Previous daf

1)

(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether the four shavings in our Mishnah are a Mitzvah or whether their objective is purely to remove the hair. The ramifications of this She'eilah are - whether one may use cream (hair-remover) to shave it off, or not.

(b) Three out of the four shavings have already been established as Mitzvos, and Rami bar Chama is only really asking about the fourth one - a Nazir Tamei (which is relevant by the third shaving in the case of Tamei Vaday u'Muchlat Vaday (which we discussed on the previous Amud).

(c) The fact that the Sugya in 'Sheloshah Minim' learns Nazir Tamei from Nazir Tahor outright in this regard - is the opinion of that particular Sugya. Rami bar Chama however, considers it a She'eilah.

(d) Rami bar Chama must be speaking when some of the Nazir's hair was already shaved off with a razor - because otherwise, we have learned in Bava Kama that hair that has been completely removed using cream will not re-grow (and the purpose of shaving a Nazir Tamei is for the hair to re-grow for his Nezirus de'Taharah).

(a) We resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from the Beraisa cited above 'u'Megalei'ach Arba Tiglachi'os' - suggesting that all four shavings fall under the same category. So if three of them are a Mitzvah, the fourth one is a Mitzvah, too.

(b) Despite the fact that the third shaving in the Beraisa incorporates the possibility that he is a Nazir Tahor, which requires a razor anyway, the proof from there is due to the fact that he will anyway not be permitted to drink wine yet (until the fourth shaving). In that case - were it not for the shaving of the Nezirus de'Tum'ah, it would have been eliminated altogether.

3)

(a) Nezirus is ...

1. ... not applicable to Nochrim.
2. ... applicable to women and slaves.

(b) The Chumra that applies to slaves in this regard but not to women is - that whereas a master can negate his slave's Nezirus, he cannot negate that of his wife (except through the limited means of Hafaras Nedarim).

(c) We learn from the Pasuk in Naso (written in connection with a Nazir) ...

1. ... "Daber el B'nei Yisrael" - that Nochrim are precluded from the Parshah of Nezirus.
2. ... "ve'Amarta Aleihem" - that Avadim Cena'anim are included.

(d) Nochrim - are included in the Parshah of Nedarim (explaining why a Pasuk is needed to precluded them from Nezirus.

(a) At first glance, we should not even require a Pasuk to include Avadim in the Parshah of Nezirus - seeing as they are generally compared to women (so that whatever pertains to women, pertains to them too).

(b) The Pasuk "Le'esor Isar al Nafsho" changes this - because it implies that only someone who has jurisdiction over himself is included in Nezirus (i.e. including a wife), but not a slave.

(c) Even though that Pasuk speaks about Nedarim, and not about Nezirus - we nevertheless compare Nezirus to Nedarim (in the first Perek of Nedarim).

(a) The Tana in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with Erchin) ...

1. ... "Daber el B'nei Yisrael" - that a Nochri can be Ma'arich (declare an Erech).
2. ... "Ish" - that he cannot be Ne'erach (others cannot be Ma'arich him).

(b) We ought then to learn a similar sequence from the Pesukim (written in connection with Nezirus) "Daber el B'nei Yisrael" and "Ish (Ki Yidor .. )" - that a Nochri can adopt Nezirus, but he is exempt from bringing a Nazir's Korbanos.

(c) So we initially learn that Nezirus does not apply to a Nazir at all - from the Pasuk "le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo *Yitama*" (to preclude a Nochri, who is not subject to Tum'ah, because he does not have a father). This does not mean however, that a Nochri does not inherit his father - as we shall now see.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "Ki Yerushah le'Eisav Nasati es Har Se'ir" - that a Nochri inherits his father by Torah-law.

(b) We cannot apply the above D'rashah ("le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo Yitama") like this: 'Whoever is obligated to honor his father is included in the Parshah of Nezirus, but not a Nochri, who is not' - because no mention of honoring one's father appears in the Parshah of Nazir.

(c) We do not refute the previous suggestion (that Nochrim are precluded because they do have parents with regard to inheritance - seeing as inheritance is not mentioned in the Pasuk either) - because the connotation of father is tied up with inheritance (Tosfos).

(d) We learn from ...

