Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 27, 2015 | 讬状讚 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 66

In today’s siyum, we discussed asceticism in other cultures and religions as well as Levinas’ approach to Nazirites.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 住驻拽 讞讝讗 住驻拽 诇讗 讞讝讗 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讝讗 住驻拽 诪讞诪转 砖讻讘转 讝专注 住驻拽 诪讞诪转 专讗讬讬讛 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讝拽拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗

Rava said: Do not say that it is uncertain whether he saw a discharge and uncertain whether he did not see one. The uncertainty is not with regard to whether he experienced a discharge at all. Rather, he certainly saw a discharge, but it is uncertain whether the discharge was due to, i.e., defined as, an emission of semen, and it is uncertain whether the discharge was due to the sighting of ziva. In this case, once he has been confirmed as being ritually impure as a zav, his uncertain case is also impure.

砖讻讘转 讝专注讜 讟诪讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪讙注 诪讬 讙专注 诪砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚讟讛讜专 讗诇讗 讝专注讜 砖诇 讝讘 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

搂 The mishna taught that his semen is impure. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is the mishna stating that the semen of a zav is impure? If we say that this is referring to the impurity of contact, i.e., this semen renders one who touches it impure, there is no need to teach this halakha. Is it any worse than the semen of a pure man, which also imparts impurity through contact? Rather, the mishna is teaching that the semen of a zav renders people impure even by carrying, like the impurity of ziva.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖诇 讝讘 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖讻讘转 讝专注讜 砖诇 讝讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讘诇讗 爪讬讞爪讜讞讬 讝讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 爪讬讞爪讜讞讬 讝讬讘讛 讗讘诇 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Who did you hear that said that the semen of a zav renders one impure by carrying? If we say it is this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The semen of a zav does not render one impure by carrying, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It does render one impure by carrying, because it is impossible for his semen to be without droplets of ziva; yet this source is no proof, as even Rabbi Yehoshua said that this semen imparts impurity by carrying only due to the droplets of ziva it contains. However, he did not say that semen in its unadulterated form renders people impure.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讘讛

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The mishna does not mean that the semen of a zav itself renders one impure by carrying. Rather, it comes to say that one does not attribute the ziva to it. Even if the man experienced a discharge within twenty-four hours of his ejaculation of semen, one does not say his discharge was triggered by a general weakening as a result of his seminal emission. Once the man has experienced two discharges of a zav he is an impure zav, and this third discharge is also considered ziva.

住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬讬讚讬 讞讜诇砖讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛转谞谉 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 诪讟诪讗 诪讬讚 讘讝讬讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讞讜诇讬 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

When he was before Rava, Rav Pappa thought to say the following explanation for this halakha: Since he sees his discharges out of the weakness brought about from his previous ziva, it can be assumed that any later discharge, even one that follows a seminal emission, is ziva. Rava said to him: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zavim 2:3): A convert who has just converted can immediately become impure as a zav. Even if he had a seminal emission as a gentile, subsequently converted, and then experienced the discharge of a zav, one does not associate the discharge of a zav with the earlier emission of semen. Rather, it is treated as the first discharge of a zav. In this case there is no prior weakness of a zav to speak of, and nevertheless the convert is impure as a zav. Rav Pappa said to Rava: There is no greater illness than this. The very acceptance of mitzvot can be considered an illness, as the burden of mitzvot is a weighty matter. For this reason, one does not ascribe a discharge of a zav to the earlier emission of semen.

讗诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖诇 讝讘 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讻诇 诪注转 诇注转 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜诪讜

The Gemara comments: Rather, the possibility rejected earlier, that the mishna means that semen of a zav imparts impurity by carrying, is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The semen of a zav renders one impure by carrying like the regular discharge of a zav for a twenty-four hour period. In other words, if a zav experienced a seminal emission within twenty-four hours of a ziva, the seminal emission does not impart impurity only through contact in the manner of the semen of a pure individual, but by carrying as well. And Rabbi Yosei says that it imparts impurity by carrying only on its day, i.e., if the seminal emission was before the evening of the day of the ziva. As opposed to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua cited earlier, these tanna鈥檌m both maintain that the semen of a zav imparts impurity by carrying like ziva does.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗讬砖 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪拽专讛 诇讬诇讛 讜讻转讬讘 诇驻谞讜转 注专讘 讬专讞抓 讘诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei disagree? What is the basis of their dispute? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the following issue discussed by Shmuel, as Shmuel raises a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淚f there be among you any man who is not pure, by reason of that which chances him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:11). This verse is applied to a zav who experienced a seminal emission. And it is written: 鈥淲hen evening comes on, he shall bathe himself in water, and when the sun is down, he may come within the camp鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:12).

