1)

(a)S'tam Nezirus lasts thirty days. The Tana of our Mishnah requires a Nazir who shaved his head or who was shaved by someone else, to count another thirty days. Is this always the case? What will be the Din if he shaved ...

1. ... on the twentieth day of his Nezirus?

2. ... on the thirtieth day of a sixty-day Nezirus?

(b)The Torah writes "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Rosho". Is a Nazir Chayav Malkos for cutting his hair with scissors or for pulling out hair with his hand?

(c)How many hairs must he cut in order to be Chayav?

1)

(a)S'tam Nezirus lasts thirty days. The Tana of our Mishnah requires a Nazir who shaved his head or who was shaved by someone else, to count another thirty days, assuming that he shaved on the last day of his Nezirus (because he must have a thirty-day growth before he shaves at the termination of his Nezirus. If he shaved ...

1. ... on the twentieth day of his Nezirus - he will only need to count an extra twenty days (to make up the thirty-day growth).

2. ... on the thirtieth day of a sixty-day Nezirus - he will not have to count any extra days at all (seeing as he has a thirty-day growth already).

(b)The Torah writes "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor al Rosho". Nevertheless - a Nazir is Chayav Malkos for cutting his hair with scissors or for pulling out hair with his hands (anything in fact, that destroys his hair like a razor).

(c)He is Chayav - even if he cuts only one hair.

2)

(a)We ask whether hair grows from the tip or from the root. What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?

(b)What is the significance of that Shiur?

2)

(a)We ask whether hair grows from the tip or from the root. The ramifications of this She'eilah are - if robbers trimmed his hair, leaving a sufficient length of hair to bend each one until its tip touches its root; if the hair grows from its roots, then by cutting-off half of the hairs, they will have removed his original hair of Nezirus, and he will be required to count extra days accordingly; whereas if it grows from the tip, his original hair will remain, and he will not be obligated to count any extra time.

(b)The significance of that Shiur is - that it is a seven-day growth, which is considered a substantial growth.

3)

(a)Why can we not prove that the hair grows from the tip from ...

1. ... a species of louse called 'Beitzei Kinim', which remain on the head even though the hair grows?

2. ... dead 'Beitzei Kinim', which also remain on the head even though the hair grows?

(b)What is 'B'luris shel Kushim'?

(c)Why is there no proof from 'B'luris shel Kushim', which they plaited firmly, but the plaits came loose as the hair grew, that the hair must grow from its roots?

3)

(a)We cannot prove that hair grows from the tip from ...

1. ... 'Beitzei Kinim', a species of louse which remains on the head even though the hair grows, because it could be that, as the hair grows, the Beitzei Kinim (which apparently have life) move down to the root (where they feels more comfortable).

2. ... dead Beitzei Kinim, which also remain on the head even though the hair grows, because once they die, the Beitzei Kinim do not have the strength to cling to the hair as it grows, and they simply slide down the hair to the root.

(b)A 'B'luris shel Kushim' is - a shock of hair which idolaters would allow to grow around the circumference of the head as a form of idol-worship, which they then would make into plaits.

(c)There is no proof from 'B'luris shel Kushim', which they plaited firmly, but the plaits came loose as the hair grew, that the hair must grow from the roots - because even if it grew from the tip, the plaits would tend to come loose, due to the weight of the hair that would subsequently grow on top of it.

4)

(a)We finally resolve our She'eilah from the Mishnah in Bechoros concerning the painting of animals that had been designated for Ma'aser Beheimah. What do prove from there?

(b)What second proof do we bring from men's beards?

(c)How could we have brought the same proof from the animals of Ma'aser Beheimah?

4)

(a)We finally resolve our She'eilah from the Mishnah in Bechoros concerning the painting of animals that had been designated for Ma'aser Beheimah - the paint which would cause the hair to mat, and then, as more hair grew, the collection of hair close to the skin grew loose, the matted hair being the end that was remove from the animal's body, a clear proof that hair grows from the roots.

(b)The second proof that we bring is from men's beards - which first turn white at the roots, another proof that the hair grows from the roots.

(c)We could have brought the same proof from the animals of Ma'aser Beheimah - whose painted wool, as it continued to grow, remained white at the roots, with the painted section at the tip (Tosfos).

39b----------------------------------------39b

5)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about a Nazir whom robbers shaved, leaving sufficient hair to bend the tips to the roots?

(b)What problem do we have with this Beraisa based on what we just learned earlier?

(c)How do we answer this Kashya? Regarding which day is the Tana speaking, what does 'Eino Soser' mean, and who is the author of this Beraisa?

(d)What is Rebbi Eliezer's source for the seven-days growth by Nezirus Taharah?

5)

(a)The Beraisa says that a Nazir whom robbers shaved, leaving sufficient hair to bend the tip to the roots - does not need to demolish his Nezirus.

(b)The problem with this is - that we just learned earlier that if (as we just concluded) the hair grows from its roots, then the Nazir is obligated to count another thirty days.

(c)We answer - by establishing the shaving as having taken place on the thirtieth day (after the termination of the Nezirus). 'Eino Soser' means that he doesn't demolish thirty days, but seven, and the author is Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that once the Nezirus has terminated ('Achar Me'los'), the Nazir only demolishes seven days.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer's source for the seven-days growth by Nezirus of Taharah is - from Nezirus of Tum'ah (where he is forced to wait seven days until he is sprinkled with the Eifer ha'Parah on the third and seventh days, before shaving).

6)

(a)According to the Rabbanan, a Nazir who shaves on the thirtieth day is obligated to count another thirty days before terminating his Nezirus. From where do they learn this?

