Search

Nazir 57

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

English
עברית
podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




Summary

Today’s daf is sponsored by Nancy Kolodny in honor of Lisa Kolodny on her birthday. “With appreciation and love to my amazing daughter-in-law. May your learning and chesed continue to grow in the new year”.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rikki & Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Helen Zibitt, Hena bat Yaacov v’ Rachel Leah on her 23rd yahrzeit. “Mom, we miss your warmth and love every day. And in honor of the birthdays of our dear daughter-in-law, Dvora Cohen Zibitt, and son-in-law, Jay Blumenreich, who have enriched our family in countless beautiful ways. We love you both so very much.”

When Rabbi Yehoshua told Rabbi Akiva that his logic was good, but there is a tradition which overrides the conclusion of the logical argument, was the tradition that a nazir who becomes impure to a quarter-log of blood by touching is not required to shave or that a nazir who touches a bone the size of a barley grain would require shaving? If someone tells two nazirs that they saw one of them become impure but they aren’t sure which one, what do they do? After thirty days they both shave and bring two sacrifices while stipulating that one will count for the impurity of one and the other will be for the completion of the other. They each continue with the prohibitions of a nazir for another thirty days and bring one set of sacrifices, stipulating that it go for the one who was impure as completion now of the nazirite term. If there were three people there (the two nazirs and the one who saw one become impure), why isn’t this a case of doubt regarding impurity in a public domain in which we rule that one is pure? That principle is derived from a Sotah who was in a case of doubt in a private domain (with only two people) and there we rule she is impure. They explain that the person who saw must have seen it from a distance and was not actually in the direct area where the nazirs were, thus making it a private space. How can the nazirs shave in a case of doubt? Isn’t it forbidden to shave off one’s sidelocks unless one is obligated to as a nazir as only then will it override the prohibition! Shmuel answers that the shaving was speaking of a woman and a minor who are not commanded not to remove their sidelocks. From here one can infer that he held that shaving off all the hair on one’s head is forbidden. Some say that Shmuel’s answer about the minor and the woman was said about an upcoming Mishna of one who is a nazir who maybe was impure and maybe was a leper and shaves four times. Rav Ada bar Ahava and Rav Huna disagree about whether it is forbidden for someone to shave the sidelocks of a minor. Rav Ada bar Ahaha permits and Rav Huna forbids. Rav Ada questions Rav Huna according to his own opinion as Rav Huna’s own children’s sidelocks were shaven, to which Rav Huna responds that his wife, Chova, had done it. Rav Ada’s reaction is that Chova will bury her children. While Rav Ada was alive, any children of Rav Huna and Chova did not survive on account of his statement. Rav Huna permitted his wife to do it, as he understood that it was only forbidden for one to shave the sidelocks of a minor if they themselves were prohibited from removing their own sidelocks. Rav Ada held that it all depends on the one whose sidelocks were being shaved – if they are forbidden, then it is forbidden for others, but if they are permitted (like minors) then it is permitted for anyone, even men.

Nazir 57

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה — הֲלָכָה, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם — קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וְאֵין דָּנִין קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה.

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai mentioned in the mishna: Is the halakha that a nazirite must shave for a bone that is a barley-grainbulk a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and it was the status of a quarter-log of blood that Rabbi Akiva sought to derive as an a fortiori inference, and with regard to this claim they said: One does not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai?

אוֹ דִלְמָא: רְבִיעִית דָּם — הֲלָכָה, וְעֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה — קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וְאֵין דָּנִין קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה? תָּא שְׁמַע: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה — הֲלָכָה, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם — קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וְאֵין דָּנִין קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה.

Or perhaps the ruling that a quarter-log of blood imparts ritual impurity in a tent is the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and Rabbi Akiva sought to use the case of a bone that is a barley-grainbulk as the source of an a fortiori inference that a nazirite must shave for a quarter-log as well, to which the Sages replied that one does not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara answers: Come and hear the unequivocal statement of a baraita: A bone that is a barley-grainbulk is a halakha, and a quarter-log of blood is an a fortiori inference, and one does not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha.



הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל

שְׁנֵי נְזִירִים שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן אֶחָד ״רָאִיתִי אֶחָד מִכֶּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם״ — מְגַלְּחִין, וּמְבִיאִין קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה וְקׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה. וְאוֹמֵר: אִם אֲנִי הוּא טָמֵא — קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלִּי וְקׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלְּךָ, וְאִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּהוֹר — קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלִּי וְקׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלְּךָ.

MISHNA: With regard to two nazirites, where one other person said to them: I saw one of you become impure, but I do not know which one of you it was, they must each complete their naziriteship terms, shave their hair, and both together bring an offering of ritual impurity and an offering of purity, due to the uncertainty. And one of them says to the other: If I am the impure one, the offering of impurity is mine and the offering of purity is yours; and if I am the pure one, the offering of purity is mine and the offering of impurity is yours.

וְסוֹפְרִין שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּמְבִיאִין קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה, וְאוֹמֵר: אִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּמֵא — קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלִּי וְקׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלְּךָ, וְזֶה קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָתִי. וְאִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּהוֹר — קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלִּי וְקׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלְּךָ, וְזֶה קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָתְךָ.

And because of the uncertainty they each count a further thirty days of naziriteship and both together bring an offering of purity. And one of them says: If I am the previously impure one, that offering of impurity sacrificed earlier was mine, and the offering of purity was yours; and this offering sacrificed now is my offering of purity. And if I am the previously pure one, the offering of purity brought earlier was mine, and the offering of impurity was yours; and this current offering is your offering of purity.

גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי: שְׁנֵי נְזִירִים שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם ״רָאִיתִי אֶחָד מִכֶּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם״. וְאַמַּאי? כֹּל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד מֵהֵיכָא יָלְפִינַן לֵהּ — מִסּוֹטָה.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches with regard to two nazirites, that if one other person said to them: I saw one of you become impure, but I do not know which one of you it was, they must bring an offering of ritual impurity and an offering of purity. The Gemara expresses surprise at this case: But why should they be defined as having uncertain impurity? After all, the general principle that any uncertain impurity in a private domain is considered impure, from where do we derive this? From the case of a sota.

מָה סוֹטָה, בּוֹעֵל וְנִבְעֶלֶת, אַף כֹּל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא בֵּי תְרֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, שְׁנֵי נְזִירִים וְהַאי דְּקָאֵי גַּבֵּיהוֹן — הָא תְּלָתָא, הָוֵה לֵיהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְכֹל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר!

Yet this situation is not similar to that of a sota, as just as the case of a sota involves only an adulterer and an adulteress, so too any uncertain impurity in a private domain is considered impure only in a case where there are no more than two people present. However, in the mishna here there are two nazirites and this other individual who is standing alongside them, who witnessed one of them become impure, which makes a total of three. Consequently, this is an uncertain impurity in the public domain, as three people are sufficient for the place to be considered a public domain with regard to this halakha, and the halakha with regard to any uncertain impurity in the public domain is that its uncertainty is considered pure.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״רָאִיתִי טוּמְאָה שֶׁנִּזְרְקָה בֵּינֵיכֶם״. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי

Rabba bar Rav Huna said that the mishna is referring to one who says: From a distance I saw an impure item thrown between you. Since he was not with them when one of the nazirites became impure, there were only two people present and therefore this is a case of uncertain impurity in a private domain. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise,

דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

as it teaches: But I do not know which one of you. This indicates that the third individual was too far away to detect which of them became impure. The Gemara says: Conclude from the inference from the mishna that it is so.

מְגַלְּחִין וּמְבִיאִין. וְאַמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לָאו טְמֵאִין אִינּוּן, וְקָעָבֵיד הַקָּפָה! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן.

§ The mishna taught that the two nazirites shave and cut their hair and bring an offering of impurity and an offering of purity. The Gemara asks: But why are they permitted to shave? Perhaps both of them are not impure, and therefore one of them violates the prohibition against rounding the head, i.e., shaving the hair on the sides of the head (see Leviticus 19:27), when he shaves his hair unnecessarily. Since one of them does not need to shave, he thereby transgresses a mitzva by Torah law. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where each nazirite was a woman, who is not prohibited from rounding the hair of her head, or a minor boy, who is not obligated in the observance of mitzvot.