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注转 诇注转 讚讬讬拽 诪诇驻谞讜转 注专讘 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讬讬拽 诪拽专讛 诇讬诇讛

The Gemara explains the dispute. The one who says that the semen of a zav imparts impurity by carrying for a twenty-four hour period after experiencing a ziva infers from the phrase 鈥渨hen evening comes on鈥 that the period can involve two evenings, as 鈥渃omes on鈥 indicates another evening. If so, the semen imparts impurity by carrying for a full twenty-four hour period. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, infers from the expression 鈥渂y reason of that which chances him by night鈥 that the seminal emission imparts impurity by carrying only until that night, i.e., until the end of the day on which the man experienced the ziva.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇驻谞讜转 注专讘 讛讻转讬讘 诪拽专讛 诇讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讜专讞讗 讚拽专讬 诇诪转讬讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that this halakha is derived from 鈥渨hen evening comes on,鈥 isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淏y reason of that which chances him by night鈥? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that this verse affords no proof, as it is referring to the usual case and it is the manner of a seminal emission to occur at night. Consequently, one cannot derive a halakha from this expression.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 讛讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讜专讛 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇 专讗砖讜 谞讗诪专 讘砖诪砖讜谉 讜诪讜专讛 讜谞讗诪专 讘砖诪讜讗诇 讜诪讜专讛 诪讛 诪讜专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖诪砖讜谉 谞讝讬专 讗祝 诪讜专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖诪讜讗诇 谞讝讬专

MISHNA: The tractate concludes with an aggadic statement about nazirites. Samuel the prophet was a nazirite, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Nehorai, as it was stated that when Hannah, his mother, prayed for a son, she vowed: 鈥淎nd no mora shall come upon his head鈥 (I聽Samuel 1:11). How is it derived that mora is an expression of naziriteship? It is stated with regard to Samson: 鈥淎nd no razor [mora] shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a nazirite to God鈥 (Judges 13:5), and it is stated: 鈥淎nd no mora,鈥 with regard to Samuel. Just as the term mora鈥 that is stated with regard to Samson means that he was a nazirite, so too the term mora鈥 that is stated with regard to Samuel indicates that he was a nazirite.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 诪讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖诇 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讱 讗诇讱 讜砖诪注 砖讗讜诇 讜讛专讙谞讬 砖讻讘专 讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 诪讜专讗 砖诇 讘砖专 讜讚诐

Rabbi Yosei said: But doesn鈥檛 the word mora mean nothing other than the fear of flesh and blood? The word should be read as though it were written with an alef, and not a heh, so that it means fear. Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd Samuel said: How can I go; if Saul hears it he will kill me鈥 (I聽Samuel 16:2). This verse indicates that there was fear of flesh and blood upon Samuel. Consequently, the term mora must be understood in accordance with its plain meaning of a razor. If so, Samuel was indeed a nazirite.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛

GEMARA: Rav said to his son 岣yya:

讞讟讜祝 讜讘专讬讱 讜讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讞讟讜祝 讜讘专讬讱

Seize the opportunity and quickly recite a blessing over the cup of blessing for the Grace after Meals. And similarly, Rav Huna said to his son, Rabba: Seize the opportunity and recite a blessing.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪讘专讱 注讚讬祝 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讘专讱 讜讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讛砖诪讬诐 讻讱 讛讜讗 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讙讜诇讬讬专讬诐 诪转讙专讬谉 讘诪诇讞诪讛 讜讙讘讜专讬诐 谞讜爪讞讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that one who recites a blessing is preferable to one who answers amen? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The one who answers amen is greater than the one who recites the blessing? And Rabbi Nehorai said to him: By Heavens, it is so. Know that this is true, as the military assistants [gulyarim] descend to the battlefield an d initiate the war and the mighty follow them and prevail. The amen that follows a blessing is compared to the mighty who join the war after the assistants, illustrating that answering amen is more significant than reciting the initial blessing.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛诪讘专讱 讜讗讞讚 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讘诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 砖诪诪讛专讬谉 诇诪讘专讱 转讞讬诇讛

The Gemara responds: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: Both the one who recites a bless-ing and the one who answers amen are included among those who 鈥渟tand up and bless鈥 (Nehemiah 9:5), but one hurries to first reward the one who recites the blessing. This baraita apparently holds that reciting the blessing is greater than answering amen.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪专讘讬诐 砖诇讜诐 讘注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讘谞讬讱 诇诪讜讚讬 讛壮 讜专讘 砖诇讜诐 讘谞讬讱

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi 岣nina said: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd all your children [banayikh] shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children鈥 (Isaiah 54:13). The Sages interpreted this verse homiletically: Do not read it as: 鈥淵our children [banayikh],鈥 but as: Your builders [bonayikh]. Torah scholars are those who build peace for their generation.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讝讬专讜转 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 谞讝讬专

 

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 66

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 住驻拽 讞讝讗 住驻拽 诇讗 讞讝讗 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讝讗 住驻拽 诪讞诪转 砖讻讘转 讝专注 住驻拽 诪讞诪转 专讗讬讬讛 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讝拽拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗

Rava said: Do not say that it is uncertain whether he saw a discharge and uncertain whether he did not see one. The uncertainty is not with regard to whether he experienced a discharge at all. Rather, he certainly saw a discharge, but it is uncertain whether the discharge was due to, i.e., defined as, an emission of semen, and it is uncertain whether the discharge was due to the sighting of ziva. In this case, once he has been confirmed as being ritually impure as a zav, his uncertain case is also impure.

砖讻讘转 讝专注讜 讟诪讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪讙注 诪讬 讙专注 诪砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚讟讛讜专 讗诇讗 讝专注讜 砖诇 讝讘 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

搂 The mishna taught that his semen is impure. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is the mishna stating that the semen of a zav is impure? If we say that this is referring to the impurity of contact, i.e., this semen renders one who touches it impure, there is no need to teach this halakha. Is it any worse than the semen of a pure man, which also imparts impurity through contact? Rather, the mishna is teaching that the semen of a zav renders people impure even by carrying, like the impurity of ziva.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖诇 讝讘 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖讻讘转 讝专注讜 砖诇 讝讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讘诇讗 爪讬讞爪讜讞讬 讝讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 爪讬讞爪讜讞讬 讝讬讘讛 讗讘诇 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Who did you hear that said that the semen of a zav renders one impure by carrying? If we say it is this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The semen of a zav does not render one impure by carrying, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It does render one impure by carrying, because it is impossible for his semen to be without droplets of ziva; yet this source is no proof, as even Rabbi Yehoshua said that this semen imparts impurity by carrying only due to the droplets of ziva it contains. However, he did not say that semen in its unadulterated form renders people impure.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讘讛

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The mishna does not mean that the semen of a zav itself renders one impure by carrying. Rather, it comes to say that one does not attribute the ziva to it. Even if the man experienced a discharge within twenty-four hours of his ejaculation of semen, one does not say his discharge was triggered by a general weakening as a result of his seminal emission. Once the man has experienced two discharges of a zav he is an impure zav, and this third discharge is also considered ziva.

住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬讬讚讬 讞讜诇砖讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛转谞谉 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 诪讟诪讗 诪讬讚 讘讝讬讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讞讜诇讬 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

When he was before Rava, Rav Pappa thought to say the following explanation for this halakha: Since he sees his discharges out of the weakness brought about from his previous ziva, it can be assumed that any later discharge, even one that follows a seminal emission, is ziva. Rava said to him: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zavim 2:3): A convert who has just converted can immediately become impure as a zav. Even if he had a seminal emission as a gentile, subsequently converted, and then experienced the discharge of a zav, one does not associate the discharge of a zav with the earlier emission of semen. Rather, it is treated as the first discharge of a zav. In this case there is no prior weakness of a zav to speak of, and nevertheless the convert is impure as a zav. Rav Pappa said to Rava: There is no greater illness than this. The very acceptance of mitzvot can be considered an illness, as the burden of mitzvot is a weighty matter. For this reason, one does not ascribe a discharge of a zav to the earlier emission of semen.

讗诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖诇 讝讘 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讻诇 诪注转 诇注转 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜诪讜

The Gemara comments: Rather, the possibility rejected earlier, that the mishna means that semen of a zav imparts impurity by carrying, is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The semen of a zav renders one impure by carrying like the regular discharge of a zav for a twenty-four hour period. In other words, if a zav experienced a seminal emission within twenty-four hours of a ziva, the seminal emission does not impart impurity only through contact in the manner of the semen of a pure individual, but by carrying as well. And Rabbi Yosei says that it imparts impurity by carrying only on its day, i.e., if the seminal emission was before the evening of the day of the ziva. As opposed to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua cited earlier, these tanna鈥檌m both maintain that the semen of a zav imparts impurity by carrying like ziva does.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗讬砖 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪拽专讛 诇讬诇讛 讜讻转讬讘 诇驻谞讜转 注专讘 讬专讞抓 讘诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei disagree? What is the basis of their dispute? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the following issue discussed by Shmuel, as Shmuel raises a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淚f there be among you any man who is not pure, by reason of that which chances him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:11). This verse is applied to a zav who experienced a seminal emission. And it is written: 鈥淲hen evening comes on, he shall bathe himself in water, and when the sun is down, he may come within the camp鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:12).

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注转 诇注转 讚讬讬拽 诪诇驻谞讜转 注专讘 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讬讬拽 诪拽专讛 诇讬诇讛

The Gemara explains the dispute. The one who says that the semen of a zav imparts impurity by carrying for a twenty-four hour period after experiencing a ziva infers from the phrase 鈥渨hen evening comes on鈥 that the period can involve two evenings, as 鈥渃omes on鈥 indicates another evening. If so, the semen imparts impurity by carrying for a full twenty-four hour period. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, infers from the expression 鈥渂y reason of that which chances him by night鈥 that the seminal emission imparts impurity by carrying only until that night, i.e., until the end of the day on which the man experienced the ziva.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇驻谞讜转 注专讘 讛讻转讬讘 诪拽专讛 诇讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讜专讞讗 讚拽专讬 诇诪转讬讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that this halakha is derived from 鈥渨hen evening comes on,鈥 isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淏y reason of that which chances him by night鈥? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that this verse affords no proof, as it is referring to the usual case and it is the manner of a seminal emission to occur at night. Consequently, one cannot derive a halakha from this expression.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 讛讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讜专讛 诇讗 讬注诇讛 注诇 专讗砖讜 谞讗诪专 讘砖诪砖讜谉 讜诪讜专讛 讜谞讗诪专 讘砖诪讜讗诇 讜诪讜专讛 诪讛 诪讜专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖诪砖讜谉 谞讝讬专 讗祝 诪讜专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖诪讜讗诇 谞讝讬专

MISHNA: The tractate concludes with an aggadic statement about nazirites. Samuel the prophet was a nazirite, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Nehorai, as it was stated that when Hannah, his mother, prayed for a son, she vowed: 鈥淎nd no mora shall come upon his head鈥 (I聽Samuel 1:11). How is it derived that mora is an expression of naziriteship? It is stated with regard to Samson: 鈥淎nd no razor [mora] shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a nazirite to God鈥 (Judges 13:5), and it is stated: 鈥淎nd no mora,鈥 with regard to Samuel. Just as the term mora鈥 that is stated with regard to Samson means that he was a nazirite, so too the term mora鈥 that is stated with regard to Samuel indicates that he was a nazirite.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 诪讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖诇 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讱 讗诇讱 讜砖诪注 砖讗讜诇 讜讛专讙谞讬 砖讻讘专 讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 诪讜专讗 砖诇 讘砖专 讜讚诐

Rabbi Yosei said: But doesn鈥檛 the word mora mean nothing other than the fear of flesh and blood? The word should be read as though it were written with an alef, and not a heh, so that it means fear. Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd Samuel said: How can I go; if Saul hears it he will kill me鈥 (I聽Samuel 16:2). This verse indicates that there was fear of flesh and blood upon Samuel. Consequently, the term mora must be understood in accordance with its plain meaning of a razor. If so, Samuel was indeed a nazirite.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛

GEMARA: Rav said to his son 岣yya:

讞讟讜祝 讜讘专讬讱 讜讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讞讟讜祝 讜讘专讬讱

Seize the opportunity and quickly recite a blessing over the cup of blessing for the Grace after Meals. And similarly, Rav Huna said to his son, Rabba: Seize the opportunity and recite a blessing.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪讘专讱 注讚讬祝 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讘专讱 讜讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讛砖诪讬诐 讻讱 讛讜讗 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讙讜诇讬讬专讬诐 诪转讙专讬谉 讘诪诇讞诪讛 讜讙讘讜专讬诐 谞讜爪讞讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that one who recites a blessing is preferable to one who answers amen? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The one who answers amen is greater than the one who recites the blessing? And Rabbi Nehorai said to him: By Heavens, it is so. Know that this is true, as the military assistants [gulyarim] descend to the battlefield an d initiate the war and the mighty follow them and prevail. The amen that follows a blessing is compared to the mighty who join the war after the assistants, illustrating that answering amen is more significant than reciting the initial blessing.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛诪讘专讱 讜讗讞讚 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讘诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 砖诪诪讛专讬谉 诇诪讘专讱 转讞讬诇讛

The Gemara responds: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: Both the one who recites a bless-ing and the one who answers amen are included among those who 鈥渟tand up and bless鈥 (Nehemiah 9:5), but one hurries to first reward the one who recites the blessing. This baraita apparently holds that reciting the blessing is greater than answering amen.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪专讘讬诐 砖诇讜诐 讘注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讘谞讬讱 诇诪讜讚讬 讛壮 讜专讘 砖诇讜诐 讘谞讬讱

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi 岣nina said: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd all your children [banayikh] shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children鈥 (Isaiah 54:13). The Sages interpreted this verse homiletically: Do not read it as: 鈥淵our children [banayikh],鈥 but as: Your builders [bonayikh]. Torah scholars are those who build peace for their generation.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讝讬专讜转 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 谞讝讬专

 

Scroll To Top