A Partial Day is Regarded as an Entire Day

We have learned in the following braisa (Daf Yomi: Nazir 15a): One who buried his dead three days prior to the festival, the decree regarding the seven days of mourning are cancelled. One who buried his dead eight days prior to the festival, the decree regarding the thirty days of mourning are cancelled. He may take a haircut on the eve of the festival; if he did not, he is forbidden from taking a haircut after the festival. Abba Shaul disagrees and holds that he would nevertheless be permitted to take a haircut after the festival since in the same manner that three days of mourning prior to the festival cancels completely the seven days of mourning, seven days of mourning prior to the festival cancels completely the thirty days of mourning.

What is Abba Shaul’s reason? Is it not because he maintains that part of the day is like the entire day and the seventh day counts for the last day of shiva (seven days of mourning) and for the first day of the sheloshim (thirty days of mourning).

The Gemora asks that perhaps Abba Shaul only ruled in this manner by the halachos of shiva, which is only Rabbinical, but with respect to a nazir, where his halachos are of Biblical origin, he would not rule this way (that one day can be counted as two).

*** Tosfos (Moed Katan 19b) cites Harav Yom Tov that since we have established that part of the seventh day counts for the last day of shiva (seven days of mourning) and for the first day of the sheloshim (thirty days of mourning), a mourner would be permitted to take a haircut on the twenty-ninth day, since the seventh day counts as two days. He then cites a dissenting opinion that with respect to the halachos of sheloshim, we do not rule that the seventh day counts as two days.

*** Reb Elchonon Wasserman in Koveitz Heoros (39:3) explains the dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Abba Shaul in the following manner: Abba Shaul holds that a partial day is regarded as a full day, and therefore a day can be split into two, and it may be counted as two days. The Tanna Kamma, however, holds that one who has observed the halachos of the day can be regarded as if he observed them for the entire day, but the day itself cannot be regarded as two days.

*** The Rosh holds that this halacha that part of the day is like the entire day is even applicable at night. If one observed the halachos of mourning on the night of the seventh day, it should be regarded as if he observed them the entire day. He cites a Rashbam, who says that the custom is for the mourning period to conclude by day. The Rosh does not understand the reason for this.

Read more!

Nezirus Shimshon

It is evident from our Gemora (Daf Yomi: Nazir 14a) that one cannot nullify a nezirus Shimshon. If so, our version of hataras nedarim (the nullification of our vows) that we recite on Erev Rosh Hashanah is very problematic. We state explicitly that we are petitioning the Beis Din to annul all of our nedarim and nezirus, and even a nezirus Shimshon! How can it be nullified?

The Pischei Teshuvah (Y.D. 139:6), based on this question writes that our version is an erroneous one.

However, the Nitzotzei Ohr cites a Minchas Chinuch (368), who says in the name of the Leket Hakemach that nezirus Shimshon cannot be nullified only if the nezirus had begun already; however, if it did not start yet (i.e. he said, “I will be a nazir Shimshon in twenty days”), it may be annulled. On Erev Rosh Hashanah, we are petitioning the Beis Din to annul any future vows of nezirus that we may utter.

Read more!

Moshe's Death and Nezirus on Shabbos

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Nazir 14a): inquires: What is the halacha if he said, “like Moshe on the seventh of Adar”? (Is he referring to Moshe’s birthday – a day of celebration, and then, he would not be declaring himself as a nazir; or perhaps, he was referring to the day that Moshe died – a day of sorrow, and then, he would be declaring himself as a nazir?)

Tosfos writes that on the day that Moshe died, there were presumably many Jews who declared a vow of nezirus because of their sorrow.

The Ben Poras asks: Behold, Moshe died on Shabbos! (Tosfos in Menachos (30a) cites a dispute regarding this. Some say that he died on a Friday.) How was it permitted for them to accept a vow of nezirus on Shabbos? He explains: The Rama Mipano rules that a Kohen Gadol cannot be anointed with the anointing oil on Shabbos because this oil renders him holy, and this would be regarded as tikkun gavra (repairing him, which would be forbidden on Shabbos). Accordingly, it should be forbidden for one to accept nezirus on Shabbos, for with his vow, he becomes holy!

He answers that since it is possible to have the nezirus annulled, and he is not a permanent nazir, it is not regarded as a tikkun gavra.

The Pardes Yosef answers that they accepted nezirus on Motzoei Shabbos; not on Shabbos. This would certainly be congruent with the opinion who holds that he died at sunset towards the conclusion of Shabbos. It is for this reason that we recite the tefillah of tzidkascha tzedek by Mincha on Shabbos.

Read more!

Son, but not a Daughter

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Nazir 13a): If someone says: “I will be a nazir when I will have a son,” he becomes a nazir when he has a son. If he has a daughter, or a tumtum (no signs of gender), or an androgynous (signs of both genders), he does not become a nazir.

Tosfos explains: He declares the nezirus in this manner as a way of thanking Hashem for providing him with a son.

The Beis Yosef explains that according to Tosfos, it is understandable why the Mishna said “a son,” and not “a daughter,” for otherwise, we would have said that the Mishna was not precise with its wording.

The Mabit (1:120) adds that if he would have a daughter, he would not be a nazir, for he is saddened that he had a daughter and not a son. In general though, a daughter would be included when he says, “a son.”

The Meiri writes that the explanation of the Mishna is as follows: Even though the word “son” connotes any child, and not necessarily a son, but its primary meaning suggests a male child.

Read more!

Daughter, not a Tumtum

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Nazir 13a)states: If someone says: “I will be a nazir when I will have a son,” he becomes a nazir when he has a son. If he has a daughter, or a tumtum (no signs of gender), or an androgynous (signs of both genders), he does not become a nazir.

Tosfos explains that he does not regard a tumtum or an androgynous as his son.

The Maaseh Rokeach wonders what would be the halacha if he said, “I will be a nazir when I will have a daughter,” and he has a daughter, or a tumtum, or an androgynous. Do we say that he is not a nazir, for his condition was not met? Or perhaps, he will be a nazir, for when he said “a daughter,” he meant “when he will be built up,” and he is considered “built” with a son, tumtum or androgynous. Although the Gemora said that he does not mean, “when he will be built up,” perhaps that is only when he declared to be a nazir on the condition that he will have a son, but if he said, “when I will have a daughter,” perhaps they would be included, for it changed for the better (when his wife gives birth to a son)?

The Keren Orah writes that whether he says, “when I will have a son” or if he says, “when I will have a daughter,” a tumtum will not be included. Even if he says, “I will be a nazir when I have a son or a daughter,” and his wife gives birth to a tumtum or an androgynous, he will not be a nazir.

Read more!

Clear Expression

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Nazir 13a) states: If he says, “I will be a nazir when I will have a child,” he becomes a nazir even if he has a daughter, tumtum, or an androgynous.

If his wife miscarries (a child was born and died soon afterwards; we are uncertain if the baby was full term or not), he is not a nazir. Rabbi Shimon says: He should say the following (he rules that he is a nazir out of doubt; the problem is that if he is not a nazir, he is forbidden from shaving his head and he is not allowed to bring a korban chatas): “If the child was viable, I am already a nazir for my previous obligation, but if not, I am voluntary declaring myself to be a nazir.”

The Rishonim explain that if he would not make such a condition, he would remain a questionable nazir for the rest of his life. He would be forbidden to shave, drink wine or become tamei to the dead.

The Brisker Rav explains that that this is not a deficiency in the halacha of hafla’ah (clear expression) that there is by nezirus. A clear expression of nezirus is required in order to accept an obligation of nezirus on oneself. Here, there is a clear acceptance of nezirus, and of that, there is no issue. The question arises only because he stipulated a time for the nezirus to take effect, and we are uncertain if the condition was met. This is why he would remain a questionable nazir for the rest of his life unless he utilizes Rabbi Shimon’s ploy.

Read more!

Eliezer’s Wit

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Nazir 11b - 12a) states: One who tells his agent, “Go and betroth a woman for me” (and the agent died), the man is prohibited from marrying any woman in the world because there is a presumption that the agent accomplished that which he was asked to do.

The Mefaresh explains: Since the man did not specify a particular woman for him to marry and we do not know which woman he betrothed, this man may not marry any woman, for we are concerned that the woman he wishes to marry is the mother, or daughter, or sister of the woman that the agent married for him.

The Mahari Asad uses this Gemara to answer the following questions: Avraham Avinu sent his servant Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer went to the house of Besuel. The Torah writes: And he (Besuel) placed food in front of him (Eliezer) to eat, and he (Eliezer) said, “I cannot eat until I have spoken my words.”

Why didn’t Eliezer want to discuss with Besuel the instructions that Avraham, his master gave him before he ate?

Chazal say that Besuel intended to kill Eliezer by poisoning his food. What did Besuel hope to accomplish with that?

He explains: Besuel knew that if Eliezer would die, Yitzchak would be forbidden to all women in the world, for each and every woman might be the relative of the woman to whom Eliezer betrothed. This is why Besuel wanted Eliezer dead. Eliezer understood this and therefore refused to eat until he had spoken. He informed Besuel that Avraham gave him specific instructions that he should only take a wife for Yitzchak from his own family. Accordingly, even if Eliezer would die without notifying Avraham whom he betrothed, Yitzchak would only be forbidden to the women in his own family, but he would be permitted to all other women in the world. He was telling Besuel that he would not be accomplishing much by murdering him.

Read more!

Conditions

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Nazir 11a) states: If one says, “I am hereby a nazir on the condition that I will drink wine and become tamei to the dead,” he is a nazir and all the prohibitions apply to him.

The Gemora explains: Everyone agrees to this halacha, for he is stipulating “against that which the Torah states and such conditions are null and void.

Tosfos asks: Why was it necessary for the Gemara to state this reason? The Gemora could have said the following: There is a principle that anything which cannot be performed through an agent, cannot take effect with a condition either. Since nezirus cannot be accomplished through an agent, it should not take effect with any condition (even if the stipulation is not against that which is written in the Torah)!

Tosfos answers: Since others are able to bring the korbanos for him, nezirus is regarded as something that can be performed through an agent.

The Gerrer Rebbe (Pnei Menachem in the sefer Torascha Shasu’oy) uses this Tosfos to answer the following question: It is written [Breishis 28: 20 – 21]: And Yaakov uttered a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and He will guard me on this way, upon which I am going, and He will give me bread to eat and a garment to wear; and if I return in peace to my father’s house, and the Lord will be my God. A neder cannot be fulfilled through an agent, so a conditional neder should not take effect!

According to our Tosfos, he suggests as follows: A neder with respect to hekdesh may be performed through an agent. One person can consecrate something for his fellow. Although Yaakov’s neder was not a neder regarding hekdesh; since nedarim in general could be performed through an agent, all nedarim may take effect even with a condition attached.

The Ramban answers Tosfos’ question by saying that the principle of “anything which cannot be performed through an agent, cannot take effect with a condition either” only applies by something that a person does with his fellow. However, when a person stipulates a condition with himself, the condition is valid and takes effect even though all of the guidelines effecting conditions are not met. Since by nazir, his condition is only relevant to himself, the condition takes effect even though nezirus cannot be performed through an agent.

Read more!

Talking Cow

The Mishna had stated (Daf Yomi: Nazir 10a): If one said, “This cow said, ‘I am hereby a nazir if I stand up,’” or he said, “This door said, ‘I am hereby a nazir if I open’” (the Gemara will explain these cases), Beis Shamai says: He is a nazir. Beis Hillel says: He is not a nazir.

The Gemora asks: Does a cow talk?

The Gemora suggests different interpretations of the Mishna. It is noteworthy that Tosfos cites Rabbeinu Peretz saying that the Mishna is discussing a case where the cow actually did talk!

There are numerous times in Chazal that we find a statement that would seem to indicate that a tree, animal or even an inanimate object was speaking. The Gemora in Sanhedrin (108b) records a conversation that Noach had with the raven. The Gemora Eruvin (18b) relates what the dove told to Noach. The Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin (2:6) discusses the complaint of the letter yud before the Ribbono shel Olam (that he was removed from Saray’s name).

The Maharatz Chiyus in his introduction to the Ein Yaakov states that Chazal do not mean to say that the animal’s or letters were actually talking; rather, they are relating what they could have claimed if they would have been given the power of speech.

However, Reb Boruch Epstien in his notes on the Pardes Yosef (58) cites our Tosfos, which seems to say otherwise.

Reb Yaakov Emden comments that it would appear from our Gemora that if the cow would have been able to talk, the Mishna would be understandable. He asks: What would it accomplish if the cow had the ability to speak in the same manner as Bilam’s donkey? Can a person become a nazir because of the animal’s declaration? Even if another human would declare that his fellow should be a nazir, he wouldn’t be a nazir!

Read more!