Nazir 54: Tumah of Chutz La’aretz

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A dilemma was raised before the sages: Did the sages decree the land of the nation’s impure with regard to the air? Or perhaps they decreed it impure with regard to the earth?

When a nazir sets foot outside of Israel, do they contract impurity by stepping on the ground (impure with regard to the earth)? Or even by passing through in a carriage which means they never set foot on the ground (impure with regard to the air)?

According to one sage, the nazir contracts ritual impurity even by riding in a carriage and keeping their feet off the ground, though if they enclose themselves completely in a box for the entire journey then they can avoid this impurity. However, this opinion is disputed.

We review the notion of Eretz Amin and Tumah as well as the issue of Cohanim flying over airspace.

Nazir 53: Body Parts

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Limb from a Corpse

The Mishnah had stated that a limb from a corpse and a limb from a living person upon which there is a sufficient amount of flesh (for the limb to regenerate.

this is necessary by the limb from a corpse as well) obligates the nazir to shave. The Gemora asks: What would the halachah be if there was not a sufficient amount of flesh on them? Rabbi Yochanan said: The nazir will not be required to shave. Rish Lakish said: The nazir will be obligated to shave. The Gemora explains: Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the nazir will not be required to shave, for the Mishnah stated that a limb from a corpse and a limb from a living person upon which there is a sufficient amount of flesh obligates the nazir to shave. Evidently, if it does not have a sufficient amount of flesh, he will not be required to shave.

We explore the need for burial of body parts and the forensic determination of exhumation following genocide.

Nazir 52: Skull and Spine

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a nazir comes in touch with a dead body, he loses his previous days, has to shave, must bring sacrifices, and then restart. How much of a dead body? One of the examples is a skull and spine - just bones, even if they have no meat on them.

The Mishna had stated: For these tumos the nazir shaves: For the spinal column and for the skull. The Gemora inquires: Are both the spinal column and the skull necessary in order to transmit tumah, or does the Mishna mean that either the spinal column or the skull can transmit tumah?

The Gemora attempts to resolve this inquiry from the following braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: Six things were declared tamei by Rabbi Akiva, and the Chachamim ruled tahor, and Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion.

We explore the Halacha of Cohanim visiting hospitals museums and death camps as well as the curious discussion as to the location of mythic Luz bone in the vertebral column.

Nazir 51: וּמְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A ladleful of corpse-dust.

The Gemora asks: And what is its size? Chizkiyah said: A palmfull. Rabbi Yochanan said: A handfull. It has been taught in a braisa: The ladleful of corpsedust mentioned is from the base of the fingers and upwards; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

The Sages say: A handfull. Now, Rabbi Yochanan at least agrees with the Sages; but with whom does Chizkiyah agree, neither with Rabbi Meir, nor with the Sages?

The Gemora answers: They say: A palmfull and from the joints of the fingers and upwards is the same measure.

We explore the development of Halacha and the intersection of Qumran texts…regarding laws of Tuma’h.

The pathology of human decomposition is also reviewed.

Nazir 50: Unfit for a Dog

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: And for a k’zayis (olive’s volume) from a corpse and for a k’zayis of netzel. The Gemora asks: What is netzel? The Gemora answers: The flesh of a corpse that has congealed, and liquid secretion from a corpse that bubbles when it is heated.

Abaye inquired of Rabbah: Is there a concept of netzel by an animal or not (will the decomposed flesh of an animal transmit tumah just like the carcass of an animal, known as neveilah)? Do we derive the halachah from a human corpse or not? The Gemora notes: This inquiry could be resolved according to the opinion who holds that a strict tumah (such as neveilah which can transmit tumah to people and utensils) transmits tumah until it is unfit to be eaten by a human; however, a lenient tumah (foods or liquids that are tamei, which can transmit tumah only to other foods and liquids) can still transmit tumah to other objects until it is unfit to be eaten by dogs (and since we are discussing neveilah, the netzel cannot be tamei for it is unfit for human consumption).

