Sunday, April 13, 2008

Daf: Nazir 28b-30b

[This week's Haveil Havalim is up here!]

There is some great fun in these daf. Of particular note: Shemuel’s status, or lack thereof, as a nazir. The mitzvah, or lack thereof, of חינוך, for father/mother to educate son/daughter - and at what age the mitzvah ends. And, assorted notes. As always, read with a gemara in front of you for maximum benefit.

According to the mishnah on 28b, a woman cannot accept nezirut for her child – which immediately raises the question of how Chanah vowed to accept nezirut for her (unborn, unconceived!) son Shemuel in the beginning of Shemuel I! Radak to Shemuel I 1 11, referred to in the Giyon haShas, is also very surprised by this.
(Note that Hatzlelponit/Shimshon does not pose a problem, because there it was not her own vow that made him a nazir.)

In the mishnah, the word כיצד does not seem to belong. The Rosh and Tosafos indeed remove it, but the Rambam in his פירוש המשניות reads the mishnah in a way that this word fits.

How could nezirut constitute a solid way to educate a child? The Rosh says it’s b/c it trains the child in פרישות, separating from harmful things.

See also the Rosh’s note on chinuch which is not respected by the child’s relatives.

There is quite a bit of confusion in the Rosh, throughout this discussion and on to the next page, about R’ Yosi b”r Chanina and R’ Yosi b”r Yehudah. Presumably it’s simply a copyist’s error.

The Rosh’s definition of “נחירה” is to kill the animal in such a way that the blood departs from the vessels. Recall Pesachim 49b לנוחרו.

R’ Yosi b”r Yehudah indicates here that the obligation of חינוך to educate one’s children ends when they hit physical puberty, at or around age 12. This is remarkable for many reasons, but among them is the debate about the berachah of ברוך שפטרני, the Baruch shePetarani recited when a son reaches Bar Mitzvah. One view (see Magen Avraham 225:5) is that the source for the berachah is the newfound exemption from teaching the child, but see also the alternative view that the obligation of chinuch continues, and the berachah is because of the child’s exemption from the father’s punishments!

Note that our gemara equates הלכה למשה מסיני and דאורייתא. I seem to recall something on this in the Rambam’s introductory section to his ספר המצוות, but I don’t have time right now to look it up.

See the great question in Tosafos ואי בעית אימא

On Rabbi Chanina and Rabban Gamliel’s conviction שמורה הלכה בישראל, that he would grow up to (that he now does!) pasken halachah, see also Gittin 58a on R’ Yehoshua ben Chananiah and R’ Yishmael ben Elisha in the Roman prison.

Note that the Rosh has a different edition in the mishnah here, which makes the gemara on 30b more complicated within R’ Yosi’s view.

The Rosh views the series of hypotheticals as אם תמצי לומר cases, which then tells us how we rule in all but the final case.

No comments:

Post a Comment