וְלוֹקְמָא בְּגָדוֹל, וְהַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ — לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה! מִדְּלָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ הָכִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ — שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה.

The Gemara analyzes Shmuel’s answer: And let Shmuel establish the mishna as referring to a male who reached majority, and the reason it is permitted is because rounding the entire head, not merely its corners, is not called rounding as prohibited by the Torah. From the fact that he does not establish the mishna in this manner, conclude from it that Shmuel maintains that rounding the entire head is called rounding.

מָר זוּטְרָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַסֵּיפָא: נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא בְּסָפֵק וּמוּחְלָט בְּסָפֵק — אוֹכֵל בְּקָדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם, וּמְגַלֵּחַ אַרְבַּע תִּגְלָחוֹת. וְהָא קָעָבֵיד הַקָּפָה! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן.

Mar Zutra taught this halakha of Shmuel with regard to the latter clause of the following mishna (59b): A nazirite who has uncertain impurity and whose status as a confirmed leper is uncertain may eat sacrificial food after sixty days and shaves four times. One shaving is for his uncertain status as an impure nazirite, one is at the end of his term of naziriteship, and two are due to his status as a leper. A similar problem arose: But as he is not definitely obligated to shave, he violates the prohibition against rounding the head. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a woman or a minor boy, who are not prohibited from rounding their heads.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַמַּקִּיף אֶת הַקָּטָן הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרַב הוּנָא: וְדִידָךְ מַאן מְגַלַּח לְהוֹן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חוֹבָה. תִּקְבְּרִינּוּן חוֹבָה לִבְנַיהּ. כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לָא אִקַּיַּים לֵיהּ זַרְעָא לְרַב הוּנָא.

With regard to the same issue, Rav Huna said: An adult who rounds the head of a minor boy is liable to receive lashes, despite the fact that the child himself is not obligated to observe mitzvot. Rav Adda bar Ahava, who disputed this ruling, said to Rav Huna: And with regard to your sons, who shaves them and rounds the corners of their heads? After all, you maintain that an adult may not round the head of a minor. Rav Huna said to him: Ḥova my wife does it, as she is not prohibited from rounding their heads. Rav Adda bar Ahava exclaimed in anger: Ḥova should bury her sons if she acts in this manner. The Gemara reports: During the years that Rav Adda bar Ahava was alive, Rav Huna’s children did not survive. His children died due to the curse pronounced by Rav Adda.

מִכְּדִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ סְבִירָא הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה, בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַב הוּנָא, סָבַר ״לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית [אֵת] פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ״. כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה — יֵשׁ לוֹ הַקָּפָה, וְהָנֵי נְשֵׁי, הוֹאִיל וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּהַשְׁחָתָה — לֵיתַנְהוּ נָמֵי בְּהַקָּפָה.

The Gemara asks: Since both Rav Huna and Rav Adda maintain that rounding the entire head is called rounding, with regard to what do they disagree? What is the reason for their respective rulings? The Gemara explains: Rav Huna, who prohibits an adult male from rounding the head of a minor but permits a woman to do so, maintains that the association between the two prohibitions in the verse: “You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), teaches: Whoever has the prohibition of the destruction of the beard also has the prohibition of rounding. And these women, since they are not included in the prohibition of destruction, as they do not have beards, they are not included in the prohibition of rounding either.

וְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה סָבַר: אֶחָד הַמַּקִּיף וְאֶחָד הַנִּיקָּף בַּמַּשְׁמָע. וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ מַקִּיף לְנִיקָּף: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּנִיקַּף מִיחַיַּיב — מַקִּיף נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב. וְהַאי קָטָן, הוֹאִיל וְהוּא גּוּפֵיהּ לָאו בַּר עוּנְשִׁין הוּא דְּמִיחַיַּיב, מַקִּיף נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב.

