Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'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 Meis).

(b) The Chachamim learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "*ve'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, and 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'.

(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 Rabbanan - 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) 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. That is not so obvious - because the Tenufah is called 'Sheyarei Mitzvah' (which we will now explain), in which case there is good reason to believe that it is not crucial with regard to drinking wine either.

(c) We refer to the Tenufah as 'Sheyarei Mitzvah' - with regard to the Kaparah of the Nazir, who has fulfilled his Mitzvah even though he did perform it properly.

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 Yotze (because Tenufah is not crucial to the Mitzvah - a Kashya against Rav).

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

(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, ve'Ein Lo Takanah'.

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

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

(a) The Tana'im in both of the above Beraisos argue over whether 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'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 K'ra ke'Dichsiv'.
2. ... Beis Hillel and Rebbi Shimon is - 'Lo Ba'inan K'ra ke'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 Se'ar, Bein she'Ein Lo Se'ar' - to mean that we compare (not 'Yesh Lo Se'ar' to 'Ein Lo', but 'Ein Lo' to 'Yesh Lo'), to say that a Nazir who has no hair, requires shaving just like one who does, and since this is not possible, he is not Yotze.

(d) This explanation helps 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') - because just as Beis Shamai in this Beraisa is comparing 'Ein Lo Se'ar' to 'Yesh Lo Se'ar' (to teach us that Se'ar is crucial to the Mitzvah), so too, in the previous, is he comparing 'Ein Lo Kapayim' to 'Yesh Lo Kapayim' to teach us that hands are crucial to the Mitzvah of Tenufah (like Rav).

(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.

1. 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. On the other hand, we are initially hesitant to establish it like the Rabbanan - 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 Yesh Lo Kapayim' however, that it *is* - because of the D'rashah of 'Zos Toras ... ", which implies that the Torah is coming to include cases of Nezirus (rather than to exclude them [because "Toras" always comes to include]).

(c) 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.

(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), by quoting the Beraisa of 'Nazir Memorat' - where Beis Hillel say 'Tzarich Leha'avir Se'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) Ravina refutes this proof - by explaining Beis Hillel to mean 'Tzarich Leha'avir Se'ar al Rosho, ve'Ein Lo Takanah' (thereby conforming with Rav's statement).

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

(c) Ravina disagrees with Rebbi P'das' interpretation of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - inasmuch as, according to Rebbi P'das, it is Beis Shamai who say 'Eino Tzarich, ve'Ein Lo Takanah', and Beis Hillel who say 'Tzarich, ve'Yesh Lo Takanah'.

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

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

(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. A Chatas is generally more stringent than an Olah or a Shelamim - inasmuch as not only is one not Yotze the Chatas, 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 li'Sheman, will agree by a Chatas).

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

1. ... seven days, according to Rebbi Eliezer.
2. ... thirty days, according to the Rabbanan.

(b) In both of the above cases, the Nazir is not Yotze 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 (Tosfos).

(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 - because an Olah or Shelamim that a person brings she'Lo li'Shemah is considered a Nedavah (with which the owner has not fulfilled his duty), giving this case the same Din as the previous one (Tosfos).

(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. 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 Yotze.

(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 a Nazir shaved on the Olah or the Shelamim she'Lo li'Shemah, and then brought his other Korbanos li'Sheman, he is Yotze those Korbanos - because the D'rashah also includes that if the Todah is brought as a Shelamim, he is Yotze his Nezirus.

Next daf