However, the inquiry remains according to the opinion who maintains that a strict tumah transmits tumah until it is unfit to be eaten by a dog (for a dog will still eat the netzel).

We explore the cultural valence dogs in the ancient world as well as in talmud.

Nazir 49: מֵאִיר שָׁכַב

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When Rabbi Meir passed away the collegial Sage who regularly disputed his rulings, Rabbi Yehuda, was greatly concerned that he would come under attack from his colleague's disciples. He therefore urged his own disciples to prevent them from attending his Torah dissertations lest they attempt to challenge him just for the sake of proving him incorrect.

One of Rabbi Meir's disciples, the Sage Sumchus, somehow forced his way in and did challenge something that Rabbi Yehuda said. In our gemara it was in connection with Rabbi Meir's statement about a nazir's contact with the dead. In the Mesechta Kiddushin (52b) the challenge was regarding a statement by Rabbi Meir about a kohen using the flesh of a sacrifice to make kiddushin.

In both of these cases Rabbi Yehuda became angry at his disciples for permitting the challenger to enter and he summarily dismissed the challenges.

We explore this fascinating Amorah a disciple of R. Akiva and Acher

Nazir 48: Akiva vs Ishmael

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis continue to compare the similarities and differences between the nazirite and the Kohen Gadol, the high priest. Both are permitted to become tamei, ritually impure, in order to do a met mitzvah, where they come across a dead body and bury it because no one else is available to complete the burial. They find the prooftext for the Kohen Gadol's permission. They search for the prooftext for the nazirite's allowance to become tamei for a met mitzvah.

A number of exegetical moves are made parsing the verse ;

7 He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die; because his consecration unto God is upon his head.

Num 6:7

In this pericope the difference between R Akiva and R Ishmael in interpretation emerge.

We explore further hermeneutical difference between these two giants.

Nazir 47: מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora inquires: Who is better: A mashuach milchamah (the Kohen in charge of leading the people into battle) or the assistant Kohen Gadol? Is the mashuach milchamah better because he is the one who leads the people to war? Or is the assistant Kohen Gadol better as he can perform the service? The Gemora attempts to answer this question from a braisa.

The braisa states: There is no difference between a mashuach milchamah and an assistant Kohen Gadol besides that if both of them were walking together and they saw a meis mitzvah, the mashuach milchamah should become tamei and not the assistant.

The Gemora asks: Doesn’t another braisa state that the mashuach milchamah is better than the assistant? Mar Zutra answers: Regarding keeping them alive, the mashuach milchamah is better. Why? This is because the public depends upon him.

We explore the limits of the Kohein gad in war as well as recent reviews of Reb Shlomo Salman Auerbach’s unique approach to the treatment of dead soldiers in the IDF.

Nazir 46: מְבַשֵּׁל אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 46

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches that the nazirite cooks and overcooks the sin-offering, and then the priest puts the ram's foreleg, one unleavened loaf from the basket, and one unleavened wafer onto the nazirite's hands, waving them. After this the nazirite is allowed to drink wine and to contract ritual impurity via a corpse. Rabbi Shmuel says that all is permitted after the blood of the offering is sprinkled. The rest of the ritual is superfluous.

We further explore the offerings of the Nazir

Nazir 45: Hair Burning Ritual

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

After a nazir completes his nezirut, he is obligated to visit the Temple and bring three sacrifices – a hatat (sin offering), an olah (an offering entirely burned on the altar) and a shelamim (an offering that is shared by the kohanim and the owner, aside from what is burned on the altar). In addition, the nazir is obligated to cut his hair.

Rabbi Meir says: Everyone throws his hair under the pot, including a pure nazirite who shaved outside the Temple and an impure nazirite, except for an impure nazirite who shaved in the rest of the country. In that case alone he refrains from throwing his hair to be burned beneath his offering.

