Nazir Daf 10 - Nezirus from Meat and a Door
Summary
- The shiur presents the Mishnah on Nazir 10a, which sets two cryptic formulations of accepting *nezirut* linked to a cow that cannot stand and a jammed door, and records a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel about whether such language creates a full *nezirut*. The sugya develops four readings—one by Rami bar Chama, two explicitly by Rava, and a final one likely by Rava—probing whether the acceptance hinges on conditional triggers, on mistaken or associated speech, or on the speaker’s intent to display strength, and it analyzes why the Mishnah needs multiple parallel cases (figs, meat, door). Rabbi Yehuda limits Beit Shammai’s stringency to an issur *neder* on the cow’s meat, not an actual *nezirut*, and a series of Rishonim and Acharonim (Tosafot, Rosh, Rashi, Shitah Mekubbetzet citing Rabbeinu Azriel, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger) test the textual nuances, the “mapik heh” in הריני נזירה, the tzrichuta across the cases, and the interplay of conditional language and intent, with Beit Hillel ultimately arguing le-ta‘ameichem within Beit Shammai’s framework that even then the condition did not trigger.
- The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, לזכות רפואה שלימה for שמריהו בן ריזל שושנה מרים, by Sruly Rose and Yoni Statman in honor of Ari Rosenberg’s birthday, and anonymously לזכר נשמת משה דוב בן דוד זכר צדיק לברכה.
- The Mishnah presents two cases: a person links *nezirut* to a cow that cannot stand and to a door that is jammed, using language like אמר פרה זו הריני נזיר אם עומדת and a parallel for the door. Beit Shammai say he is a regular *nazir* with all laws of *nezirut*, and Beit Hillel say he is not a *nazir* because there is no such thing as being a *nazir* “from meat” or “from a door.” Rabbi Yehuda says that even according to Beit Shammai the result is not full *nezirut*, but an issur *neder* that makes the cow’s meat forbidden like a *korban* when phrased as לא אמרו אלא באומר פרה זו עלי קרבן אם עומדת היא, while conceding there is no corresponding *neder* from a door.
- Tosafot and the Rosh explain that אמרה פרה זו is a way of attributing the observer’s thought to the cow, as with the phrase “the boat thought” in *veha’aniyah chashvah lehisheber*, since cows and boats do not think. The מפרש notes that the Mishnah uses לשון אמירה to denote *machshavah*, as in *vayomer Esav bilvavo* and *vedover emet bilvavo*. Rav Yaakov Emden notes that even if a cow could speak like *aton Bilam*, the person’s becoming a *nazir* would not follow from the cow’s “speech,” underscoring that the sugya’s issue is the human’s intent and formulation.
- Rami bar Chama reads the case as a cow lying prone; the person declares הריני נזיר מבשרה אם עומדת, and the cow then stands. Beit Shammai apply their rule from הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה that as soon as he said הריני נזיר the *nezirut* takes effect and the added words do not undo it, whereas Beit Hillel say there is no *nezirut*. Tosafot explains הריני נזירה as a “mapik heh,” i.e., “I am a *nazir* of its meat,” folding בשר into נזירה, which sharpens Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s strong question that this case lacks an initial standalone הריני נזיר and thus cannot rest on yesterday’s basis of “no retraction within toch kedei dibbur”; Shitah Mekubbetzet, citing Rabbeinu Azriel, answers by reading the statement effectively as הריני נזיר מבשרה. The מפרש limits Rabbi Yehuda’s claim to the cow case, noting that a *neder* from a door is not a normal construct, and later Acharonim (Rashash, Be’er Moshe, Berach Rivash/“Berach Rosh”) challenge this limitation from sevara.
- Rava answers תרתי תלת to justify repetition across figs, meat, and door; Tosafot notes the attribution to Rava despite his later dissent, and Shitah Mekubbetzet suggests that in the maskanah Rava concedes an element shared with the prior Mishnah. The tzrichuta states that by גרוגרות ודבילה one might think Beit Shammai are strict because one could confuse them with grapes/raisins, while by בשר one might think the phrase follows the meal pairing of meat and wine, and by דלת one might think even Beit Shammai agree with Beit Hillel; hence all three are needed to establish Beit Shammai’s and Beit Hillel’s consistent positions. Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why a mere slip of the tongue would validate *nezirut* given a Mishnah in Terumot that a mismatched utterance is כלום; he answers that הריני נזיר is already a valid *dibbur*, and the later mistaken tag need not undo it if explainable as a tongue-slip, unlike Terumot where the entire *dibbur* mismatches intent.
- Rava rejects reading “on its own” in the condition and instead reads that the cow appears unable to rise at all, and the person in effect undertakes to bring that cow as part of his *nezirut* offerings, aligning with מלבד אשר תשיג ידו כפי נדרו and the Sifri’s case of על מנת לגלח על מאה עולות ועל מאה שלמים. This read fits the cow but fails for the door, which is not a *korban*.
- Rava reads that the person says הריני נזיר מיין אם לא עמדה and then the cow rises *amda me’eileha*. Beit Shammai understand his revealed intent (טורפי) as showing strength—if he does not get to raise it, he will be a *nazir*—and since he did not raise it, the condition triggers; Beit Hillel understand his intent as certainty that it will not stand, and since it did stand, the condition fails. The seifa in Rabbi Yehuda that limits Beit Shammai to an issur *neder* on meat, however, does not fit this formulation.
- Rava finally reads that the person says הריני נזיר מבשרה אם לא עמדה and then the cow rises *amda me’eileha*. Beit Shammai again read his intent (טורפי) as showing strength—since he did not raise it, the condition triggers his acceptance—while Beit Hillel read his intent as that the cow remain prone, and since it stood, the condition fails and nothing is triggered. The Gemara challenges that even if the condition were met, Beit Hillel hold מבשרה is not a valid *nezirut*; the answer states that Beit Hillel speak le-ta‘ameichem to Beit Shammai: לדידן even if it never stood there is no *nezirut* because מבשרה is invalid, ולדידכו who validate such language, at least concede that the condition was not met since the cow stood.
- Rabbi Yehuda states that even when Beit Shammai impose an issur, they refer only to באומר פרה זו עלי קרבן אם עומדת היא, which yields a *neder* forbidding the meat like a *korban* rather than full *nezirut*. The מפרש emphasizes that this limitation applies to the cow case and not to the door, because a *neder* “from a door” is not a meaningful construct, though later authorities question this from the general principle of *madpis* to *korban*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions