{"id":11706,"date":"2008-05-01T18:42:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-01T18:42:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_nazir_3649\/"},"modified":"2015-10-29T08:46:19","modified_gmt":"2015-10-29T13:46:19","slug":"masechet_nazir_3649","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_nazir_3649\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Nazir 36a-49b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month\u2019s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris, The Lewy Family Foundation, and Marilyn and Edward Kaplan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Nazir 36a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

When defining the amount of food that needs to be eaten \u2013 either the amount needed to fulfill a commandment or the amount needed to determine whether a person is liable for punishment for having eaten something that is forbidden \u2013 we must look not only at the volume of food, but also at the amount of time during which the act of eating is performed. Generally speaking, in order for an act of eating to be considered significant, a person must consume kezayit be-kheday akhilat peras<\/em> \u2013 an amount the size of an olive in the amount of time that it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. Our Gemara<\/a> posits that this amount is a biblical\u00a0law.<\/p>\n

Tosafot<\/a> point out that the fact that kezayit be-kheday akhilat peras<\/em> is a biblical law is clear from a Mishnah<\/a> in Masechet<\/em><\/a> Keritut<\/em><\/a> (12b), but our Gemara is searching for a source that teaches whether we use the same criteria to determine the significance of the act of eating when the kezayit<\/em> is mixed together with other food, rather than the simple case of eating a kezayit on its own.<\/p>\n

One test case is kutach ha-Bavli <\/em>\u2013 a Babylonian dip made with bread \u2013 where we find a disagreement whether you will be held liable for eating it on Pesach<\/em><\/a>. The Gemara points out that this food is unique because it is used only as a condiment, so no one will ever eat an olive’s worth within the allotted time, and if someone does, we do not consider that to be significant, since batlah da’ato etzel kol adam<\/em> \u2013 literally “his opinion is nullified in the face of everyone else.”<\/p>\n

Kutach ha-Bavli<\/em> is a food that was prepared for people to dip in their bread. It was popular in Bavel<\/a> (which is why it is called kutach ha-Bavli<\/em>) and was made from moldy bread mixed with whey and salt.<\/p>\n

\n

Nazir 37a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

When we discuss the prohibition of eating forbidden foods, it is important to note that only foods that are edible will make a person liable for punishment if he eats them. In the event that the food has spoiled and is no longer fit for human consumption, then the usual prohibition would not be in force. This law \u2013 noten ta’am lifgam, mutar<\/em> \u2013 has its source in neveilah<\/em>, i.e. meat that has not been slaughtered properly that is forbidden. The Torah<\/a> teaches (see Devarim<\/a> 14:21<\/a>) that neveilah<\/em> cannot be eaten, rather that it should be given or sold to a non-Jew. From this we deduce that neveilah<\/em> only needs to be given away or sold if it is edible; if it is not edible, then there is no prohibition attached to it.<\/p>\n

A classic example of noten ta’am lifgam<\/em> is the case of pots that were used to cook non-kosher food, and we assume that the pot itself absorbed some of the taste of the forbidden food. In such a case, as Rav Huna bar Chiya points out, we assume that any taste that was absorbed remains only for a day. Once the pot is an eino ben yomo<\/em> \u2013 the taste in the pot is more than a day old \u2013 any taste that might transfer from the pot is considered bad, and will not be considered significant. According to Rav Huna, when the Torah required the people in the desert to place pots captured from the Midianites through fire to remove all taste from them (see Bamidbar<\/a> 31:23<\/a>), that requirement applied only to those pots that had been used within the last day. All others may have been subjected to the same treatment, but only for reasons of safek <\/em>\u2013 of doubt \u2013 because of the possibility that they had been used so recently.<\/p>\n

\n

Nazir 38a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> (34a-b<\/a>) brought two opinions about the amount of grape juice or wine that a nazir<\/em><\/a> must drink in order to be held liable. According to the Mishnah rishona <\/em>the amount is a revi’it (one-fourth of a log<\/em>), which is the usual requirement for drinking, while according to Rabbi Akiva<\/a> the amount is a kezayit<\/em> (the size of an olive) which is usually the amount required for solid foods. Our Gemara<\/a> explains Rabbi Akiva’s position as being based on the passage that forbids drinking wine or other grape products and concludes va-anavim lahim ve-yeveshim lo yokhel <\/em>\u2013 that neither fresh nor dried grapes can be eaten (see Bamidbar<\/a> 6:3<\/a>). Since the pasuk <\/em>concludes with a statement about eating, that defines all of the other categories mentioned, as well.<\/p>\n

In truth, there are two approaches to the disagreement between the Mishnah rishona<\/em> and Rabbi Akiva. According to the first, the Mishnah rishona<\/em> rules that the laws of nezirut<\/em> match the normal laws of eating and drinking, i.e. kezayit<\/em> for eating and revi’it<\/em> for drinking, while Rabbi Akiva believes that all of the rules of nezirut<\/em> are based on a kezayit<\/em>. According to the second approach, the Mishnah rishona<\/em> rules that all the laws of nezirut<\/em> \u2013 both eating and drinking \u2013 require revi’it<\/em>, while Rabbi Akiva says that they all require kezayit<\/em>. The reading that appears in our Gemara matches the first approach, while the Rosh<\/a> accepts the second approach, based on his reading of the Gemara that presents the Mishnah rishona <\/em>(called the Tanna<\/em><\/a> Kamma <\/em>by our Gemara) as saying that all things forbidden to the nazir<\/em> are compared to drinking.<\/p>\n

The Meiri<\/a> offers an alternative perspective. He has the reading that appears in our Gemara, according to which the Mishna rishona does not compare all things forbidden to the nazir<\/em> to drinking, meaning that solid food from grapes cannot be combined with wine or grape juice, since they are separate entities. Rabbi Akiva disagrees, claiming that kezayit<\/em> and revi’it\u00a0<\/em>are basically the same amount, just one is for solids and the other for liquids. Given that the pasuk<\/em> uses the terminology of “eating” also when discussing wine, we learn that with regard to nazir <\/em>there is no difference between grapes and wine, and they can be combined to add up to the minimum requirement.<\/p>\n

\n

Nazir 39a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

We have already learned that a person who accepts upon himself a standard nezirut<\/em><\/a> is obligated to grow his hair for thirty days. The Mishnah<\/a> on our daf<\/em> teaches that if his head is shaven during that period \u2013 even against his will, for example by bandits \u2013 he will need to begin his nezirut <\/em>anew, since he must have 30 days of growth.<\/p>\n

This halakha<\/em><\/a> leads the Gemara<\/a> to discuss an apparently trivial matter \u2013 does hair grow from the end or from the root? The argument is that if it grows from the bottom, or the root, then as long as some hair remained it is not a problem, since the hair of nezirut<\/em> remains to be cut off at the end of the nezirut<\/em>. If, however, it grows from the top, once you cut the nazir<\/em>‘s hair off, even if you leave some at the bottom, you have removed the hair of nezirut<\/em>.<\/p>\n

One of the proofs brought in an attempt to solve this conundrum is the case of blorit d’goyim <\/em>\u2013 the non-Jews’ blorit<\/em><\/a> hairstyle. The Gemara’s assumption is that this proves that hair grows from the bottom, since we see that the hair that was braided remained tight, while the hair closer to the head became loose. This proof is eventually rejected by the Gemara, which argues that the looseness at the bottom may be the result of some other development.<\/p>\n

Many suggestions are offered to define the term blorit<\/em>, but no word in Greek or Latin is a perfect match for it. The hairstyle involved allowed the hair to grow long particularly on the sides and in the back of the head, and the hair was tied and braided into different shapes. Later on, the braided hair was shaved off in a special pagan ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n

\n

Nazir 40a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Gemara<\/a> quotes a Mishnah<\/a> from Masechet<\/em><\/a> Nega’im<\/em><\/a>, which teaches that there are three people who shave their heads and fulfill a mitzvah<\/em><\/a> by doing so. They are:<\/p>\n