We explore the abstention from wine according to the chinuch and Rambam

With insights from harav Lichtenstein and Prof. Avram Ravitzky

Nazir 44: Corpse Impurities

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz tells us:

a nazir is prohibited from coming into contact with a dead body, as well as cutting his hair and eating or drinking grape products. The Mishna on our daf teaches that there are differences between these various prohibitions:

If a nazir becomes tameh or if his hair is cut, he must begin his nezirut anew, but if he drinks wine his nezirut continues even though he transgressed a prohibition.

There is a difference between these two laws. Coming into contact with the dead obligates the nazir to bring a sacrifice and start his nezirut from the beginning; having his hair cut does not obligate him to bring a sacrifice, and at most he will need to count 30 days, even if he had accepted a lengthier nezirut on himself.

The prohibitions against becoming tameh or cutting hair may be pushed aside by other considerations – e.g., taking care of a met mitzva (a dead person who has no one to bury him) or a metzora (a leper) who is obligated to shave his body upon recovering from his tzara’at. There are no exceptions to the rule about drinking wine, which will always be forbidden.

We further explore the concept of tunas Meis comparing Nazir with Kehunah.

Does impurity apply to gentiles?

Nazir 43: Priestly Impurity

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although a nazir cannot allow himself to become tameh even for his immediate relatives, a kohen is permitted – in fact, with the exception of a kohen gadol, he is required – to participate in the funeral of his immediate relatives, including his mother, father, son, daughter, brother and unmarried sister (see Vayikra 21:1-3).

Rav is quoted by Rav Ḥisda as teaching that this is true only if the father’s body is whole; if his head was removed from his body, the kohen is not allowed to become tameh. The Ramban, in his Torat ha-Adam, limits this to cases where a limb was removed at the time of death or after death. If the relative lived without a limb, upon his death we consider his body to be “complete” and the kohen is expected to participate in his burial.

We explore the purity and impurity of the Priestly code and the exclusion of those whose body organs have been removed.

Nazir 42: Scissors

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have learned that a nazir cannot cut his hair. The Mishnayot on our daf discuss whether the nazir would be allowed to perform activities – like shampooing his hair – that may lead to some of his hair being removed.

The first Mishna teaches that a nazir can be hofef or mefaspes, but he cannot be sorek.

While sorek is understood as combing hair, which is forbidden according to the Gemara because the intent of combing is to pull out dangling hairs, the other two terms are the subject of some discussion among the rishonim.

We continue our exploration of the halachot of shaving and scissors vs razors, including the peyot, and a wonderful journey into early Americana with the anniversary booklet on the J. W. Wiss and sons, company of Newark NJ 1848-1948

Nazir 41: Hair (Or Lack of) As Identity

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Jewish law forbids a man from removing the hair around his head – pe’at roshkhem – and from shaving his beard – pe’at zekanekha (see Vayikra 19:27). Common practice today accepts that the only prohibition involved in shaving one’s beard is if it is done with a razor, but otherwise it is permissible, even if it mispara’im ke-en ta’ar – even if it is cut with a scissors so close to the skin as to appear to have been done with a razor.

We further explore the role of hair in creating gender identity as well as baldness in other spiritual disciplines.

Nazir 40: Tonsuring

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF

There are three who must shave their hair, and their shaving of it is a commandment: the nazirite, the metzora, and the Levites.

The Torah commands three categories of people to shave their hair. The metzora, whom we have been discussing in the previous mishnayot. The Nazirite at the end of his term of naziriteship. See Numbers 6:18 and Mishnah Nazir 6:7. The Levites when they were first dedicated to service. See Numbers 8:7.

If any of these cut their hair but not with a razor, or if they left even two remaining hairs, their act is of no validity.

They must all shave their hair with a razor and not cut it with scissors. And if even two hairs are left behind, they have not fulfilled the mitzvah.

What should be done if a nazirite shaves his or her hair during his/her term of nazirut? Does every single hair have to be shaved in order to have transgressed they prohibition? What if one or two hairs are left? What if the hair is cut with something other than a razor? What if the remaining hair is long enough to bend over on itself?

We explore more (see Daf Ditty Nazir 18) on tonsuring and the developmental halachic history of male depilation as a reflection of our galut encounters with Christian and Arabic local mores.

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.