Previous daf

1)

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

(b) What do the Chachamim learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "*ve'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?

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

(b) So he must be going according to Rebbi Eliezer (who holds that the Nazir is only permitted to drink wine after the completion of the entire Avodah). Why isn't that obvious, too? Why might he have considered the Tenufah an exception?

(c) In which regard do we refer to the Tenufah as 'Sheyarei Mitzvah'?

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? How is it then a Kashya against Rav?

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

(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 P'das 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 Rabbanan?

(a) The Tana'im in both of the above Beraisos argue over whether 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'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 Se'ar, Bein she'Ein Lo Se'ar'? Are we comparing 'Yesh Lo' to 'Ein Lo', or 'Ein Lo' to Yesh Lo'?

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

(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 Rabbanan?

(b) How do we prove from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir", 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Kapayim, Bein she'Ein Lo Kapayim' that even Yesh Lo Kapayim, Tenufah is crucial.
Why do we learn like this?

(c) 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 Rabbanan, is not crucial?

(d) But we counter this from the Beraisa "Zos Toras ha'Nazir" 'Bein she'Yesh Lo Se'ar, Bein she'Ein Lo Se'ar', proving that we must be comparing 'Yesh Lo Se'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 Memo rat'?

(a) How does Ravina refute this proof?

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

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

(a) 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 Yotze the remaining Korbenos Nazir that he subsequently brought?

(c) The same applies to a Nazir who shaved on a Chatas which was Shechted she'Lo li'Shemah, who subsequently Shechted his other Korbanos li'Sheman. In which regard is a Chatas generally more stringent than an Olah or a Shelamim?

(a) How many days will he demolish according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer?
2. ... the Rabbanan?

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

(a) If, after shaving on the Olah or the Shelamim she'Lo li'Shemah, the Nazir then brought his other Korbanos li'Sheman, 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 Yotze with the shaving, he is Yotze 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".
What do we learn from there?

(d) How does Rebbi Shimon learn from there that if a Nazir shaved on the Olah or the Shelamim she'Lo li'Shemah, the Nazir then brought his other Korbanos li'Sheman, he is Yotze those Korbanos?

Next daf