Previous daf

1)

(a) We already explained in our Mishnah that 'Hareini ka'Zeh' is a Nazir, only if a Nazir walks past at the time. For N'zirus to take effect whilst he is holding his hair - he will have to say 'Hareini ba'Zeh'.

(b) 'Hareini Mesalsel' too, is a Nazir, provided the Noder is holding his hair. If he were not, he would be undertaking to study Torah in depth.

(c) The Pasuk "Salselah u'Seromimcha" means - turn it over (learn it in depth) because it will elevate you".

(a) 'Harei Alai Lishlo'ach Pera, Harei Zeh Nazir'. Based on the Pasuk "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim" - this might be an undertaking to grow one's hair and become a Nazir.

(b) We initially think that, based on the Pasuk "ve'Sholei'ach Mayim al-P'nei Chutzos", it might mean that he is undertaking to cut off his hair (to send it away). We ultimately interpret this Pasuk (in the same way as we interpreted the previous one) to mean that Hashem waters the fruit to make it grow.

(c) If "ve'Sholei'ach Mayim ... " had meant to send the water away - we might have interpreted "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim" to refer to their moving away (Tosfos - though it is not clear what the Pasuk would then mean [see Rashi in Shir ha'Shirim]).

(d) We can indeed learn that 'Shalach' means to let grow, on the basis of one Pasuk, even though, more often than not, the word means to send away (which as we just saw, has the opposite connotation) - because logically, the Noder had in mind to become a Nazir rather than to cut off his hair (Tosfos).

(a) We initially learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (with regard to the Kohanim) "u'Pera Lo Yeshaleichu" from Nazir "Gadeil Pera" - that a they are not permitted to allow a growth of hair of more than thirty days.

(b) This indicates - that "Gadeil Pera" means letting the hair grow (N'zirus), rather than cutting it off.

(c) We could not learn this from the Pasuk "u'Pera Lo Yeshaleichu" without the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because, without the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', the Pasuk could be referring to a growth of even just two days (which has nothing to do with N'zirus, since 'S'tam N'zirus Sh'loshim Yom', and the Noder did not mention two days - Tosfos).

(d) The Noder must say 'Harei Alai le'Gadeil Pera' in order to be a Nazir, and not just 'Harei Alai Pera' - because 'Pera' on its own implies to uncover (as in the Pasuk in Naso "u'Para es Rosh ha'Ishah").

(a) 'Harei Alai Tziporin, Rebbi Meir Omer, Nazir'. According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Meir learns this from the Pasuk "Ad di Sa'areih ke'Nishrin Rabah, ve'Tufrohi ke'Tziparin" - because the Noder is probably referring to the "Tziprin" (birds - that a Nazir brings as a Korban) that the Pasuk juxtaposes there with hair.

(b) The indication that the Noder was referring to N'zirus - lies in the fact that either a Nazir was passing in front of him or that he was holding his hair when he made the declaration.

(c) The Rabbanan say - that we cannot take for granted that the Noder meant birds of N'zirus just because the Pasuk juxtaposes Tziprin and hair.

5)

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, even Rebbi Meir does not rely on the juxtaposition of Tziparin to hair. The basis of Rebbi Meir's opinion is - the suspicion that the Noder accepted to become a Nazir, who brings birds should he become Tamei.

(b) We know that he did not undertake to bring birds ...

1. ... as a gift-offering - because then he would have said 'Harei Alai Kan', since that is the regular Lashon that was used for that purpose.
2. ... on behalf of a Metzora - because here too, we are speaking when a Nazir is passing in front of him.
3. ... on behalf of a Tamei Nazir - because the Nazir in question happens to be Tahor.

(c) And we initially think that he did not undertake to bring the bird-offering on behalf of the Tahor Nazir, should he become Tamei and be required to bring birds - because it speaks when he specifically had in mind to become a Nazir (Tosfos).

