirah
Im Omedes Ani' or 'Amrah De'les Zeh Hareini Nezirah Im Niftach Ani', the man
is a Nazir.
What do Beis Hillel say?
(b) How does Rebbi Yehudah interpret Beis Shamai?
(a) Cows simply do not speak, and it is the man who is assessing what the
cow (or someone who sees the cow in that state) is probably thinking.
does Rami bar Chama explain our Mishnah? What exactly is the case (how did
the Noder assess the crouching cow's thoughts, and what was the gist of his
subsequent Neder - according to Rabeinu Peretz's explanation)?
(b) And what does 'Hareini Nezirah' mean?
(c) Which word (in our Mishnah) is difficult to explain according to Rami
bar Chama's interpretation of the Mishnah?
(d) What do we mean when we say 've'Halchu Beis Shamai le'Shitasan u'Veis
(a) According to Rami bar Chama, Beis Hillel argue three times over the same
point: by 'G'rog'ros', by 'Parah' and by 'De'les'.
Having taught us their
Machlokes by ...
(b) Why could the Tana not present the case without the detail of the cow
standing up (seeing as it does not add any Chidush to the Halachah)?
- ... G'rog'ros, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat it by 'Parah'?
- ... 'Parah', why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat it by 'De'les'?
- ... 'De'les', why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat it by the other two cases?
(c) On what grounds do we refute Rami bar Chama's explanation? Which word is
out of place?
(d) Does this mean that he could just as well have established our Mishnah
irrespective of whether the cow arose under its own steam or whether it was
(a) So Rava tries at first to establish our Mishnah when he said (with
regard to the same crouching cow) 'Harei Alai Korban Im Lo A'amidah'.
Answers to questions
does he mean by that?
(b) How can we possibly establish the case by a Korban, when our Mishnah
specifically says 'Hareini Nazir ... '?
(c) Since when does one bring a Korban Nazir from a cow?
(d) What problem do we have with explanation?
(a) To eliminate the previous Kashya - we amend Rava to read 'Hareini Nazir
mi'Yayin, Im Lo Amdah ('A'amodah')'.
What have we now added to the
(b) What happened next?
(c) Why is he a Nazir according to Beis Shamai, but not according to Beis
(d) Why do we query Rava on the grounds
that he has added the word 'Lo' which is not contained in the Mishnah
itself (like we asked above from the word 'Me'eilehah' that Rami bar Chama
added to the Mishnah)?
(a) What problem do we have with Rava's explanation, from Rebbi Yehudah in
the Seifa, in whose opinion, Beis Shamai declare the cow a Korban in the
event that it stands up?
(b) So we amend Rava's version of the Mishnah once more, to read 'Hareini
Nazir mi'Besarah Im Lo Amdah ('A'amodah'), ve'Amdah Me'eilehah'.
now the basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel? What
have we added to the previous version of Rava's interpretation?
(c) From what we just said according to Beis Hillel ('Turfei de'ha'Hu Gavra
Mishum de'Revi'a, ve'Ha Kamah', it seems that if the cow had not arisen,
then even Beis Hillel would concede that he is a Nazir.
How do we
reconcile this with another Beraisa which states 'mi'Besarah, Lo Havi
(d) What did Beis Shamai reply?
(a) What problem do we then have with the Lashon 'Hareini Nazir im *Lo*
(b) In the first answer, we explain that if we were to do so, Beis Hillel
would agree with Beis Shamai.
Why is that?
(c) What is the second answer?
(a) Seeing as, according to Rava, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over a
very different point than the one in the previous Mishnah (of 'G'rog'ros'),
is there any way that we can justify the statement 'mi'Tartei T'las' (that
we made according to Rami bar Chama) according to Rava?
Answers to questions
(b) Then how do we know that Beis Hillel argue with Beis Shamai with regard
to Rava's explanation? Perhaps they only argue as to whether 'Basar'
incorporates Nezirus or not?
(c) Seeing as, according to Beis Hillel, the Noder would not be a Nazir
anyway, due to the fact that he declared his Neder Nezirus over meat, why do
they argue over the implication of 'Im Lo Amdah'?
(d) Then why do they not argue in that case directly?