Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah says later that someone who accepts two Nezirus upon himself must shave for the first one on the thirty-first day and the for the second one on the sixty-first. This is fine according to Rav Masna (who holds 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo'), because in both cases, he is shaving on the thirty-first day of his Nezirus. Despite the fact that we have already learned that Lechatchilah, one is obligated to shave on the thirty first day - the Tana here is coming to teach us (according to him) - that the thirty-first day serves both as the last day of the first Nezirus and as the first day of the second Nezirus.

(b) We ask on bar Pada however, from the Reisha like we asked earlier (why he should not be permitted to shave on the thirtieth), and we answer from the Seifa, which bears him out (and go on to explain that the Reisha is Asur Lechatchilah on the thirtieth on account of a decree because of when he specifically accepted thirty days). The Chidush the Tana is coming to teach us here (that we do not know from the earlier Mishnahs) is - that 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' applies even at the beginning of the day (of the second Nezirus, which only begins after the termination of the first one).

(c) Even though we already know that 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' applies even at the beginning of the day (from a regular case of someone who accepts the Neder of Nezirus in the middle of the day [who nevertheless counts that day as the first day of his Nezirus]), the Chidush here is - that it applies even when he is currently occupied with a previous Nezirus, where there is reason to believe that it should not.

(d) The Mishnah there continues 'Im Gilach Yom Shishim Chaser Achas Yatza she'Yom Sheloshim Oleh le'Ka'an u'le'Ka'an'. According to Rav Masna, there is no problem with the Mishnah, which is coming to teach us that the thirtieth day serves both as the last day of the first Nezirus and as the first day of the second Nezirus (like the Reisha taught us with regard to the thirty-first day.

(a) The problem with that Mishnah according to bar Pada is - that seeing as he anyway holds that S'tam Nezirus is twenty-nine days, it is obvious that if he shaved on the thirtieth and on the sixtieth days, that he is Yotze, so why does the Tana need to mention it, and then to add 'she'Yom Sheloshim Oleh Lo min ha'Minyan' as if offering a new reason?

(b) There is no problem according to Rav Masna - because the Tana needs to teach us that the thirtieth day counts as both the last day of the first Nezirus and the first day of the second one.

(c) In fact, bar Pada replies - this Mishnah is the source from which he learns that 'Stam Nezirus Sheloshim Yom' (and is what the Tana is coming to teach us).

3)

(a) The Mishnah there continues 'Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir Nitma Yom Sheloshim, Soser es ha'Kol' - a problem according to bar Pada, who learns that Stam Nezirus is twenty-nine days, in which case the Nezirus had already terminated when he became Tamei (so why should he demolish everything).

(b) bar Pada answers this from the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - who does indeed hold that the Nazir only demolishes seven days, and not thirty (clearly then, he holds that S'tam Nezirus is twenty-nine days (like bar Pada).

(c) The significance of the seven days is - the period of time it takes until a Tamei Meis becomes Tahor once more (incorporating the third and seventh days on which he needs to be sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah).

(d) This does not mean that bar Pada holds like Rebbi Eliezer (and not like the Rabbanan) - because seeing as there is no indication that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer in this point (the duration of S'tam Nezirus), they clearly agree with him, and argue only over whether the Rabbanan decreed or not, to demolish the thirty days (on account of when the Nazir initially undertook thirty days explicitly - as we explained earlier), [the Rabbanan] or not [Rebbi Eliezer].

(a) Despite the fact that Rav Masna holds 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo', the previous Mishnah is not a problem according to him as well (seeing as, if we were to apply the principle, the Nezirus of the Nazir who became Tamei Meis on the thirtieth day had already terminated) - because 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' is not an absolute principle that applies across the board; it is confined here to the Nazir being Yotze if he shaved on the thirtieth day (but not to when he became Tamei then) - Tosfos.

(b) The Tana later adds that if a Nazir who undertook Nezirus for a hundred days, became Tamei on the hundred and first day, he must demolish thirty days of his Nezirus and count them again - and the same will apply if he became Tamei on the thirty first day of a thirty day Nezirus (which in effect means that he must begin his Nezirus again from scratch - Tosfos).

(c) This Mishnah too, is a Kashya on bar Pada. It is not a Kashya on Rav Masna however, according to whom he ought not to demolish more than seven days either - because according to him, the thirty-first day in both cases is me'de'Rabbanan (a decree on account of when he became Tamei on the thirtieth day).

(d) The initial Kashya on bar Pada is at first difficult to understand, seeing as we could simply answer that the Nazir is obligated to demolish his thirty day Nezirus mi'de'Rabbanan (like we answered according to Rav Masna). The Mishnah of the Nazir on the hundred and first day resolves this problem however - because seeing as the thirtieth day itself is only mi'de'Rabbanan, how can Chazal decree the hundred and first day (and the thirty-first day) on account of a day which is itself only mi'de'Rabbanan (creating in effect, a 'Gezeirah-li'Gezeirah' - Tosfos).

6)

(a) 'Hareini Nazir Me'ah Yom, Nitma Yom Me'ah, Soser es ha'Kol - Rebbi Eliezer Omer 'Eino Soser Ela Sheloshim Yom'.

(b) This poses a Kashya ...

1. ... on Rav Masna - because, if Rebbi Eliezer does indeed hold 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo', then the Nazir ought to demolish only seven days; but why thirty?
2. ... on bar Pada - because if he does not hold 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo', then he ought to demolish all hundred days.

(a) Resh Lakish therefore explains Rebbi Eliezer differently. In order to do so, he Darshens from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Nazir be'Yom Melos Yemei Nizro" - that whenever a Nazir becomes Tamei on the final day of his Nezirus, he is obligated to count another thirty days (a fresh minimum Nezirus period) Tosfos.

(b) We precede Resh Lakish's answer with the words 'Le'olam Lo Amrinan Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' - in which case we are currently holding like bar Pada.

(c) Nevertheless, Rebbi Eliezer says that if he became Tamei on the thirtieth day of a S'tam Nezirus, he only demolishes seven days, and not thirty - because the thirtieth day, in the opinion of bar Pada, is not the final day of Nezirus, but the day after the Nezirus.

(a) Rav Masna will explain that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, in the case of a Nazir who became Tamei on the hundredth day, he demolishes thirty days (and not just seven) - because the Tana speaks when the Noder said explicitly a hundred *full* days (in which case, 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' is not applicable - though this answer is pushed, as we shall see shortly) [Tosfos]. In light of Tosfos earlier however, who explained that Rav Masna does not apply 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo with regard to Tum'ah, it is unclear as to why this is necessary.

(b) He does not need to demolish all hundred days - because of Resh Lakish's D'rashah.

(c) This explanation however, is problematic, on two scores. Firstly, the Tana ought to have stated that he is speaking when the Noder said a hundred full days. Secondly, the Tana could then have avoided the case of when the Nazir became Tamei on the thirtieth day altogether, and taught us both of Rebbi Eliezer's Chidushim in the case of when he became Tamei on the hundredth day - by differentiating between whether the Noder accepted a hundred days S'tam, or a hundred full days.

(a) So Rabeinu Peretz (in Tosfos) relearns the Sugya, establishing Resh Lakish like both bar Pada and Rav Masna. Despite the fact that we are holding like Rav Masna too, we say 'Le'olam Lo Amrinan Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' - because even Rav Masna agrees that, in spite of it, the hundreth day is called 'Yom Melos' (seeing as he would have been obligated to complete the day Lechatchilah), and Resh Lakish's D'rashah applies (Tosfos).

(b) Nevertheless, in the Reisha, Rebbi Eliezer only requires seven days and not thirty - because even though Resh Lakish's D'rashah overrides 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo', as we just explained, the Pasuk (Resh Lakish's Chidush of "Yom Melos") speaks exclusively about a Nazir who specifies a time limit, and not about S'tam Nezirus.

(a) It seems from the Pasuk "Ad Melos ha'Yamim" that S'tam Nezirus is two days. Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa learns that it is thirty - from "Kadosh *Yih'yeh* Gadeil Pera".

(b) Rebbi learns this from "Ad Melos" itself - because it is the month of twenty-nine days that sometimes needs to be filled to thirty days.

(c) We try and connect the Machlokes Rav Masna and bar Pada with that of Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi - by establishing Rav Masna (who Darshens "Kadosh *Yih'yeh*") like Rebbi Yashiyah, and bar Pada (who Darshens from "Ad Melos") like Rebbi.

(d) But Rav Masna establishes both Tana'im like him - and the basis of their Machlokes lies in the principle 'whether we hold 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal' or 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal'. Rebbi Yashiyah learns from "Kadosh *Yih'yeh*" (and not from "Ad Melos", because he holds 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal', and S'tam Nezirus would then be twenty-nine days (presumably, according to Rav Masna, the Tana'im had a tradition that S'tam Nezirus is thirty days, and they are simply searching for an appropriate source); whereas Rebbi learns from "Ad Melos", and he holds 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal' (in which case, he too will agree that 'S'tam Nezirus Sheloshim Yom').

12)

(a) Rebbi said 'Ei Eilu Hein ha'Yamim she'Tzerichin Hein Lemal'os, Hevei Omer Sheloshim'. "Yom Melos" cannot refer to ...

1. ... Shabbos (which concludes the week), in which case S'tam Nezirus would be seven days - because Shabbos is fixed, and is not subject to 'Melos' (in the sense that we are currently explaining it).
2. ... a year, which does fluctuate between twelve and thirteen months - because a year fluctuates by a month, and not by days (whereas the Pasuk writes "Ad Melos *ha'Yamim*").

(b) The Rabbanan from Caesaria learns from the Pasuk "le'Chodshei ha'Shanah" - that one reckons a year by its months, and not by its days.