Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina Amar Resh Lakish (who states the source for the Halachah of a father annulling his son's Nezirus as Chinuch), a father cannot declare his daughter a Nazir - because, in his opinion, he is not obligated to educate his daughter.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Halachah specifies Nezirus and not other Nedarim; whereas according to Resh Lakish, the Halachah states Nezirus and not Nedarim, not to preclude them, but - because they are obvious (since they do not incur ugliness) and do not need to be mentioned. The Tana mentions Nezirus to teach us that in spite of the ugliness that this entails, a father is expected to educate his son in this regard.

(c) Bearing in mind Chapel's general reluctance to permit Nedarim - 'Nedarim' refers to bringing a Korban or fulfilling the Mitzvah of Sukah or Lulav (Tosfos).

(d) According to Resh Lakish, Chazal permitted the boy and his relatives to object to the father's declaration of Nezirus - on the grounds that Chinuch which makes the child ugly is subject to his and the family's consent.

(a) Chazal permit the Nezirus to take effect, despite the fact that ...

1. ... shaving off all one's hair in one go is prohibited - because, in his opinion, this is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan, and is overridden by the Mitzvah of Chinuch.
2. ... min ha'Torah, the Korbanos that the Katan is bringing are Chulin, which means that he will be bringing Chulin to the Azarah - because, this Isur too, he holds, is only de'Rabbanan.

(b) The problem that we also have with Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina with regard to the Korbanos that the son brings should he become Tamei is - that then, he will have to bring two birds, which the Kohanim kill by means of 'Melikah' which renders birds that are not Kodshim mi'd'Oraysa (such as these), Neveilah.

(c) If the animal does not require Shechitah min ha'Torah - he will extract the Dam ha'Nefesh by means of Nechirah (tearing it open - Tosfos).

(d) We explain that Resh Lakish holds like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - in whose opinion a bird only requires Shechitah mi'de'Rabbanan (in which case Melikah will not render a Chatas ha'Of, Neveilah).

(a) Rabeinu Chananel rejects the text that quotes the author in the forthcoming Beraisa as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - on the grounds that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina is an Amora and not a Tana (Tosfos).

(b) There are other indications however, that the text is correct. Rabeinu Tam therefore reinstates it (in spite of Rabeinu Chananel's objection) - on the grounds that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina in our Sugya is a Tana, and is not the same person as the Amora. In fact, Rabeinu Tam cites the author of this Sugya as 'Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina' (rather the other way round, as in our text).

(a) For transgressing a Safek Ka'res - a man brings an Asham Taluy.

(b) We know that a woman has the same Din as a man as regards a Safek Ka'res as well as a Vaday. Consequently, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (or Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina) learns the Hekesh in Metzora "la'Zav ve'la'Zavah, *la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah"* as regards both Vaday and Safek - in respect to a Zav who had relations with a Zavah, to teach us she is Chayav a Chatas just like he is, and that should she be a Safek Zavah, she is Chayav an Asham Taluy just like he is when he is a Safek (Tosfos).

(c) What is meant, in this context by ...

1. ... Zachar is - a Korban that can be brought by anyone.
2. ... Nekeivah is - a Korban that is brought by a woman only (Rosh), such as that of a Zavah or a Yoledes.

(d) And when he says 'mi'Min she'Meivi al ha'Vaday, Meivi al ha'Safek' concerning both a Zachar and a Nekeivah - he means that an Asham Taluy, like a Chatas, comprises an animal, whereas the Safek Korban of a Zavah or a Yoledes like her Vaday, comprises a bird.

(a) In spite of the Hekesh, the Tana refutes the suggestions that the Safek Chatas of the woman, like that of a man, may be eaten - on the grounds that it would entail contravening two Isurim, as opposed to the man's one.

(b) The two Isurim that he is referring to are those of Neveilah and Chulin ba'Azarah.

(c) Based on the fact that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (or Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina), we are trying to prove from here - that, in his opinion, thr two Isurim in question are d'Oraysa, and not de'Rabbanan, as we previously suggested.

(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika counters this Kashya - by explaining the Beraisa to mean that the Safek Chatas of a woman cannot be eaten mi'de'Rabbanan, because it entails the transgression of two Isurim de'Rabbanan.

(b) This suggests that, if they were d'Oraysa, we would not be able to learn the Hekesh. It is not possible however, to refute a Hekesh with Pirchos (logical disproofs). Consequently - what Rav Acha really means is that, although the Hekesh permits a woman's Safek Chatas ha'Of mi'd'Oraysa, the Rabbanan forbade it (even though they did not forbid eating an Asham Taluy) because of the *two* Isurim de'Rabbanan that it entails (Tosfos quoting Rashi).

