Daf Hashavua - Nazir 3b

Okay, good evening Rabbi. We're continuing in we're discussing the final case of the Mishna where a guy said I accept upon myself birds ram says you're come say you're not another last Thursday night we learned the logic of ram is because there's a Daniel that juxtaposes birds to hair and what the guy means is the mitzvah when he says I take upon myself birds he means the mitzvah that's associated with birds connected to hair which is the nazer says it doesn't just mean because of the justosition it's also because meaning the guy says I accept upon myself a mitzvah of birds birds connected to here which is the Nazer who if he becomes tummy has to do birds and that connection is established in the but it's not just because of the juxiposition says a person would not refer just to merely something that is juaposed to it. Okay. So says a person does not uh use an expression based on what's juxtaposed in a soar says that's the opinion of this is take this is take on the between and okay says Everybody agrees that a person doesn't make a reference to what it says in a this is the reasoning of it's not because of that we're concerned maybe the birds of a nazer who became he is mabel upon himself. The rush says then his opinion does not mean we suspect cuz if it's only a sufficer misake and go bring your carbon into that means we presume and there are many examples in shas where does not mean we're concerned lest it means we assume we assume Okay. The rash brings other examples in where means we presume we presume it's not because of the justosition and the it's because we presume says at the end of the day it's only a presumption. Maybe what he meant to say is that I'm going to bring birds of a volunteer offering. You could bring birds of anah or the like. Take a look in it's found on first wide line meaning the mitzvah of Nazeros that it's shak birds of a nazer who became tame says It's not for sure. It's only a concern. Now, I don't think that's arguing on the rush. It just means it's a presumption, not a definitive conclusion. Now, what is the Gar? Now, this is very interesting. Here is where it sounds like to argues on the rush because now to explain why would I assume that it means bird nava over nazer. Now, why is Tyus trying to explain why we would assume a burden over Nazer? As long as there's a doubt, it should not be valid Nazeros because there's no such thing as Nazeros. Butus doesn't say that. He feels it's necessary to explain why it's more reasonable to assume he means it's better it's better to say that he's not accepting but rather a different why it is not pleasant for people to accept birds of Nazirus which is very and it's a the that those carbon are very and it's a big hassle we it's more likely the guy is bringing okay says the garrak like if the guy meant I'm going to bring birds for an adava he would have used a different terminology. He would have used a Kh a bird's nest says the it's the of those who give is to say of a bird to say the rush says wait it's the it follows the way people speak we we go by the way people usually speak says garamra uh vidma. Maybe he meant I take upon myself the birds of a mitz. Now what do you mean? But he's not a what he meant is there's a guy down the block who's a and he's going to be responsible to bring birds. Maybe he's taking upon himself to bring birth for that says to be to bring instead of someone who has that obligation birds that word has to be uh polished a little bit. The says somebody who needs it for his. It's talking about where there the question maybe he's doing it for. Even if there's no mits walking in front of him, there's got to be some around. I mean, there's got to be someone who's speaking lash somewhere and also is a proper terminology for says no the case where it works is you know when it works if a guy says when is passing in front of him says it's amazing how many used to be walking around says the goar well even if there's a nazer walking in front of him maybe what he meant is not I'm going to be a msra I will bring the carbon for that guy who is a mitz the nazerban maybe what he means is that maybe the person walking in front of him is a nazer and you're accepting upon yourself to bring for this says even if there's a walking in front of you therefore the ask maybe when he says I bring birds lift our answer is the garra back to the ranch back to the garra No was walking in front of him. So he could not possibly mean I'm going to bring carbon for him. Therefore what he must mean is I accept myself the process of neros which if ever come to tuma I will have to bring um carbon ice. answer what on saying that we ask him what his intentions were >> where the guy where the guy is um Nazer >> yeah it's the same question so he said no So that case the guy said a and there was another and the gumar says maybe to from his carbon. So the guy says, "No, I meant I'm going to be another." So you're saying here also if >> he's using more words here, though. >> What did he say over here? >> That's what Ty said. >> Harit py, >> right? No, >> if we don't know what he's talking about, then maybe doesn't work. You know, if a person says, you know, that was a very special case over there where his theis over there is his thought reveals his words. So doctor ask why we say the same thing over here. The guy says I was thinking I want to be a nazer that's shimala on my words. Maybe these words are so unclear that that would not suffice maybe >> but >> then say that it has to do with had to be involved in his surroundings. No had to do with what he was he had to explain it himself. Was that the between and one second? Um yeah. Yeah. Let's see this tyus even though we're not supposed to do it. You see? Look. You see? You see all the gray? We only do the non-graay part of the tyis. There's very little tyus you're allowed to do. But because we're so close, I know you won't report me to the authorities. I think maybe Tyus asks question here about 10 lines down. He asks The burus, the ang It's too little articulation. It sounds like a is is going to if you tell us what you're thinking it works more by a than it works by because could just as easily mean for >> isn't it more than when he says that he means he must be because that's something that he can accomplish right now, >> right? >> Apart from contrast to another it's very speculative. So the should just say no says no it's much more likely that he means that he wants to be a >> what person is looking at if he comes I'm going to it's not so much it's more likely that he wants to become right now. >> Mhm. right here. Unless that's my Okay, good question. Um, let's see. Ver and the garra says garamina between look at there's one line inus we so far have seen two perman holds that if you say you're said the reason is based on the said the logic is that it's talking about. So what's the between these two perm? It's a little bit of a strange question. What do you mean what's do you need of which is what the garra says says For example, if a guy said birds just the hair upon me. So according to it's only and it still works. So what is the garra doing? You need to say now all of a sudden we're saying right the could have answered simply the difference between is do you need to you don't because the guy says birds he means birds near here and that's meaningless no concept of it's based on the fact that so what in the world is what's between it's obvious you need but now the garra injects do you When you say since when do you need to say aren't we talking about where you just said so third line wide line is that you accepted upon yourself something juxtaposed to birds. It's still meaning in here another another problem in where it has absolutely nothing to do with it's not because you're being the bird to the hair. So then that's not needed at all. The guy said it's talking about where so that ingredient is not definitely not needed in so says it's not needed in question is is it really needed in now the has a new question according to the raon do not subscribe to a person being massar on a on a word juxtaposed in the according to nobody holds that you speak that way. So the garra asks really is there that a person is not in his words that are close by learn if somebody says my right hand it's an oath look in three lines in the bottom in my right hand I'm not going eat this loaf. It's aw. I'm not going to eat this loaf. So the is the reason not he lifted up his right hand and his left hand to the heavens. So we see that it's universally accepted. Musi says, "No, it's not because y is juxtaposed to it's because the word yin means it's not because it's close by in How do you know if you say right handed God's for with his right hand? The word right hand means that's a Israel. Okay. Mishna. Okay. We're going to wrap it up right now. Now is not a partake of any grape products whether it's the skin, whether it's the seed, whether it's the grape, whether it's the wine, whether it's be and he also can't become tame or he can't take a haircut. These are various of the naz. Let's say a person just says I'm not going to have grape seed. Does that make him a nuzzer? Does he have to say I'm not going to grape seed, grape skin, grapes wine, not become not going to take a haircut? Obviously, if he says that that's the formula of accepting if a person says behold, I'm a from grape skin or grape seedlas or from haircuts or from impurity. He's a nazer. says the we're talking about the guy said one of them one of them. Well, he has to accept upon himself all the duk nazeros. By the way, toa says the bottom to says why why does the Mishna emphasize all the dict? Because another shimshine is allowed to be mameim. Another shimshine is you're mameim. So therefore it says all the are applicable says the mission is not like says you're not until you take an oath from all until you uh are from all of the particulars. Even if you only say you're refraining from one of them, you're my time. Why does say you have to you have to be all of them? The Pik says like this, "Anything that comes from the grape of wine, from the skin to the seed, says the rush, the bottom rush, second to last rush." Since it says everything that's made from ge why would it have to say it's saying if you want to bear you have to everything meaning says why say that even just one something from wine and beer you refrain. Why? It already says why does it have to say to say that even if you just refra say I'm refraining from yan alone you're a nazer so that implies even from one of them no that if you're lesser mitzvah even the wine of a mitzvah Just like another is not to have discretionary wine, he can't have mitzvah wine. What's an example of wine that's a mitzvah and is the mitzvah? So wait a time out time out kdesh and now obviously the gar means it's a mitzvah dissa. It's a mitzvah. Disa to drink wine at kdesh kdesh is daisa. Do you even need a do you need a for kdesh ordah? That's by the way is and even if it is and even if the isa in other words drinking the wine isa hold it's not Evend is and even if it's not and even if it's definitely not to drink the wine that's for sure only. So why would you need a to say another can't drink the wine? How how in the world would he be able to drink the wine? There's no mitza to drink the wine. Nobody says there's a there's no mitza ever to drink wine, is there? We'll see. >> That's true. But the didn't give that example. You're right there. Yes. Yes. You have to drink wine. Yes. Yeah. I stand corrected. That would be a good example of Mhm. Okay, friends. Have a great night. Cult of >> recording stopped. >> So, um, next week. Next week. Well, for right now, we're good for this week. Take it a week at a time. We're already somehow we did this week. Everyone call up.