And Rav Adda bar Ahava, who permits anyone to shave a minor boy’s head, maintains: Both one who rounds and one who is rounded are included in the phrase “you shall not round,” which is stated in the plural. And in this manner the verse juxtaposes one who rounds to one who is rounded: Wherever one who is rounded is liable, the one who rounds is also liable; and with regard to this minor boy, since he himself is not liable to be punished for this transgression, an adult who rounds his head is also not liable due to this action.

לֵימָא הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם״,

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the issue of whether one who rounds the entire head is considered to have rounded its corners is a dispute between tanna’im? As the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to a verse that deals with the shaving of a leper: “He shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off” (Leviticus 14:9). Why must the verse state: “His head,” after it has already stated: “All his hair”? The baraita explains that since it is stated: “You shall not round the corners of your heads” (Leviticus 19:27),

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…

Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Miriam Eckstein-Koas

Huntington, United States

Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.

Lisa S. Malik
Lisa S. Malik

Wynnewood, United States

I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .

Martha Tarazi
Martha Tarazi

Panama, Panama

A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!

Cindy Dolgin
Cindy Dolgin

HUNTINGTON, United States

Robin Zeiger
Robin Zeiger

Tel Aviv, Israel

I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!

Shoshana Ruerup
Shoshana Ruerup

Berlin, Germany

A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.

Sheila Hauser
Sheila Hauser

Jerusalem, Israel

A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Debbie Fitzerman

Ontario, Canada

I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives

linda kalish-marcus
linda kalish-marcus

Efrat, Israel

I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.

Deborah Dickson
Deborah Dickson

Ra’anana, Israel

I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!

Joséphine Altzman
Joséphine Altzman

Teaneck, United States

I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.

Leeza Hirt Wilner
Leeza Hirt Wilner

New York, United States

When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.

Laura Shechter
Laura Shechter

Lexington, MA, United States

I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this

Denise Neapolitan
Denise Neapolitan

Cambridge, United Kingdom

I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.

Julie-Landau-Photo
Julie Landau

Karmiel, Israel

It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.

Janice Block
Janice Block

Beit Shemesh, Israel

I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives

linda kalish-marcus
linda kalish-marcus

Efrat, Israel

In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!

Beth Kissileff
Beth Kissileff

Pittsburgh, United States

After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.

Susan-Vishner-Hadran-photo-scaled
Susan Vishner

Brookline, United States

I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Elana Storch

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

Nazir 57

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה — הֲלָכָה, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם — קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וְאֵין דָּנִין קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה.

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai mentioned in the mishna: Is the halakha that a nazirite must shave for a bone that is a barley-grainbulk a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and it was the status of a quarter-log of blood that Rabbi Akiva sought to derive as an a fortiori inference, and with regard to this claim they said: One does not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai?

אוֹ דִלְמָא: רְבִיעִית דָּם — הֲלָכָה, וְעֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה — קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וְאֵין דָּנִין קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה? תָּא שְׁמַע: עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה — הֲלָכָה, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם — קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וְאֵין דָּנִין קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה.

Or perhaps the ruling that a quarter-log of blood imparts ritual impurity in a tent is the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and Rabbi Akiva sought to use the case of a bone that is a barley-grainbulk as the source of an a fortiori inference that a nazirite must shave for a quarter-log as well, to which the Sages replied that one does not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara answers: Come and hear the unequivocal statement of a baraita: A bone that is a barley-grainbulk is a halakha, and a quarter-log of blood is an a fortiori inference, and one does not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל

שְׁנֵי נְזִירִים שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן אֶחָד ״רָאִיתִי אֶחָד מִכֶּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם״ — מְגַלְּחִין, וּמְבִיאִין קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה וְקׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה. וְאוֹמֵר: אִם אֲנִי הוּא טָמֵא — קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלִּי וְקׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלְּךָ, וְאִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּהוֹר — קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלִּי וְקׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלְּךָ.

MISHNA: With regard to two nazirites, where one other person said to them: I saw one of you become impure, but I do not know which one of you it was, they must each complete their naziriteship terms, shave their hair, and both together bring an offering of ritual impurity and an offering of purity, due to the uncertainty. And one of them says to the other: If I am the impure one, the offering of impurity is mine and the offering of purity is yours; and if I am the pure one, the offering of purity is mine and the offering of impurity is yours.

