1)

(a)What does Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "v'Achar Yishteh ha'Nazir Yayin"?

(b)What do the Chachamim learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "v'Achar Yishteh ha'Nazir Yayin" and "Achar Hisgalcho es Nizro"?

(c)How do they know that the Torah does not mean to permit the Nazir to drink wine only after both the shaving and the bringing of the Korbanos?

1)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "v'Achar Yishteh ha'Nazir Yayin" - that it is only after the completion of all the Avodos (the shaving and the bringing of his Korbanos) that the Nazir is permitted to drink wine (and to render himself Tamei Mes).

(b)The Chachamim learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "v'Achar Yishteh ha'Nazir Yayin" and "Achar Hisgalcho Es Nizro"* - that just as the latter Pasuk speaks after one solitary act, so too, does the former. Consequently, the Nazir may drink wine even after the blood of just one of his Korbanos has been sprinkled.

(c)They know that the Torah does not mean to permit the Nazir to drink wine only after both the shaving and the bringing of the Korbanos - because for that one would not require a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

2)

(a)Rav rules that the Tenufah (waving) is not crucial to the Nazir's drinking wine and rendering himself Tamei. Why can this ruling not be according to the Rabanan?

(b)If on the other hand, he is going according to Rebbi Eliezer, why is it not also obvious? Why might the latter have considered the Tenufah an exception?

(c)In which connection do we refer to the Tenufah as 'Shiyarei Mitzvah'?

2)

(a)Rav rules that the Tenufah is not crucial to the Nazir's drinking wine and rendering himself Tamei. He cannot be going according to the Rabanan - because if the shaving (which is performed on the body of the Nazir) is not crucial, how much more so the Tenufah (which is not).

(b)If, on the other hand, he is going according to Rebbi Eliezer, it is not obvious at all - because the Tenufah is called 'Shiyarei Mitzvah' (a remnant of the Mitzvah), and not an intrinsic part of the Mitzvah, like we find in connection with ...

(c)... the Korban Oleh v'Yored of a Metzora.

46b----------------------------------------46b

3)

(a)We query Rav on the basis of the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim'. How do we initially interpret this Beraisa (to pose a Kashya on Rav)?

(b)And how do we know that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer and not the Rabanan?

3)

(a)We query Rav on the basis of the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim', which we initially interpret to mean - that just as someone who has no hands to perform the Tenufah can become a Nazir, so too, is someone who has hands but does not perform it Yotzei (because Tenufah is not crucial to the Mitzvah - a Kashya on Rav).

(b)We know that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer and not the Rabanan - because the Tana quotes the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" and not the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Achar" "Achar".

4)

(a)In another Beraisa, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over a Nazir Memorat. What is a 'Nazir Memorat'?

(b)Beis Shamai say 'Eino Tzarich Leha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho'. How does Ravina interpret this?

(c)What do Beis Hillel then hold?

(d)Rebbi Pedas adds that Beis Shamai and Rebbi Eliezer say the same thing. In the Mishnah in Nega'im, Rebbi Shimon says that if the Metzora has no right thumb or right big toe, the Kohen places the blood and the oil (used during the Metzora's purification ceremony) on the spot where they ought to be. What is the opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer?

2. ... the Rabanan?

4)

(a)In another Beraisa, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over a Nazir Memorat - a Nazir whose hair has fallen out.

(b)Beis Shamai say 'Eino Tzarich Leha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho' - which Ravina interprets to mean 'Eino Tzarich, v'Ein Lo Takanah' (there is no point in passing a razor, because it does not achieve anything).

(c)Beis Hillel then hold 'Tzarich Leha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho, v'Yesh Lo Takanah'.

(d)Rebbi Pedas adds that Beis Shamai and Rebbi Eliezer say the same thing. In the Mishnah in Nega'im, Rebbi Shimon says that if the Metzora has no right thumb or right big toe, the Kohen places the blood and the oil (used during the Metzora's purification ceremony) on the spot where they ought to be. The opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer is - that there is nothing he can do to become Tahor (he remains a Metzora for the rest of his life).

2. ... the Rabanan is - that if he has no right thumb and big-toe, he places the blood and the oil on the left one.

5)

(a)The Tana'im in both of the above Beraisos argue over whether 'Ba'inan Kra k'Dichsiv'. What does this mean?

(b)What is the opinion of ...

1. ... Beis Shamai and Rebbi Eliezer in this matter?

2. ... Beis Hillel and Rebbi Shimon?

(c)In light of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, how will we explain the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Sei'ar, Bein she'Ein Lo Sei'ar'? Is the Torah comparing 'Yesh Lo' to 'Ein Lo', or 'Ein Lo' to Yesh Lo'?

(d)How does this explanation vindicate Rav (from the Kashya that we asked on him from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim')?

5)

(a)The Tana'im in both of the above Beraisos argue over whether 'Ba'inan Kra k'Dichsiv' - whether one must take every detail specified by the Torah as literal, or whether they can sometimes be taken as examples, but not meant literally.

(b)The opinion of ...

1. ... Beis Shamai and Rebbi Eliezer in this matter - 'Ba'inan Kra k'Dichsiv'.

2. ... Beis Hillel and Rebbi Shimon is - 'Lo Ba'inan Kra k'Dichsiv'.

(c)In light of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, we will now explain the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Sei'ar, Bein she'Ein Lo Sei'ar'- to mean that the Torah is comparing 'Ein Lo Sei'ar' to 'Yesh Lo Sei'ar', to teach us that a Nazir who has no hair, requires shaving just like one who does, and since this is not possible, he is not Yotzei.

(d)This explanation vindicates Rav (from the Kashya that we asked on him from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim') - because just as Beis Shamai in this Beraisa is comparing 'Ein Lo Sei'ar' to 'Yesh Lo Sei'ar' (to teach us that Sei'ar is crucial to the Mitzvah), so too, in the earlier Beraisa, is he comparing 'Ein Lo Kapayim' to 'Yesh Lo Kapayim' to teach us that hands are crucial to the Mitzvah of Tenufah (like Rav).

6)

(a)In the second Lashon (which I am explaining according to Tosfos DH 'u'Peliga' final explanation, which follows our text), it is Rava who says that Tenufah is crucial. On what grounds ...

1. ... do we decline to establish Rava like Rebbi Eliezer?

2. ... are we initially hesitant to establish it like the Rabanan?

(b)How do we prove from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim' that even if he has hands, Tenufah is crucial?

(c)Why do we learn like this?

6)

(a)In the second Lashon (which I am explaining according to our text, following Tosfos DH 'u'Peliga' final explanation), it is Rava who says that Tenufah is crucial. On the ...

1. ... one hand, we decline to establish Rava like Rebbi Eliezer - because having already stated 'Achar Ma'asim Kulam', it is obvious that the Tenufah too, is crucial.

2. ... other hand, we are initially hesitant to establish it like the Rabanan - because if shaving is not crucial, why should Tenufah be (as we explained in the first Lashon)?

(b)We prove from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim' that even if he has hands, Tenufah is crucial - because of the Derashah of 'Zos Toras ... ", which implies that the Torah is coming to include cases of Nezirus (rather than to exclude them) ...

(c)... since "Toras" always comes to include.

7)

(a)What do we mean when we say that the Tenufah is crucial? How can it be more crucial to the Nazir drinking wine than shaving, which, according to the Rabanan, is not crucial?

(b)But we counter this from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Se'ar, Bein she'Ein Lo Sei'ar', proving that we must be comparing 'Yesh Lo Sei'ar' to 'Ein Lo' (to learn that it is not crucial as we explained earlier). How do we try to prove this from the Beraisa of 'Nazir Memorat'?

7)

(a)When we say that the Tenufah is crucial - we mean (not to the Nazir drinking wine [since it cannot possible be more crucial than shaving], but) to the validity of the Korban that he brings.

(b)But we counter this from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Sei'ar, Bein she'Ein Lo Sei'ar', proving that we must be comparing 'Yesh Lo Sei'ar' to 'Ein Lo' (to learn that it is not crucial as we explained earlier), by quoting the Beraisa of 'Nazir Memorat' - where Beis Hillel say 'Tzarich Leha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho'. This implies that the hair is not crucial (like bar Pada explained in the first Lashon), and if in the Beraisa of hair, it is not crucial, the Tenufah, in the Beraisa of Tenufah, is not crucial either (a Kashya on Rav).

8)

(a)How does Ravina refute this proof?

(b)What do Beis Shamai then mean when they say 'Eino Tzarich Leha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho'?

(c)In which point does Ravina disagree with Rebbi Pedas' interpretation of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel?

8)

(a)Ravina refutes this proof - by explaining Beis Hillel to mean 'Tzarich Leha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho, v'Ein Lo Takanah' (thereby conforming with Rav's statement).

(b)When Beis Shamai say 'Eino Tzarich Leha'avir Ta'ar al Rosho' - they must therefore mean that he does not need to shave, and that he is nevertheless Yotzei.