7)

(a) Rebbi permits a father to declare his son a Nazir up until the time that he produces Sh'tei Sa'aros (becomes a Gadol at thirteen), whereas according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, it is only until he reaches the age of Nedarim (twelve if he realizes the significance of a Neder) - According to our initial interpretation of their Machlokes - Rebbi holds that the declaration of a son's Nezirus is a Halachah, whereas according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, it is based on the Mitzvah of Chinuch.

(b) What we mean when explaining Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, we say 've'Keivan *de'Nafik me'Reshusei*, Su Lo Mechayev', is - that, at that stage, the boy is free to declare his own Nedarim.

(c) We refute this suggestion however, on the grounds that both could either hold that a father declaring his son a Nazir is a Halachah or that it is a branch of Chinuch. The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, assuming that it is ...

1. ... a Halachah is - that according to Rebbi, a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish is de'Rabbanan, and is therefore overridden by the Halachah (which has the status of a d'Oraysa; whereas in the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, it is d'Oraysa, and is not overridden by the Halachah.
2. ... a branch of Chinuch is - that both agree that both Chinuch and Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish are de'Rabbanan. However, whereas Rebbi holds that Chinuch overrides Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that it does not.

(d) Rebbi can hold that the source of the father's declaring his son a Nazir is Chinuch, despite the fact that, in Chulin, he maintains that a bird requires Shechitah min ha'Torah (in which case the Kohen would be eating Neveilah, as we asked earlier) - because according to him, the Korban is brought but not eaten (like a Chatas ha'Of that is brought be'Safek) Tosfos.

(a) When Rebbi Chanina's father brought his son to Raban Gamliel after declaring him a Nazir, Raban Gamliel declared that he would examine him to see whether he had brought two Sa'aros or not. 'Rebbi' Chanina must have been thirteen at the time - because had he been only twelve, there would have been no point in examining him, since, even if he had grown two hairs, they would have been considered as coming from a wart (and not as signs of puberty).

(b) Rebbi Yossi (or Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina) says - that the criterion is, not Sh'tei Sa'aros, but whether the boy has reached Onas Nedarim (which is equivalent to Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish) or not.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we go after Sh'tei Sa'aros (like Rebbi in the previous Beraisa) or after Onas Nedarim (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah).

(d) When Rebbi Chanina told him that the examination was not necessary because, in the event that his father's declaration should be ineffective, he was undertaking his own Nezirus - Raban Gamliel reacted by kissing him on the head and declaring that he was certain that he would grow up to be a great Posek in Yisrael.

(a) The problem that we have with 'Rebbi' Chanina's words 've'Im Gadol Ani, Eh'yeh Bish'vil Atzmi', according to Rebbi is - because, based on the misunderstanding that, by 'Gadol', he meant the age of 'Onas Nedarim', how could he then continue 'Eh'yeh Bish'vil Atzmi', seeing as he would still be under his father's jurisdiction until he brought Sh'tei Sa'aros?

(b) To resolve this problem - we therefore explain 'Katan' and 'Gadol' to mean before bringing Sh'tei Sa'aros and afterwards respectively (Rosh).

(a) If Raban Gamliel ...

1. ... had discovered that he had already brought Sh'tei Sa'aros - then 'Rebbi' Chanina would have been entirely under his own jurisdiction.
2. ... had only examined him at the end of thirty days and discovered then that he had brought Sh'tei Sa'aros - he would have been entirely under that of his father.

(b) If, on the other hand, he brought Sh'tei Sa'aros in the middle of the thirty days ...

1. ... the problem that this would cause, according to Rebbi is - that his father's Nezirus would end there and then, and he would be unable to terminate his Nezirus and bring his Korbanos.
2. ... this problem would not exist according to Rebbi Yossi (or Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah), because even if he did bring Sh'tei Sa'aros in the middle, that would not change his status (because Sh'tei Sa'aros that appear before the age of thirteen, are considered to be the result of a wart, and not signs of Gadlus [as we just explained]).

(c) We are not afraid that he might just reach the level of Onas Nedarim in the middle, thereby negating his father's Nezirus - because whereas the growth of Sh'tei Sa'aros in the middle does negate his Nezirus according to Rebbi, the attaining of Onas Nedarim in the middle, according to Rebbi Yossi (or Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah), does not.

(d) According to Rebbi, Raban Gamliel would have alleviated the problem - by waiting sixty days from the time that his father declared him a Nazir, leaving us with either thirty days before the Sh'tei Sa'aros grew or afterwards, in which case 'mi'Mah Nafshach', his Nezirus will have terminated, whether it is his father's or his own.