וְסוֹפְרִין שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּמְבִיאִין קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה, וְאוֹמֵר: אִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּמֵא — קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלִּי וְקׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלְּךָ, וְזֶה קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָתִי. וְאִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּהוֹר — קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלִּי וְקׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלְּךָ, וְזֶה קׇרְבַּן טׇהֳרָתְךָ.

And because of the uncertainty they each count a further thirty days of naziriteship and both together bring an offering of purity. And one of them says: If I am the previously impure one, that offering of impurity sacrificed earlier was mine, and the offering of purity was yours; and this offering sacrificed now is my offering of purity. And if I am the previously pure one, the offering of purity brought earlier was mine, and the offering of impurity was yours; and this current offering is your offering of purity.

גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי: שְׁנֵי נְזִירִים שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם ״רָאִיתִי אֶחָד מִכֶּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם״. וְאַמַּאי? כֹּל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד מֵהֵיכָא יָלְפִינַן לֵהּ — מִסּוֹטָה.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches with regard to two nazirites, that if one other person said to them: I saw one of you become impure, but I do not know which one of you it was, they must bring an offering of ritual impurity and an offering of purity. The Gemara expresses surprise at this case: But why should they be defined as having uncertain impurity? After all, the general principle that any uncertain impurity in a private domain is considered impure, from where do we derive this? From the case of a sota.

מָה סוֹטָה, בּוֹעֵל וְנִבְעֶלֶת, אַף כֹּל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא בֵּי תְרֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, שְׁנֵי נְזִירִים וְהַאי דְּקָאֵי גַּבֵּיהוֹן — הָא תְּלָתָא, הָוֵה לֵיהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְכֹל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר!

Yet this situation is not similar to that of a sota, as just as the case of a sota involves only an adulterer and an adulteress, so too any uncertain impurity in a private domain is considered impure only in a case where there are no more than two people present. However, in the mishna here there are two nazirites and this other individual who is standing alongside them, who witnessed one of them become impure, which makes a total of three. Consequently, this is an uncertain impurity in the public domain, as three people are sufficient for the place to be considered a public domain with regard to this halakha, and the halakha with regard to any uncertain impurity in the public domain is that its uncertainty is considered pure.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״רָאִיתִי טוּמְאָה שֶׁנִּזְרְקָה בֵּינֵיכֶם״. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי

Rabba bar Rav Huna said that the mishna is referring to one who says: From a distance I saw an impure item thrown between you. Since he was not with them when one of the nazirites became impure, there were only two people present and therefore this is a case of uncertain impurity in a private domain. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise,

דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

as it teaches: But I do not know which one of you. This indicates that the third individual was too far away to detect which of them became impure. The Gemara says: Conclude from the inference from the mishna that it is so.

מְגַלְּחִין וּמְבִיאִין. וְאַמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לָאו טְמֵאִין אִינּוּן, וְקָעָבֵיד הַקָּפָה! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן.

§ The mishna taught that the two nazirites shave and cut their hair and bring an offering of impurity and an offering of purity. The Gemara asks: But why are they permitted to shave? Perhaps both of them are not impure, and therefore one of them violates the prohibition against rounding the head, i.e., shaving the hair on the sides of the head (see Leviticus 19:27), when he shaves his hair unnecessarily. Since one of them does not need to shave, he thereby transgresses a mitzva by Torah law. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where each nazirite was a woman, who is not prohibited from rounding the hair of her head, or a minor boy, who is not obligated in the observance of mitzvot.

וְלוֹקְמָא בְּגָדוֹל, וְהַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ — לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה! מִדְּלָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ הָכִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ — שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה.

The Gemara analyzes Shmuel’s answer: And let Shmuel establish the mishna as referring to a male who reached majority, and the reason it is permitted is because rounding the entire head, not merely its corners, is not called rounding as prohibited by the Torah. From the fact that he does not establish the mishna in this manner, conclude from it that Shmuel maintains that rounding the entire head is called rounding.

מָר זוּטְרָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַסֵּיפָא: נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא בְּסָפֵק וּמוּחְלָט בְּסָפֵק — אוֹכֵל בְּקָדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם, וּמְגַלֵּחַ אַרְבַּע תִּגְלָחוֹת. וְהָא קָעָבֵיד הַקָּפָה! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּאִשָּׁה וְקָטָן.

Mar Zutra taught this halakha of Shmuel with regard to the latter clause of the following mishna (59b): A nazirite who has uncertain impurity and whose status as a confirmed leper is uncertain may eat sacrificial food after sixty days and shaves four times. One shaving is for his uncertain status as an impure nazirite, one is at the end of his term of naziriteship, and two are due to his status as a leper. A similar problem arose: But as he is not definitely obligated to shave, he violates the prohibition against rounding the head. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a woman or a minor boy, who are not prohibited from rounding their heads.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַמַּקִּיף אֶת הַקָּטָן הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרַב הוּנָא: וְדִידָךְ מַאן מְגַלַּח לְהוֹן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חוֹבָה. תִּקְבְּרִינּוּן חוֹבָה לִבְנַיהּ. כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לָא אִקַּיַּים לֵיהּ זַרְעָא לְרַב הוּנָא.

With regard to the same issue, Rav Huna said: An adult who rounds the head of a minor boy is liable to receive lashes, despite the fact that the child himself is not obligated to observe mitzvot. Rav Adda bar Ahava, who disputed this ruling, said to Rav Huna: And with regard to your sons, who shaves them and rounds the corners of their heads? After all, you maintain that an adult may not round the head of a minor. Rav Huna said to him: Ḥova my wife does it, as she is not prohibited from rounding their heads. Rav Adda bar Ahava exclaimed in anger: Ḥova should bury her sons if she acts in this manner. The Gemara reports: During the years that Rav Adda bar Ahava was alive, Rav Huna’s children did not survive. His children died due to the curse pronounced by Rav Adda.

מִכְּדִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ סְבִירָא הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ שְׁמָהּ הַקָּפָה, בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַב הוּנָא, סָבַר ״לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית [אֵת] פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ״. כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה — יֵשׁ לוֹ הַקָּפָה, וְהָנֵי נְשֵׁי, הוֹאִיל וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּהַשְׁחָתָה — לֵיתַנְהוּ נָמֵי בְּהַקָּפָה.

The Gemara asks: Since both Rav Huna and Rav Adda maintain that rounding the entire head is called rounding, with regard to what do they disagree? What is the reason for their respective rulings? The Gemara explains: Rav Huna, who prohibits an adult male from rounding the head of a minor but permits a woman to do so, maintains that the association between the two prohibitions in the verse: “You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), teaches: Whoever has the prohibition of the destruction of the beard also has the prohibition of rounding. And these women, since they are not included in the prohibition of destruction, as they do not have beards, they are not included in the prohibition of rounding either.

וְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה סָבַר: אֶחָד הַמַּקִּיף וְאֶחָד הַנִּיקָּף בַּמַּשְׁמָע. וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ מַקִּיף לְנִיקָּף: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּנִיקַּף מִיחַיַּיב — מַקִּיף נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב. וְהַאי קָטָן, הוֹאִיל וְהוּא גּוּפֵיהּ לָאו בַּר עוּנְשִׁין הוּא דְּמִיחַיַּיב, מַקִּיף נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב.

And Rav Adda bar Ahava, who permits anyone to shave a minor boy’s head, maintains: Both one who rounds and one who is rounded are included in the phrase “you shall not round,” which is stated in the plural. And in this manner the verse juxtaposes one who rounds to one who is rounded: Wherever one who is rounded is liable, the one who rounds is also liable; and with regard to this minor boy, since he himself is not liable to be punished for this transgression, an adult who rounds his head is also not liable due to this action.

לֵימָא הַקָּפַת כׇּל הָרֹאשׁ תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם״,

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the issue of whether one who rounds the entire head is considered to have rounded its corners is a dispute between tanna’im? As the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to a verse that deals with the shaving of a leper: “He shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off” (Leviticus 14:9). Why must the verse state: “His head,” after it has already stated: “All his hair”? The baraita explains that since it is stated: “You shall not round the corners of your heads” (Leviticus 19:27),

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete