POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nazir 29
1) IMPOSING NEZIRUS ON A SON
(a) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): A father can impose on his son
for Chinuch (to train him in the Mitzvah).
(b) Question: If so, a mother should also be able!
(c) Answer: Reish Lakish holds, only a man is obligated to
train his son in Mitzvos.
(d) According to R. Yochanan, who says the law is a tradition
from Moshe from Mount Sinai, it is not difficult why one
can impose on a son, but not a daughter (such was the
1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, one should be
able to impose even on a daughter!
(e) Answer: Reish Lakish holds, Chinuch only applies to a
son, not a daughter.
(f) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult why the law
applies only to Nezirus, not to other vows.
1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, it should apply
to other vows too!
(g) Answer: It does!
1. The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush - even Nezirus,
which entails revulsion, he can impose on his son.
(h) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult why the son
or relatives can annul the Nezirus by protesting.
1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, why are they
able to stop him from training his son?
(i) Answer: He holds, any training in Mitzvos which entails
disgrace is not good for him.
(j) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult that we cut
his sideburns when he shaves at the end.
1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, how can
Chinuch, which is mid'Rabanan, override a Torah
(k) Answer: Reish Lakish holds that cutting all the hair on
the head is only forbidden mid'Rabanan.
1. The Mitzvas Aseh (training to be a Nazir)
mid'Rabanan overrides the prohibition mid'Rabanan.
(l) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult that he
brings sacrifices upon completing his Nezirus.
1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, he offers
Chulin b'Azarah (profane things in the courtyard of
(m) Answer: Reish Lakish holds that the Torah permits this.
(n) According to R. Yochanan, it is not difficult that if he
becomes Tamei, he brings birds, and a Kohen eats the
1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, these are not
truly sacrifices - since the bird was not
slaughtered, it may not be eaten!
(o) Answer: Reish Lakish holds as R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah,
who says that mid'Oraisa, fowl need not be slaughtered.
(p) Question: Does R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah really hold that
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): The following
is the source that a bird sin-offering can be
brought by one in doubt if he must bring it, but it
is not eaten.
2. "And one that has a flow (emissions), a male or
female" - the Torah equates a male to a female.
i. Just as a male brings a sacrifice
(sin-offering) if he definitely sinned (by
mistake in Chayavei Kerisus), so a female
(Zavah) brings a sacrifice if she definitely
was a Zavah;
ii. Just as a male brings a sacrifice (conditional
guilt-offering) when in doubt if he sinned (by
Chayavei Kerisus), so a female brings a
sacrifice when in doubt if she was a Zavah;
iii. Just as a male brings the same species (a
sheep) for a certain or dountful sin, also a
female (a bird).
iv. Suggestion: Just as the sacrifice of a male is
eaten (when he was in doubt if he sinned), also
of a doubtful Zavah is eaten.
2) DO THE TANA'IM ALSO ARGUE ON THIS?
(q) (Summation of question) Suggestion: The 2 prohibitions
are an unslaughtered bird, and Chulin b'Azarah.
v. Rejection: No - by a male, there is only 1
prohibition on his sacrifice (if he really
didn't sin, it is Chulin b'Azarah); by a
female, there are 2.
(r) Answer (Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika): Perhaps the 2
prohibitions are mid'Rabanan!
(a) Suggestion: The Tana'im also argue if the law is a
tradition from Moshe from Mount Sinai, or because of
1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): A man can impose Nezirus on his
son until the son brings 2 hairs (of maturity); R.
Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, until the son reaches the
age of vows.
(b) Rejection #1: No, both agree that the law is a tradition
from Moshe from Sinai; they argue regarding the vows of a
child close to adulthood.
2. Suggestion: Rebbi holds that the law is a tradition
from Moshe from Sinai, and applies even after the
son is at the age of vows; R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah
says that it is because of Chinuch - after the son
is at the age of vows, he leaves the jurisdiction of
1. Rebbi holds that such vows are only mid'Rabanan; the
tradition from Sinai overrides it;
(c) Rejection #2: Both agree that the law is because of
Chinuch, and the vows of a near-adult are mid'Rabanan.
2. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that vows of such a
child are mid'Oraisa.
1. Rebbi holds that Chinuch, mid'Rabanan, overrides the
Rabbinic law that such a child may take his own
(d) Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue as Rebbi and R.
Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
2. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that once the child is
old enough to take his own vows, there is no Mitzvah
on the father to train the child in Nezirus.
1. (Beraisa): R. Chanina's father imposed Nezirus on
him. R. Gamliel was checking Chanina to see if he
was already an adult (in which case the Nezirus is
void); R. Yosi says, he was checking if he
(e) We understand, according to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - if
Chanina was too young to take his own vow, his father can
impose Nezirus on him.
2. Chanina: Don't bother! If I am still a child - my
father properly made me a Nazir;
i. If I am an adult, I accept Nezirus upon myself!
3. R. Gamliel: Surely, this child will make legal
rulings in Yisrael (this soon happened).
1. Question: According to Rebbi - his father can make
him a Nazir even if the child can take his own vows!