REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 22
NAZIR 21 & 22 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for Torah and those who study it.
(a) We already cited the Tana of the Beraisa that discusses what the Din
will be if a husband of a Nezirah annuls her Nezirus after she becomes Tamei
What happens to her Chatas ha'Of and her Olas ha'Of?
(b) Why did we only ask why the Nezirah brings her Chatas ha'Of, and not her
*Olas ha'Of*? Why did we not also ask why she does not bring her *Asham*,
which has the same Din as the Olah in this regard?
(c) To reconcile this with the side of the She'eilah which holds that a
husband uproots his wife's Nedarim retroactively, we establish the Beraisa
like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar (and her Chatas comes to atone for abstaining
from what the Torah permits).
How do we distinguish between this case and
that of the Beraisa on the previous Amud, where the husband of a Nezirah
Tehorah annulled her Nezirus, and where we compared her Chatas to a 'Chatas
she'Meisah Ba'alehah' *without citing Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar*?
(d) How could we also reconcile the two Beraisos by amending the Beraisa
currently under discussion?
(a) We finally resolve our She'eilah from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana
there say about a man who annulled his wife's Nezirus after her friend heard
her and said 'va'Ani'?
(b) What does this prove?
(c) How do we reconcile this with the Sugya above, where we proved from the
Beraisa which obligated the Nezirah to bring her Chatas but not her Olah,
that a husband uproots a Neder retroactively?
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon in the current Beraisa, what will be the Din
if the friend says 'Hareini Kamosech'?
Answers to questions
(b) How does the Ri (in Tosfos) reconcile Rebbi Shimon with the Mishnah in
the first Perek, which based on the principle 'Ein Nezirus la'Chatza'in',
rules that someone who undertakes Nezirus for one day only, remains a Nazir
for thirty days?
(c) According to the Ri, Rebbi Shimon is coming to explain the Tana Kama,
not to argue with him.
How does Rabeinu Peretz explain Rebbi Shimon?
(a) What She'eilah did Rami bar Chama ask about someone who declared 'Harei
Alai ki'Besar Zevach Shelamim'? What is ...
(b) How does Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Mari resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah
from the above Beraisa?
- ... 'be'Ikra' (or 'me'Ikara')?
- ... 'bi'Tzenana'?
(c) How do others differentiate between the two cases?
(d) What is the final word in the Sugya on this matter?
(a) Bearing in mind that the Sugya in Nedarim establishes Rami bar Chama's
She'eilah after the blood has already been sprinkled and the Shelamim is
permitted, how can we compare it to the above Beraisa, which speaks when the
friend said 'va'Ani' whilst her friend was still a Nezirah? Maybe that is
why we go after 'Ikra', but not in the case of Rami bar Chama, where the
Noder declared the Neder at the time when the Shelamim was already
(b) Others explain the Sugya differently. According to them, Mar Zutra B'rei
de'Rav Mari proves from Rami bar Chama that the Beraisa might even hold that
a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively (like the previous Sugya
In that case, why does the friend remain Asur after the
husband annulled the Nezirus?
(c) There are however, numerous problems with this explanation.
the first of these problems which emanates from the words of Rami bar Chama
(d) Another problem is the Sugya above, which discussed the ramifications of
the She'eilah whether the husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively,
or only from now on. What were those ramifications? How does that disprove
this interpretation of Rami bar Chama?
(a) If the friend said 'be'Ikvech', she might mean that she wants to be like
her friend ultimately turns out to be (a Nezirah if her friend's husband
does not annul her Nezirus, but permitted, if he does).
What else might
(b) What do we attempt to prove from our Mishnah 'ha'Ishah she'Nadrah
be'Nazir ve'Shama Ba'alah va'Amar 'va'Ani', Eino Yachol Lehafer'?
(c) How can we even attempt to prove anything from there, seeing as the
husband said 'va'Ani' and not 'be'Ikvech'?
(d) How do we refute the proof from there? Why would the husband's Hafarah
be ineffective, even if we were to say 'be'Ikra ka'Matfis'?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that, if a man says to his wife 'Hareini Nazir
ve'At, ve'Amrah Amen, Meifer es she'Lah, ve'Shelo Kayam'. We have a problem
from a Beraisa, which states 'Sh'neihem Asurin'.
Answers to questions
What does the Seifa of
the Beraisa say, with regard to where she did not say 'Amen'?
(b) What is the Tana's reason ...
(c) Rav Yehudah amends the Beraisa, adding a (middle) section to read like
our Mishnah. There are now three sections in the Beraisa. The Reisha, which
rules that if he did not annul her Neder, both are forbidden, does not teach
- ... in the Reisha?
- ... in the Seifa?
What is then the Chidush of the Beraisa?
(d) Abaye slightly amends the Reisha, without adding anything else to the
What is the difference according to him, between the text of our
Mishnah and that of the Beraisa? What does 'Hareini Nazir ve'At' of our