1. ... "le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo Yitama" - that Nochrim, who are not subject to Tum'ah, are not included in the Parshah of Nezirus either.
2. ... "ve'Ish Asher Yitma ve'Lo Yischata ve'Nichresah ha'Nefesh ha'Hi *Mitoch ha'Kahal*" - that Nochrim (to whom the term 'Kahal' does not apply) are not subject to Tum'ah.

7)

(a) We retract from the previous D'rashah (that Nochrim are not subject to Tum'ah from "ve'Ish Asher Yitma ve'Lo Yischata ve'Nichresah ha'Nefesh Ha'Hi Mitoch ha'Kahal") - because this Pasuk only precludes Nochrim from Kareis (for entering the Beis Hamikdash when they are Tamei or for eating Kodshim) but not from being subject to Tum'ah.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Haysah la'Adas *B'nei Yisrael le'Mishmeres* ... " - that Nochrim are not subject to Taharah.
2. ... "ve'Hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei" - that whoever is not subject to Taharah is not subject to Tum'ah either.

(c) We retract from this D'rashah, according to Tosfos ...

1. ... first explanation - because the Pasuk is not superfluous (since it is used in Yoma for other D'rashos), in which case, it is not open to further D'rashos.
2. ... second explanation - because the Pasuk is not talking about the purification process of someone who is Tamei (but about someone who is Tahor or only a T'vul-Yom), whereas we are talking about a Nochri who is Tamei becoming Tahor.

(d) So we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Ish Asher Yitma ve'Lo Yischata (meaning "a man who becomes Tamei and does not purify himself", which is both superfluous and talks about a Tamei person becoming Tahor) - that whoever is not subject to Taharah is not subject to Tum'ah either.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Vehisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem Achareichem" - that only Jews can inherit Avadim Cena'anim, but not Nochrim (neither from a Jew nor even from one another).

(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov tries to reinstate the initial D'rashah that we cited from "le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo Yitamo" (that a Nochri, who does not inherit his father is not subject to Tum'ah). He answers the Kashya that we asked there from Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who learns from the Pasuk "Ki Yerushah le'Eisav Nasati es Har Se'ir" (that a Nochri inherits his father by Torah-law) - by requiring a father (who is subject to Tum'ah) to inherit completely (even Avadim Cena'anim), which a Nochri does not do (as we just explained).

(c) We reject this explanation on the grounds - that in that case, we ought to preclude Avadim Cena'anim too, from the same D'rashah.

(d) We know that one Eved Kena'ani cannot acquire another Eved Kena'ani (even if he receives him on the express condition that his master has no jurisdiction over them - from the same source as the previous Halachah ("Ki Yerushah le'Eisav Nasati es Har Se'ir").

(a) Rava reinstates the Tana's original D'rashah "Daber el B'nei Yisrael ... " (but not Nochrim). He resolves the problem that this Pasuk would then preclude Nochrim from bringing a Korban Nazir, but that "Ish" would include them as far as becoming Nezirim is concerned - by citing another Pasuk as the source for the exemption of Nochrim from bringing the Korbanos of a Nazir (as we shall now see).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with Korbanos) "Ish Ish" - that a Nochri is permitted to bring Korbanos on the Mizbei'ach.

(c) Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili learns from the last word in the Pasuk, "le'Olah" - that he cannot bring the Korbanos of a Nazir.

(d) And we know that "Ish" does not come to teach us that a Nochri can be a Nazir, and "B'nei Yisrael", that ...

1. ... a Nochri cannot declare a permanent Nezirus, Rebbi Yochanan points out - because the Pasuk there does not mention permanent Nezirus.
2. ... he cannot declare his son to be a Nazir - because Rebbi Yochanan describes the basic Din of declaring one's son a Nazir as 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', which was only said with regard to a Jew (in which case a Pasuk is not required to preclude a Nochri); alternatively, it is simply unlikely that a Pasuk will qualify a 'Halachah ... ' (which is a lower level of Ru'ach ha'Kodesh) Tosfos.
3. ... the children of a Nochri are not permitted to shave on the money that their deceased father designated for his Korban - because here again, Rebbi Yochanan refers to this Din as 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

Next daf