The gemara concludes that r' yochanan and reish lakish agree that if one accepts nezirus in the cemeter it is chal. They argue about malkus. Ran explains that they argue whether or not he ill be chayev malkus for eting grapes while in the cemetery. Rosh says that they argue whether he gets malkus for staying in the cemetery and not leaving. The Rosh is forced to explain that they both agree that la'av she'ein bo ma'aseh gets malkus (or their entire discussion is about issur malkus). Why does the Rosh not say simply like the Ran? The Rosh seems to hold that since all agree that the nezirus is chal while he is in the cemetery, it is obvious that there would be malkus for eating grapes. The only possible discussion would be in regard to malkus for the remaining in the cemetery since the tu'mah preceded the acceptance of the nezirus, it is logical to say that he is not liable for the tu'mah. However, the Ran would hold that for remaining in the cemetery he would definitely not get malkus and the only possible discussion would be about eating grapes while still in the cemetery. The rationale for Reish Lakish that you would not get malkus is that the nezirus that is chal on him while in the cemetery is not the full nezirus and is not strong enough to receive malkus for - v'adayin ta'un biur!
6 comments:
I just saw in the Rashash that he points out that Tosafos here and in Nazir writes like the rosh that the only argument is for tu'mah but if he would eat grapes or shave then he would get malkus even according to reish lakish. The rashash also seems to understand that according to the Ran the rationale that one would not get malkus even for eating grapes is that Reish lakish holds that the nezirus being chal immediately is only in regard to that he will not need a new kabala when he leaves, but it is not really chal so long as he is in the beis hakvaros. However, if this is true, then there should be ba'l te'acher according to reish lakish for delaying the chalos of the nezirus by remaining tamei? It seems that the Ran holds that b'al te'acher only applies when he needs a kabala and delays his kabala - as is meduyak in the Ran when the gemara first makes the case of him being in the cemetery; שצריך לצאת מיד ולקבל עליו נזירות, וכי לא נפיק קם ליה בבל תאחר
It seems like the Ran understands that delaying starting the nezirus is not ba'l te'acher. It is only when one delays a kabala is there ba'l te'acher. Perhaps the rationale is that since there is not specific point that we can identify as being the "start" of his nezirus, we can't call the delaying of starting nezirus a violation of ba'l te'acher. It is only when he requires a kabala which is the "start" point, and he delays the kabala, that there is a violation of ba'l te'acher.
עיין גיר"ז בספר נ"ל בדף 42 על ביאור מ"ח הראשונים בגמרא זו בנזיר
title should read "Nedarim 4"
What does גיר"ז בספר נ"ל stand for?
כנראה שצריך לומר בגרי"ז כלומר הרב מבריסק
YES, SORRY נ"ל = נראה לי
Post a Comment