ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 26
NAZIR 26 -Dedicated l'Zecher Nishmat Benyamin Leib ben Aharon, and Harav
Hillel Lieberman HY"D, by a friend of the Kollel.
(a) We quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Halachah Hi be'Nazir'. Ma'os S'tam
of a Metzora Ani (shall we say), who became rich ...
1. ... in his lifetime - may be used to purchase whichever he wishes (a
Chatas Beheimah or an Olas Beheimah)
(b) When the Metzora designated the money - he declared 'Harei Eilu
le'Tzara'ti' (in which case he could have purchased whichever of his
Korbanos that he wished). But if he had said 'le'Korbanos Tzara'ti' - then
the Kedushah of both Korbanos would have taken effect on the money, and he
would have to use half the money for his Chatas and half for his Olah
2. ... after his death - goes to Nedavah.
(c) We might establish Rebbi Yochanan's case - when he specified half the
money for his Chatas and half for his Olah (Tosfos).
(d) Seeing as a Metzora (as well a Yoledes and a Zav, who also brings a pair
of birds) has the same Din as a Nazir, when Rebbi Yochanan said 'Halachah Hu
be'Nazir, he meant 'Nazir' and all that are like it (Tosfos).
(a) When Rebbi Yochanan said 'Halachah Hi be'Nazir (ve'Chol de'Dami Lei' -
Tosfos) - he was coming to exclude a case where someone added an Olas
Nedavah to a Chatas which he was already Chayav.
(b) In such a case (when the Noder was still alive) - he would have to bring
two animals to cover his two obligations, and transfer the money of the
Chatas on to the one, and that of the Olah on to the other.
(c) The underlying reason for this distinction is - because whereas, in
Rebbi Yochanan's case, both Korbanos come for his Nezirus, in the case of
the Beraisa, they come for different sins (one for eating Cheilev for
example, and the other, for a Nedavah).
(d) We just said in the previous case that someone who says 'Harei Eilu
le'Chovasi' cannot use the designated (but unspecified) money for whichever
Korban he chooses; whereas Chayvei Kinin can. The difference might lie in
the Lashon that he uses ('Harei Eilu le'Chovasi' in the former case), and
'li'Nezirasi' or 'le'Tzara'ti' (in the latter). The difference might be due
to the fact that the Korbanos of a Nazir, a Yoledes or a Metzora are all of
the same kind (e.g. Korbenos Nazir), and initially he could have bought a
Chatas or an Olah from all the money, he can do likewise when he becomes
rich; whereas the Chatas and the Olah, which are two independent Korbanos,
the money is automatically designated for both Korbanos, not just one of
them. Alternatively - it might be due to the Lashon that he uses ('Harei
Eilu le'Chovasi' in the former case), and 'li'Nezirasi' or 'le'Tzara'ti' (in
(a) If, in the previous case, he died leaving unspecified money, it goes to
the Yam ha'Melach. It does not go to Nedavah - because, due to the fact that
the Chatas and the Olah do not come from the same source, the Halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai was not said with regard to this case.
(b) If the money was specified however, then the money of the Chatas goes to
the Yam ha'Melach, whereas if they got mixed up, the mixture goes to
Nedavah. If the money was specified however, then the money of the Chatas
goes to the Yam ha'Melach, whereas if they later became mixed up, the
mixture goes to Nedavah. According to Rav Ashi's first Lashon, even if the
man had said 'Eilu le'Chatasi, u'le'Olasi u'le'Shalmi', it would be
considered 'Mefurashin'. The *practical* difference between whether he said
'Eilu le'Chatasi, Eilu le'Olasi, ve'Eilu li'Shalmi' or 'Eilu le'Chatasi,
u'le'Olasi u'le'Shalmi' is - that in the former case, he designated three
piles of money, whereas in the latter, he designated the money in one pile.
(c) The *Halachic* difference between the two cases is - that in the former,
the money goes to Nedavah, whereas in the latter, it goes to the Yam
ha'Melach (We shall from now on, refer to this as mixed Mefurashin)..
(a) In the second Lashon, regarding S'tam Ma'os from which the value of his
Chatas was separated - Rav Ashi says that even if the Noder said 'Eilu
le'Chovasi', the money is considered Ma'os Mefurashin (because 'le'Chovasi'
implies for his entire Chovah, and not just for one of the Korbanos [unlike
'li'Nezirusi', which implies any one of them]).
(b) Rava say that Ma'os S'tumin from which the equivalent of the value of
the Chatas was removed - has the Din of Ma'os Mefurashin, and he brings a
Chatas with half the money and an Olah with the other half.
(c) Even according to Resh Lakish, who learns from a Pasuk that Mosar Neder
goes to Nedavah, there is a difference between Mosar Nedavah which contains
the money for a Chatas and Mosar Nedavah which does not - because the Pasuk
probably speaks when the money for incorporated that of the Chatas, seeing
as elsewhere, we find that (based on the D'rashah of Yehoyada ha'Kohen) the
Mosar Chatas is brought as a Nedavah - Tosfos).
(d) We know for certain that Rava is correct - because his opinion is
substantiated by a Beraisa.
(a) The Beraisa (which substantiates Rava) says in the case of 'Eilu
le'Chatasi, ve'ha'Sha'ar le'Sha'ar Nezirusi' that ...
1. ... the money of the Chatas - goes to the Yam ha'Melach.
(b) The Tosefta establishes the Beraisa when the Noder died - because if he
was still alive, there would be no reason for the money of the Chatas to go
to the Yam ha'Melach?
2. ... the money of the Olah and the Shelamim - is transferred, half for an
Olah, and half for a Chatas.
(c) There is ...