(a) When we just asked 've'Dilma Harei Alai Tziprei Metzora ka'Amar', we could not have answered there too, that it speaks when he had in mind to bring the birds of a Nazir - because firstly, N'zirus is more difficult to accept than bringing the birds of a Metzora, and secondly, the Lashon 'Tziprin' is written in connection with a Metzora (as opposed to a Nazir, where the Torah writes 'Torim'). Consequently, unless a Nazir was walking past, having in mind N'zirus would constitute 'Ein Piv ve'Libo Shavin' (seeing as his declaration implies the Korban of a Metzora, and he had in mind to become a Nazir).

(b) We cannot say the same here however (that since birds are mentioned by a Tamei Nazir, to say that he means to become a Tahor Nazir is 'Ein Piv ve'Libo Shavin') - because seeing as the Nazir who is walking past is Tahor, both possibilities are equally plausible, in which case it does not leave the realm of 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin'.

(c) Tosfos concludes however, that we cannot be speaking when the Noder had in mind to become a Nazir who brings birds when he becomes Tamei, because this idea is not mentioned in the Gemara. The reason that we assume that he undertook to become a Nazir now (in spite of the difficulties involved), rather than to bring the Korbanos of a Nazir who is Tamei is - because N'zirus be'Taharah is something that can be immediately effective, whereas there is no gurantee that there is a Tamei Nazir who requires Korbanos (rendering it a 'Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam').

(a) In a case where the Noder says explicitly 'Tziprin ha'Semuchin le'Sei'ar Alai', and no Nazir happens to be walking past at the time - Rebbi Yochanan holds that he is not a Nazir, because all he accepted was to let his hair grow long (Tosfos).

(b) And in a case where he says 'Tziprin', and a Nazir is walking past - Resh Lakish holds that he is a Nazir, provided a Nazir is walking past (like Rebbi Yochanan).

(c) Resh Lakish found it necessary to establish Rebbi Meir when the Noder specifically said 'Tziprin ha'Semuchin le'Sei'ar' - because then he will be a Nazir even if there is no Nazir walking past.

(d) In fact, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree all almost every case. The only point over which they argue is when the Noder said explicitly 'Tziprin he'Semuchin Alai', where, according to Rebbi Yochanan, a Nazir is nevertheless required to walk past, whereas, according to Resh Lakish, he is not (as we already explained).

9)

(a) We try to prove from the Beraisa 'ha'Omer Yemin, Harei Zu Shevu'ah' - that the Tana holds that people do tend to be Matfis on something which is juxtaposed to something which in turn, is connected to Nedarim and Shevu'os (like here, where the Pasuk in Daniel writes "Vayarem Yemino u'Semolo el ha'Hashamayim Vayishava be'Chei ha'Olam".

(b) We counter this proof however, with a Beraisa which quotes a Pasuk in Yeshayah "Nishba Hashem bi'Yemino" - from which the Tana of the Beraisa extrapolates that 'Yemin' itself is a Lashon of Shevu'ah.

(a) Someone who declares N'zirus from grape-pits or skins, or from Tum'as Meis (exclusively) - is a full Nazir.

(b) The Tana needs to add 've'Chol Dikdukei N'zirus Alav' - to teach us that he is even obligated to adhere to the Dinim of Tum'as Meis (even though a N'zir Shimshon is not).

(c) The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Shimon - who holds that a Noder only becomes a Nazir if he accepts all the branches of N'zirus.

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon - the Noder must either undertake to be a Nazir S'tam, or he must specify all the branches of N'zirus.

12)

(a) The Rabbanan learn from "mi'Yayin ve'Sheichar Yazir" - that someone who accepts even just one branch of N'zirus is a full Nazir.

(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from there - that a Nazir is not even permitted to drink wine of Mitzvah (such as wine of Kidush and Havdalah).

(c) We ask 'Harei Mushba ve'Omed Alav me'Har Sinai?' - a strange Kashya, seeing as there seems to be no resaon why the La'av of N'zirus should not override the Mitzvah Kidush over wine (even assuming that even the wine is d'Oraysa).

(d) So Rabeinu Tam amends the Kashya to read - 've'Chi Mushba ve'Omed Alav me'Har Sinai?' (since when is Kidush over wine d'Oraysa in the first place)?