(b)To what extent would the robbers have to shave the Nazir's head on the thirtieth day for him to not be obligated to begin his Nezirus again?

(c)Is there any way of establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan?

(d)In which way might the Din differ if we would establish the Beraisa like them?

6)

(a)According to the Rabbanan, a Nazir who shaves on the thirtieth day is obligated to count another thirty days before terminating his Nezirus - and they learn this from a Nazir who became Tamei on his thirtieth day, and who is required to start his Nezirus all over again (Tosfos).

(b)If the robbers would leave a thirty-day growth - the Nazir would not be obligated to begin his Nezirus again

(c)It would be possible to establish the Beraisa like the Rabbanan - if he were to have shaved on the thirty-second or thirty-third day (Tosfos).

(d)If we would establish the Beraisa like them - then the Nazir might not be required to wait seven days before shaving (Tosfos).

7)

(a)If the robbers did not leave a seven-day growth on the Nazir's head, how many days would the he be obligated to count ...

1. ... according to Rebbi Eliezer?

2. ... according to the Rabbanan (assuming this happened on the thirty-second day)?

(b)Does this mean that he is completely absolved from shaving?

7)

(a)If the robbers did not leave a seven-day growth on the Nazir's head ...

1. ... he will be obligated to count thirty days - according to Rebbi Eliezer.

2. ... (assuming this happened on the thirty-second day) - he will not be obligated to count anything at all, according to the Rabbanan (i.e. he will be permitted to drink wine immediately after bringing his Korbanos).

(b)This does not mean that he is completely absolved from shaving. As a matter of fact - he has a Mitzvah to shave, and does not drink wine until he has done so, but there is no intrinsic Isur of drinking wine immediately.

8)

(a)We have already learned that a Nazir receives Malkos for destroying even one hair, irrespective of how he does it. Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Kadosh Yih'yeh, Gadeil Pera Se'ar Rosho" that he transgresses an Asei if he just trims it. How does Rebbi Yonasan explain the corollary between this Pasuk and that of "Ta'ar Lo Yavo al Rosho"?

(b)What does the Tana in a second Beraisa learn from "Lo Ya'avor al Rosho"?

(c)We ask why, seeing as the Torah anyway includes all forms of destruction, the Torah needs to write "Ta'ar". Why can we not answer that it writes "Ta'ar" in order to teach us that the La'av is confined to destroying the hair ('ke'Ein Ta'ar'), to preclude trimming?

8)

(a)We have already learned that a Nazir receives Malkos for destroying even one hair, irrespective of how he does it. Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Kadosh Yih'yeh, Gadeil Pera Se'ar Rosho" that he transgresses an Asei if he just trims it. According to Rebbi Yonasan, the corollary between this Pasuk and that of "Ta'ar Lo Yavo al Rosho" is - that he is Chayav only if he shaves with a razor, when he also transgresses an Asei. Trimming the Nazir's hair, in his opinion, is permitted.

(b)The Tana in a second Beraisa learns from "Lo Ya'avor al Rosho" - that the Nazir (or anyone else who shaves him) is Chayav for using anything that destroys his hair like a razor.

(c)We ask why, seeing as the Torah anyway includes all forms of destruction, the Torah needs to write "Ta'ar". We cannot answer that it writes "Ta'ar" in order to teach us that the La'av is confined to destroying the Nazir's hair ('ke'Ein Ta'ar'), to preclude trimming - because the Torah could then have written "Lo Yashchis".

9)

(a)We conclude that the Torah uses "Ta'ar" to teach us that the final Mitzvah of shaving the Nazir must be performed with a razor. Why can we not learn this from a Metzora, who shaves his hair specifically with a razor? In which way is the shaving of a Metzora more stringent than that of a Nazir?

(b)Rebbi disagrees with this D'rashah. What does he mean when he says 'Eino Tzarich'? From where does he learn that the Mitzvah must be performed with a razor?

(c)If, as Rebbi maintains, "Ta'ar" is needed for the La'av itself, why does the Torah then write "Ta'ar", seeing one is even Chayav for shaving by other means (like we asked earlier)?

(d)And how does Rebbi know this? How does he know that the Pasuk does not write "Ta'ar" specifically to teach us that the Mitzvah must be performed with a razor?

9)

(a)We conclude that the Torah uses "Ta'ar" to teach us that the final Mitzvah of shaving the Nazir must be performed with a razor. We cannot learn this from a Metzora, who shaves his hair specifically with a razor - because the shaving of a Metzora is more stringent than that of a Nazir, inasmuch as he must shave all his body-hair too (whereas a Nazir shaves only the hair of his head); and we cannot learn a Chumra from something which is already more stringent in other regards.

(b)Rebbi disagrees with this D'rashah. When he says 'Eino Tzarich', he means that we do not need to learn the obligation to shave with a razor through the means of 'Im Eino Inyan' (applying "Ta'ar" out of context). Because, according to him, it is explicitly inherent in the words "Ta'ar Lo Ya'avor ... ad Me'los Yemei Taharah" (when a razor must be used).

(c)According to Rebbi, the Torah writes "Ta'ar", despite the fact that the Nazir is even Chayav for shaving by other means - to include a second La'av should he use a razor.

(d)Rebbi knows that the Pasuk does not write "Ta'ar" specifically to teach us that the Mitzvah must be performed with a razor - because then it should have been inserted in the Parshah that deals with the termination of his Nezirus, rather than in the Parshah that deals with the Nazir's La'avin.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF