Nazir 39: Of Lice and Nits: (The Nitty Gritty of It)

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 39

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Does the new growth of hair grow from the bottom or from the top (and the hairs closest to the head do not move at all)? The Gemora explains a halachic difference between them. The case is as follows: Bandits shaved a nazir’s head and they left over enough hair to bend the top of the hair to its root. If hair grows from the bottom, they have removed his hairs of nezirus (and his days are forfeited). However, if hairs grow from the top, the hair which he sanctified still remains (and his days are not forfeited).

The Gemora says: Let us resolve this inquiry by observing a live nit, which remains by the hair closest to the head. If hair grows from the bottom, the nit should eventually be found at the top of the hair.

The Gemora deflects the proof: In truth, the hair grows from the bottom. The reason the nit remains on the bottom is because it’s alive, it constantly slides towards the head of the person (in order to survive from the head’s moisture).

We explore the nitty gritty history of nits from ancient times through the typhus ridden camps of WWII and the greatest bluff the NAZIS fell for.

Nazir 38: עֶשֶׂר רְבִיעִיּוֹת הֵן

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 38

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Avahu said in the name of Rabbi Elozar: Concerning all quarter-log measurements in the Torah, the permissible liquid does not combine with the forbidden one to complete the minimal punishable amount, except for the quarter-log measurement regarding a nazir, for the Torah has stated, mishras (anything which is soaked in wine, he may not drink).

The Gemora asks: What is the difference between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar (for Rabbi Avahu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Concerning all prohibitions in the Torah, the permissible food does not combine with the forbidden one to complete the minimal punishable amount, except for the prohibitions regarding a nazir, for the Torah has stated, mishras)?

The Gemora answers: Rabbi Yochanan includes food items, whereas Rabbi Elozar holds that this principle is only applicable to liquids. Rabbi Elozar said: With respect to ten topics, the Torah established the measurement of a revi’is (quarter-log).

We review the measurements of liquid and solid with comparison to other societies in the late antique period.

Nazir 37: מִשְׁרַ֤ת עֲנָבִים֙

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 37

To download, click/tap here: PDF

ג מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר, חֹמֶץ יַיִן וְחֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה; וְכָל-מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה, וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל.

3 He shall abstain from wine and strong drink: he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried.

Num 6:3

Abaye asked: How do you know that the word “mishras” comes to teach that even permitted items can combine with wine products to form an amount for which a nazir is considered to transgress his vow? Perhaps it is telling us that the taste of an item is akin to it being physically present (known as “ta’am k’ikar”)?

[This means that wine-soaked bread would be prohibited to a nazir even though the wine was very absorbed in the bread, and it merely made the bread have a taste of wine.]

Going back to Nazir 33b is unique in the Babylonian Talmud for having no actual Talmud on it. The page is instead completely filled by the commentary of the medieval group of commentators known as Tosafot.

How did we get a page of Talmud with no Talmud in it? In 1519, a Christian named Daniel Bomberg and his publishing house began to publish what would become the first printed edition of the complete Babylonian Talmud.

The printers made an unusual decision to dedicate an entire page of the printed edition to catching up with Tosafot. Nazir 33b presents Tosafot’s commentary not only on Nazir 33a, but going back as far as Nazir 31b — for a total of four pages of Tosafot’s commentary.

Nazir 36: כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 36

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Abaye asked him: But is eating an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread prohibited by Torah law, and is one flogged for it? Rav Dimi said to him: Yes. Abaye asked in response: If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ, a dip that contains bread, on Passover? The Rabbis maintain that one is not punished by Torah law for eating a mixture that contains leaven.

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Leave aside the case of Babylonian kutaḥ, as there is no possibility that one will consume an olive-bulk of the leaven in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If he eats kutaḥ in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing [shareif ] it as food, not as a dip, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people.

We review the halachot of כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס

And the issue of eating the Afikoman prior to Chatzot by the seder…..

Rabbi Baruch Epstein (the Mekor Baruch) visited his uncle the Netziv one seder and Reb Chayim Brisker the next comparing the atmosphere and the different approaches to the deadline for the afikomen.

We divert to the history of the Netziv and Reb Boruch Eostein in memory of my late Mother in law Rebbetzin Rachel Gettinger ( a direct descendent of the Netziv) whose sh'loshim we mark today.

Nazir 35: אֵין הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 35

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to all prohibitions that are written in the Torah, a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance. If one eats a permitted food with a forbidden food and together, they constitute the minimum prohibited measure, he is exempt from punishment for this act of consumption. This principle applies to all halakhot except for the prohibitions of a nazirite, who is liable for eating a mixture of that kind, as the Torah said with regard to a nazirite:

ג מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר, חֹמֶץ יַיִן וְחֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה; וְכָל-מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה, וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל.

3 he shall abstain from wine and strong drink: he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried.

Num 6:3

“Neither shall he drink anything soaked in grapes”.

This verse indicates that a nazirite is prohibited from consuming not only wine and vinegar, but also any food that was soaked in these liquids.

The Gemara introduces the concept of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." One is punished for transgressing the Torah's commandment against eating a forbidden item only when he eats an item of a minimum size. "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur"teaches that the minimum size may be comprised of the forbidden item combined with a permitted item.

Rebbi Avahu in the name of Rebbi Yochanan states that only with regard to the prohibitions of Nezirus does "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur"apply, but not to any other Isur in the Torah. An example of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" is when a Nazir dips his bread (which is permitted) into wine (which is forbidden) and eats the mixture, and together the bread and the wine have a total volume of a k'Zayis. Even though the wine alone does not comprise the minimum Shi'ur of a k'Zayis, the Nazir is liable since the total Shi'ur of the mixture is a k’Zayis.

We delve into the throaty of hermeneutics specifically halachic differences between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael as a result of their own interpretations of the scriptural text.

Nazir 34: רָאָה אֶת הַכּוֹי

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 34

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna introduces another typically Talmudic scenario.  

A person might see a koi (which is an unspecified animal - perhaps a deer/goat; perhaps a mouflon or a water buffalo) (see Dan Ditty Yoma 74 for more)  and vows nezirut if the animal is non-domesticated.  

Another might vow similarly if the animal is not non-domesticated. Another might vow nazirut if the animal is domesticated and another if the animal is not domesticated.  A fifth person might vow nazirut if the animal is both; a sixth might vow nazirut if the animal is neither. Another might vow nazirut if one of the others is a nazirite and yet another might vow nazirut if none of the above are nazirites.  Finally, one might vow nazirut if all are nazirites.  

The Mishna concludes that all of the people in this scenario would be nazirites.

We explore the work of Michael Roe and conditional vows with an addendum to Yoma 74 on Aveira Lishma (PhD thesis of Yoval Blankovsky)

Nazir 33: סְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 33

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz tells us:

The Mishna (32b) tells of a group of people walking together who spy a figure walking towards them:

One person says: I will be a nazir if that is So-and-so approaching us.

The second one says: I will be a nazir if it is not So-and-so.

The third says: I will be a nazir if one of you is a nazir.

The fourth says: I will be a nazir if you are both nezirim.

The fifth says: I will be a nazir if all of you are nezirim.

Beit Shammai rules that all of these people are nezirim, based on his position which appears in the first Mishna in the perek (see 30b–31a) that even a mistaken nezirut takes effect. Beit Hillel says that only those whose conditions were not fulfilled become nezirim.

Beit Hillel’s statement is obviously problematic – clearly those people whose conditions were not fulfilled should not become nezirim – and Rav Yehuda suggests amending the Mishna to read that only those whose conditions were fulfilled should become nezirim.

We further explore the concept of סְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל with the Samar Rebbe’s use regarding the heralding of Mashiach and his refusal to testify on behalf of Kastner at his trial.

Nazir 32: Daniel’s 70 Years and Newton

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When nazirites were ascending from the exile to sacrifice their offerings, and they found the Temple destroyed, Naḥum the Mede said to them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have taken a vow of naziriteship?

They said to him: Certainly not, as there is no remedy for a naziriteship in this case. And Naḥum the Mede dissolved the vow for them. And when the matter came before the Rabbis, they said: His ruling is incorrect. Rather, whoever took a vow of naziriteship before the Temple was destroyed, like these nazirites from the exile, he is a nazirite, as he committed no error at the time of his vow, and one cannot dissolve vows based a new situation.

However, one who stated his vow after the Temple was destroyed is not a nazirite, as he vowed based on an erroneous assumption.

Only people who make nazirite vows after the destruction of the Temple may be released from their vows using the Temple as grounds for the release.

Abaye said: And did they not know when? But isn’t it written:

כד שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים נֶחְתַּךְ עַל-עַמְּךָ וְעַל-עִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ, לְכַלֵּא הַפֶּשַׁע ולחתם (וּלְהָתֵם) חטאות (חַטָּאת) וּלְכַפֵּר עָוֺן, וּלְהָבִיא, צֶדֶק עֹלָמִים; וְלַחְתֹּם חָזוֹן וְנָבִיא, וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים.

24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place.

Dan 9:24

We explore the 70 years Daniel prophesied and the curious prophecy calculated by Newton for the end times.

Nazir 31: שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our first Mishnah in Perek V states:

What is considered an act of erroneous consecration? If one said: A black bull that will emerge from my house first is consecrated, and a white bull emerged first, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated.

Similarly, if one said: A gold dinar that will come up first in my hand is consecrated, and when he reached into his pocket a dinar of silver came up, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated.

Likewise, if one said: A barrel of wine that will come up first in my hand when I enter the cellar is consecrated, and a barrel of oil came up in his hand instead, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated.

The consecration of an item is considered not merely a promise, but a legal act in and of itself. Therefore, a consecration of an item to the Temple treasury is legally equivalent to transferring ownership of that item to another person. For this reason, it can be argued that even if uttered in error, an act of consecration is binding.

This disagreement leads the Gemara to discuss the advantages and disadvantages connected with white animals and black animals. Rav Ḥisda teaches that “black among white is a deficiency” and that at the same time “white among black is a deficiency.”

We explore the black/white identity among Jews as well as identity politics in recent judicial rulings.

Nazir 30: Women’s (lack of ) Inheritance

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between a man and a woman? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is so, even without this halakha. What is the purpose of stating this?

Is Rabbi Yoḥanan coming to say that a son inherits from his father whereas a daughter does not, and therefore only a son who inherits from his father can use his animals, but not a daughter?

This is obvious, as it is stated in the Torah that a daughter does not inherit from her father if he has a son (see Numbers 27:8).

We explore inheritance of women in antiquity and in Islam.

Nazir 29: חַיָּיב לְחַנְּכוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (28b) teaches that a father (and only a father, not a mother) can make his son a nazir. The source for this law is a point of disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan, who simply says halakha hee be-nazir – 

there is an oral tradition regarding the laws of nezirut that permits this, and Resh Lakish, who says kedei le-hankho be-mitzvot – that it is permitted so that the father can educate his son with regard to the commandments.

We explore the concepts of chinuch from different perspectives.

Nazir 28: פֵאָה נׇכְרִית

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In many communities today Orthodox women wear wigs in order to cover their hair in public. Some suggest that the source for this tradition is from our daf.

The Mishna teaches that in a case where a woman has completed her nezirut and begins bringing the sacrifices that conclude her time as a nazir, her husband can no longer object to her nezirut and be mefer – the one to nullify her vow of nezirut. 

He can do so, however, if she is bringing sacrifices after having become temeah and is returning to her status as a nezira, since he can argue that her refraining from wine affects their relationship. Rabbi Meir argues that even if the nezirut is over the husband can object, arguing that he can reasonably claim that having a wife with a shaven head is unpleasant for him.

We explore the shaving of women’s heads as well as the Chasm Sofer’s stringencies  on Peah Nochrit, as well as looking at Anthony Synott’s analysis of  the sociology of hair. 

Nazir 27: Agrippas' Dream

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

King Agrippa sought to offer up a thousand olah-offerings in a single day.

He sent a message to the High Priest saying, "Let no one bring any offerings today except for me." A poor man came with two turtledoves in his hand, and said to the priest, "Offer these up."

He replied to him, "The king has commanded me, saying to me, Let no one bring any offerings today except for me.'"

[The poor man] said to him, "My master, High Priest! I capture four every day. I offer up two and I sustain myself with two. If you do not offer them up, you will cut off my sustenance!"

He took them and offered them up.

It appeared to Agrippa in a dream: The offering of a poor person has taken precedence over yours!

He sent a message to the High Priest, saying, "Did I not instruct you that no one should bring any offerings today except for me?"

[The High Priest] told him, "My master, the king! A poor man came with two turtledoves in his hand, and said to me,

'Offer these up. I said to him, 'The king has commanded me, saying to me: Let no one bring any offerings today except for me.' The poor person said to me, 'I capture four every day. I offer up two and I sustain myself with two. If you do not offer them up, you will cut off my sustenance. Was I not to offer them up?"

He said to him, "Everything you did, you did properly.

We explore the midrashim regarding sacrifices or poor people vs royalty and the way chazal

Used such stories to teach morality and purity of intention not wealth.

Nazir 26: יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If someone was obligated to offer a chatas and he proclaimed, “It is upon me to offer an olah” (which constitutes a vow; he now has an obligation to bring a chatas for his sin and an olah for his vow). He then proceeded to separate monies and said, “These are for my obligation” (but he did not specify which one; we are not certain if he meant only one of his obligations or both). In such a case, if he would want to use the money to bring an animal as a chatas, he may not, and if he would want to use the money to bring an animal as an olah he may not (for the obligation to bring the chatas and the obligation to bring the olah are two distinct obligations, and the law is that he cannot use the money for an offering which was not included in his original designation).

If he died and unspecified money was in his possession, the money should be cast into the Dead Sea.

[This law is different than that of a nazir, where we allow the money to be used for voluntary communal offerings.]

We explore the geology and archeology of the salt sea (Yam Hamelach)

Nazir 25: הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora had stated: If a nazir died and he had designated an unspecified amount of money for his korbanos, they are to be used for voluntary communal offerings. The Gemora asks: But aren’t monies for the chatas mixed in with them? 

(How can all the money be used for voluntary communal offerings, when the money designated for a chatas must be cast into the Dead Sea?) 

Rabbi Yochanan answers: It is a special Halacha (l’Moshe mi’Sinai) that was said regarding the monies of a nazir. 

Rish Lakish answers: It is written: Whether any of their vows or any of their voluntary offerings. The Torah is teaching us that the leftover funds (from an unspecified amount) should be used for voluntary olah offerings. 

We explore the history and scholarship behind  the concept of הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי including the work of Prof Dovid Weiss Halivni OBM.

Nazir 24: מַה שֶּׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ The mishna teaches: If the animal was hers, the sin-offering must be left to die and the burnt-offering is sacrificed.The Gemara asks: She, this married woman, from where does she have her own property? Haven’t you said as a principle that with regard to any item that a woman acquires, her husband automatically acquires it from her? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where she saved it from her dough, i.e., she was able to buy the animal with the money she saved by eating less. 

Our case of מַה שֶּׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ opens up the discussion of wiomen and halachic observance.

Nazir 23: גְּדוֹלָה עֲבֵירָה לִשְׁמָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Greater is a transgression committed for its own sake, i.e., for the sake of Heaven,than a mitzva performed not for its own sake. The Gemara questions this comparison: But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, as it is through acts performed not for their own sake that good deeds for their own sake come about? How, then, can any transgression be considered greater than a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven?

Rather, one must emend the above statement and say as follows: A transgression for the sake of Heaven is equivalent to a mitzva not for its own sake.

We explore the notion of sinning for the sake of heaven from different perspectives including an analysis of the controversial Hassidic Master Reb Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Ishbitz.

Nazir 22: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the esteemed says: What is the meaning when the verse states:

“And the priest shall prepare one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the dead; and he shall hallow his head that same day.”

“And make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the soul”? And with which soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, because he deprived himself of wine he is therefore called a sinner. 

And are not these matters inferred a fortiori: And if this one, who deprived himself only of wine, is nevertheless called a sinner, in the case of one who deprives himself of everything by fasting or other acts of mortification, all the more so is he labeled a sinner.

We explore the sinner vs saint aspect of nezirus including the Rambam’s apparent self contradiction.

Nazir 21: דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If one said: My hand is a nazirite, and similarly, if he said: My foot is a nazirite, he has not said anything of consequence. However, if he said: My head is a nazirite, or: My liver is a nazirite, he is a nazirite. This is the principle: If one accepted naziriteship by means of an entity upon which life depends, i.e., a limb or a body part that he cannot survive without, he is a nazirite. Conversely, if he mentioned part of the body that is not essential for life, he is not a nazirite. In this case, as he referred to his hair, which is certainly not a vital part of him, he should not be a nazirite.

The talmud has a specific understanding of what anatomical organ is “vital” or essential for life.

We explore notions of vital organs in antiquity.

Nazir 20: כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם תַּלְמִיד לָרַב

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah at the beginning of the fourth chapter discusses a case where one person declared his becoming a nazir, and several people, in succession, each say they will also become a nazir.

However, the statement of each person is that he will follow the example of the person immediately before him. 

Therefore, if the first person revokes his nezirus, the entire line of commitment collapses, and no one is a nazir. In the Gemara, Reish Lakish adds that the Mishnah must be understood where all of the speakers who accepted nezirus upon themselves did so within a narrow time period of  within the time it takes for a student to greet his Torah teacher (who says the three words —Hello to you, my Rebbe.”) 

We explore the theory of social valorization and how we devalue people in the educational and economic realms.