1. ... Me'ilah for using *all* (or even most of) the remaining money -
because some of the money at least, must be that of the Olah, to which
2. ... no Me'ilah for using only part of it - because it is fit to be used
for a Shelamim, which is not subject to Me'ilah.
(a) The Beraisa says in the case of 'Eilu le'Olasi, ve'ha'Sha'ar le'Sha'ar
Nezirusi' that ...
1. ... the money of the Olah - goes to buy an Olah.
(b) There no Me'ilah for using part of that remaining money - because it is
fit to be used for a Shelamim.
2. ... the money of the Chatas and the Shelamim - goes to Nedavah (because
it contains that of a Chatas).
(c) We say this because despite the fact that the money goes to Nedavah,
which, after all, is an Olah (to which Me'ilah does apply) - the transition
to Nedavah only takes place when he actually comes to bring it (see Hagahos
(a) Rav Huna Amar Rav explains that the Beraisa is speaking when the
deceased man left money, but not when he left animals - in which case it
would have the Din of Ma'os Mefurashin.
(b) This cannot be speaking when he left a female lamb (for his Chatas), a
lamb (for his Olah) and a ram (for his Shelamim), because that is obvious
and Rav would not be teaching us any Chidush; and besides, that is already
contained in a Mishnah, and besides - Rav probably speaks in the same
circumstances as Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who precludes objects such as a
piece of silver, from the Din in the Beraisa, and which is certainly not fit
to be brought as a Korban.
(c) So we establish Rav - when he brought three animals that were not fit to
be brought as Korbenos Nazir, such as three bulls.
(d) The animals have the Din of mixed Mefurashin (which go to the Yam
ha'Melach). Here too - the animals must die.
(a) Rav Nachman qualifies Rav's previous ruling - by confining it to
un-blemished animals, but unblemished ones, have the Din of S'tumos, which
go to Nedavah.
Rabeinu Tam says that if someone retained these blemished animals for a long
period of time - they have the Din of mixed Mefurashin, which, as we
discussed on the previous Amud, go to the Yam ha'Melach (because we are
afraid that, in the course of time, the Noder may just declare part of them
a Chatas). In fact, Rabeinu Tamjn learns the entire Sugya on this basis. But
I shall be using the explanation of the Rosh, who explains Resh Lakish (who
learns 'Ma'os S'tumin' from a Pasuk) in this way.
(b) Despite the fact that, even when they are not blemished, they are unfit
to be brought as the Korbanos for which they were designated, blemished
animals are nevertheless different than unblemished ones - inasmuch as they
are Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf.
(c) Despite the fact that they are not fit to be brought as Korbenos Nazir,
they have Kedushas ha'Guf - because Rav Nachman holds like the Rabbanan in
Temurah, who maintain that if someone designates a female animal as an Olah,
it has Kedushas ha'Guf (seeing as it is fit to be brought as a Shelamim or a
(d) And despite the fact that, even though the animals are not blemished,
they need to be sold and it is the money which will be used to purchase
Korbanos - nevertheless, they are not considered S'tumin (like blemished
ones) - because unlike blemished animals, they would still need to become
blemished before they could be sold and replaced.
(a) Rav Nachman restricts 'Ma'os S'tumin Yiplu li'Nedavah' (in our Mishnah),
to money, but not to pieces of silver - which have the Din of mixed
Mefurashin, and go to the Yam ha'Melach, because he does not consider them
to be Ma'os (since they are not normally used as regular currency).
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak agrees with him with regard to beams of wood -
which are certainly not Ma'os, but not with regard to pieces of silver,
which he considers Ma'os, because one sells them immediately like coins, or
because one purchases with them.
(c) According to Resh Lakish, who learns Ma'os S'tumin from a Pasuk, and not
from a Halachah - we will preclude beams or pieces of silver from Ma'os
S'tumin due to the suspicion that, since one tends retain them for long
periods, the owner may have designated the money for a Chatas (in which
case, it must go to the Yam ha'Melach).
(d) The Machlokes between Rav Nachman and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak regarding
pieces of silver is - whether people tend to hold on to them for a long
period of time (Rav Nachman) or not (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak).
(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi, queries this Halachah on the grounds that, by the
same token, we ought then to say 'Ma'os ve'Lo Ofos' - meaning that a Kein of
unspecified birds should also then be considered mixed Mefurashin which go
to the Yam ha'Melach (Rosh).
(b) This cannot pertain to chickens and the like (which are unfit to be
brought as Korbanos, and) which, in turn, are unfit to be used as Korbanos
(like pieces of silver and planks, which we just precluded from 'Ma'os') -
because, seeing as they are not fit to be brought as *any* Korban, they
would be considered like blemished animals, which are fit to be sold
immediately and have the Din of Ma'os S'tumin (Tosfos).
(c) We initially think that Rav Shimi bar Ashi's statement can only pertain
to someone who is Chayav Kinin (e.g. a Metzora or a Zav), but not to a
Nazir - because, unlike a blemished animals, birds that are Kadosh Kedushas
ha'Guf, cannot be redeemed. Consequently, unless they are fit to be brought
for the person concerned, the fact that they are fit to be brought in other
cases would not help to make them S'tumin.
(d) It is possible however - to establish it in the case of a Tamei Nazir,
who also brings birds.
(a) Rav Chisda says - that the two birds brought by someone who is Chayav to
bring a Kein can be fixed, either by the owner designating them when he
purchases them, or by the Kohen when he actually sacrifices them just bring
(b) The problem that Rav Shimi bar Ashi now has with regard to the Halachah
'Ma'os ve'Lo Naska ... ve'Lo Ofos', as we explained above, is - how the
Kohen could then designate the two birds in the Kein, which have a Din of