(c)Ravina disagrees with Rebbi Pedas' interpretation of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - inasmuch as, according to Rebbi Pedas, it is Beis Shamai who say 'Eino Tzarich, v'Ein Lo Takanah', and Beis Hillel who say 'Tzarich, v'Yesh Lo Takanah', whereas he holds the reverse.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if the Korban on which the Nazir shaved turned out to be Pasul, his shaving is invalid (and he remains a Nazir). What does Pasul mean?

(b)Why is he not even Yotzei the remaining Korbenos Nazir that he subsequently brings?

(c)The same applies to a Nazir who shaves on a Chatas which was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah, and who subsequently Slaughtered his other Korbanos Lishman. In which regard is a Chatas more stringent than an Olah or a Shelamim?

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if the Korban on which the Nazir shaved turned out to be Pasul, his shaving is invalid (and he remains a Nazir). 'Pasul' means - either that its blood spilled, or that its flesh left the precincts of the Azarah, or it became Tamei.

(b)He is not even Yotzei the remaining Korbenos Nazir that he subsequently brings - because, since he shaved without even the blood of one of the Korbanos having been sprinkled b'Hechsher, it is as if robbers had shaved him after the completion of his term of Nezirus.

(c)The same applies to a Nazir who shaves on a Chatas which was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah, who subsequently slaughtered his other Korbanos Lishman. A Chatas is more stringent than an Olah or a Shelamim - inasmuch as not only has the owner not fulfilled his obligation, but the Chatas is also Pasul (Presumably, the Tana inserts this case here, to teach us that even Rebbi Shimon, who argues by an Olah or a Shelamim she'Lo Lishman, will agree by a Chatas).

10)

(a)How many days will the Nazir now demolish according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer?

2. ... the Rabanan?

(b)Why, in both of the above cases, is the Nazir not Yotzei even the Korbanos that he brought after he shaved?

10)

(a)He will now have to demolish ...

1. ... seven days, according to Rebbi Eliezer.

2. ... thirty days, according to the Rabanan.

(b)In both of the above cases, the Nazir is not Yotzei even the Korbanos that he brought after he shaved - because he was unfit to shave at the time that he brought them, and it is considered as if he had brought them within his term of Nezirus.

11)

(a)If, after shaving on the Olah or the Shelamim she'Lo Lishmah, the Nazir then brought his other Korbanos Lishman, according to the Tana Kama, the same Din applies as in the above cases. Why is that?

(b)In this latter Halachah however, according to Rebbi Shimon, although he is not Yotzei with the shaving, he is Yotzei with the other Korbanos. What reason does Rav Ada bar Ahavah give for this?

(c)He learns this from the Pasuk in Tzav "al Todas Zevach Shelamav". How does he learn it from there?

(d)How does Rebbi Shimon learn from there that if after shaving on the Olah or the Shelamim she'Lo Lishmah, the Nazir then brings his other Korbanos Lishman, he is Yotzei those Korbanos?

11)

(a)If, after shaving on the Olah or the Shelamim she'Lo Lishmah, the Nazir then brought his other Korbanos Lishman, according to the Tana Kama, the same Din applies as in the above cases - because an Olah or Shelamim that a person brings she'Lo Lishmah is considered a Nedavah (with which the owner has not fulfilled his duty), giving this case the same Din as the previous one.

(b)In this latter Halachah however, according to Rebbi Shimon, although he is not Yotzei with the shaving, he is Yotzei with the other Korbanos. The reason for this, says Rav Ada bar Ahavah, is - because in the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, if a Nazir shaves on Shalmei (or Olos) Nedavah, he is Yotzei.

(c)He learns this from the Pasuk "al Todas Zevach Shelamav" (when it should have written " ... Todas Shelamim") - that a Shalmei Nazir is compared to a regular Shelamim in various regards.

(d)Rebbi Shimon learns from there that if after shaving on the Olah or the Shelamim she'Lo Lishmah, the Nazir then brings his other Korbanos Lishman, he is Yotzei those Korbanos - because the Derashah also teaches us that if the Todah is brought as a Shelamim, he is Yotzei his Nezirus.

12)

(a)What will be the Din regarding a Nazir who shaves before bringing his Korbanos, and then discovers that one of them is Kosher?

12)

(a)If a Nazir shaves before bringing his Korbanos, and then discovers that one of them is Kosher - his shaving terminates his Nezirus, but the other Korbanos must be brought again.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF