Previous daf

1)

(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether the four shavings in our Mishnah are a Mitzvah or whether their objective is purely to remove the hair.
What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?

(b) Three out of the four shavings have already been established as Mitzvos, and Rami bar Chama is only really asking about the fourth one.
Which one is that?

(c) How do we account for the fact that the Sugya in 'Sheloshah Minim' learns Nazir Tamei from Nazir Tahor outright in this regard?

(d) Why must Rami bar Chama be speaking when some of the Nazir's hair was already shaved off with a razor?

(a) We resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from the Beraisa cited above 'u'Megalei'ach Arba Tiglachi'os'.
What do we prove from there?

(b) Considering that the third shaving in this Beraisa incorporates the possibility that he is a Nazir Tahor, which requires a razor anyway, what is the proof from there?

3)

(a) Is Nezirus applicable to ...

1. ... Nochrim?
2. ... women and slaves?

(b) What Chumra applies to slaves in this regard but not to women?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso (written in connection with a Nazir) ...

1. ... "Daber el B'nei Yisrael"?
2. ... "ve'Amarta Aleihem"?

(d) Are Nochrim included in the Parshah of Nedarim?

(a) Why at first glance, should we not even require a Pasuk to include Avadim in the Parshah of Nezirus?

(b) How does the Pasuk "Le'esor Isar al Nafsho" change this?

(c) But that Pasuk speaks about Nedarim, and not about Nezirus?

(a) What does the Tana in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (written in connection with Erchin) ...

1. ... "Daber el B'nei Yisrael"?
2. ... "Ish"?

(b) What ought we then to learn from the Pesukim (written in connection with Nezirus) "Daber el B'nei Yisrael" and "Ish (Ki Yidor .. )"?

(c) So we initially learn that Nezirus does not apply to a Nazir at all - from the Pasuk "le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo *Yitama*" (to preclude a Nochri, who is not subject to Tum'ah, because he does not have a father).
Does this mean that a Nochri does not inherit his father?

(a) What does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan learn from the Pasuk in Devarim "Ki Yerushah le'Eisav Nasati es Har Se'ir"?

(b) Then why can we not apply the above D'rashah ("le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo Yitama") like this: 'Whoever is obligated to honor his father is included in the Parshah of Nezirus, but not a Nochri, who is not'?

(c) Why did we not refute the previous suggestion (that Nochrim are precluded because they do have parents with regard to inheritance - seeing as inheritance is not mentioned in the Pasuk either)?

(d) What do we then learn from ...

1. ... "le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo Yitama" (Emor)?
2. ... "ve'Ish Asher Yitma ve'Lo Yischata ve'Nichresah ha'Nefesh ha'Hi *Mitoch ha'Kahal*" (Chukas)?

7)

(a) On what grounds do we retract from the previous D'rashah (that Nochrim are not subject to Tum'ah from "ve'Ish Asher Yitma ve'Lo Yischata ve'Nichresah ha'Nefesh ha'Hai Mitoch ha'Kahal")?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Chukas ...

1. ... "ve'Haysah la'Adas B'nei Yisrael le'Mishmeres ... "?
2. ... "ve'Hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei"?

(c) Why do we retract from this D'rashah, according to Tosfos ...

1. ... first explanation?
2. ... second explanation

(d) What do we then learn from the Pasuk there "ve'Ish Asher Yitma ve'Lo Yischata"?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Behar "Vehisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem Achareichem"?

(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov tries to reinstate the initial D'rashah that we cited from "le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo Yitamo" (that a Nochri, who does not inherit his father is not subject to Tum'ah).
How does he answer the Kashya that we asked there from Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who learns from the Pasuk "Ki Yerushah le'Eisav Nasati es Har Se'ir" (that a Nochri inherits his father by Torah-law) by means of the fact that a Nochri cannot inherit an Eved Cena'ani?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this explanation?

(d) From where do we know that one Eved Cena'ani cannot acquire another Eved Kena'ani (even if he receives him on the express condition that his master should have no jurisdiction over them?

(a) Rava reinstates the Tana's original D'rashah "Daber el B'nei Yisrael ... " (but not Nochrim).
How does he resolve the problem that this Pasuk would then preclude Nochrim from bringing a Korban Nazir, but that "Ish" would include them as far as becoming Nezirim is concerned?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with Korbanos) "Ish Ish"?

(c) And what does Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili learn from the last word in the Pasuk "le'Olah"?s

(d) And how do we know that "Ish" does not come to teach us that a Nochri can be a Nazir, and "B'nei Yisrael", that ...

1. ... a Nochri cannot declare a permanent Nezirus?
2. ... he cannot declare his son to be a Nazir?
3. ... the children of a Nochri are not permitted to shave on the money that their deceased father designated for his Korban?

Next daf