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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 6, 2023 | 讬状讙 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Nazir 42

This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen. A doctor who has healed thousands of people with his medical expertise, providing endless care and love at all hours of the day and night. May his memory be blessed.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen for a refuah shleima for their daughter (and my niece) Naama bat Yael Esther who is having surgery today. May Hashem grant her a full and speedy recovery.

In the spirit of 诇讱 讻谞讜住 讗转 讻诇 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐, “go and gather all the Jews” our global Hadran Zoom Family dedicates today’s learning to Carol Robinson and Art Gould. Carol, your beautiful smile, kind heart and gentle determination inspire us in our daily learning. We send you love, strength and courage. Art, we send you continued strength, wisdom, and clarity, as we admire the loving way you care for Carol. Our hearts and tefillot are with you both.

A nazir who did not shave off all their hair and left two hairs did nothing. From this, we learn that this is a unique law for a nazir, but in other cases in the Torah, the majority is sufficient. Abaye and Raba ask questions about the issue of the two hairs, by raising聽 “What if…” scenarios? Is a nazir allowed to wash, straighten out and brush their hair, and if so, how? How does this fit with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that one is not liable for something if that was not one’s intent? If the nazir was warned every time before he went to do one of the prohibitions of a nazir, he can receive lashes several times – for each and every forbidden action. Is it possible to be liable for two sets of lashes if became impure to a dead body twice – after all, he has already become impure and has not defiled anything any more than he had from the first instance! There is a dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef who both disagree about what Rav Huna held. Abaye raised a difficulty against Rav Yosef from a braita to show that it is impossible that one would get two sets of lashes as one is already defiled. Rav Yosef responds by saying that the braita he quoted contradicts our Mishna where one does get two sets of lashes for two instances of coming in contact with the dead. Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by establishing each case in a different way of impurity – the braita is where one is still attached to the first dead body and the Mishna is where one is not. The Gemara questions his answer but resolves it as well.

讛讗 讙讚讬诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 诪讛诐:


indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: 鈥淵ou shall make for yourself fringes鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be from them, wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讻讜诇诐 砖讙讬诇讞讜 砖诇讗 讘转注专 讗讜 砖砖讬讬专讜 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诇讗 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


搂 The Gemara returns to the mishna that teaches that nazirites, lepers, and Levites must shave their hair. The Master said above: And with regard to all of them, if they shaved with an implement other than a razor, or if they left two hairs uncut, they have done nothing. Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: That is to say that the principle: The majority of an entity is considered like all of it, applies by Torah law.


诪诪讗讬 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讬讙诇讞谞讜 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜诇讜 讛讗 讘注诇诪讗 专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜


The Gemara asks: From where do we learn this? The Gemara explains: This principle is derived from the fact that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah and specified with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淥n the seventh day he shall shave it鈥 (Numbers 6:9), despite the fact that the same verse already stated: 鈥淎nd he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing.鈥 This teaches that it is only in this case here that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving until there is the removal of all of it, i.e., shaving part of his head is insufficient. This shows that in general the majority of an entity is like all of it.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讘谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讻转讬讘 诪讞讻讜 注诇讛 讘诪注专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讚讘转注专 诪谞诇谉 诪谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 讬诇讬祝 诇讬转讬 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 讜诇讬诇祝 诪谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 诪讛 讟诪讗 讻讬 砖讬讬专 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 注讘讚 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 砖讬讬专 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 注讘讚


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, objects to this assertion. This verse: 鈥淥n the seventh day he shall shave it,鈥 is written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite, not a pure one, whereas the halakha in the mishna applies even to a pure nazirite. This shows that the above inference is invalid. They laughed at this difficulty in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael: After all, from where do we derive the halakha that an impure nazirite shaves with a razor? It is derived from the halakha of a pure nazirite. If so, let the case of a pure nazirite come and derive the following halakha from the case of an impure nazirite: Just as with regard to an impure nazirite, if he leaves two hairs he has done nothing, here too, if a pure nazirite leaves two hairs he has done nothing.


讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 谞讝讬专 砖讙讬诇讞 讜砖讬讬专 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 爪诪讞 专讗砖讜 讜讞讝专 讜讙讬诇讞谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪注讻讘讬 讗讜 诇讗


On the same topic, Abaye raised a dilemma: With regard to a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, which is not considered an act of shaving, if the hairs of his head grew and he again shaved, this time those two hairs alone, what is the halakha? Do these hairs invalidate the fulfillment of his obligation or not? Has he now completed his initial act of shaving, or is the shaving of two hairs from a head full of hair of no significance, and he must now shave his entire head?


讘注讬 专讘讗 谞讝讬专 砖讙讬诇讞 讜讛谞讬讞 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜讙讬诇讞 讗讞转 讜谞砖专讛 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讙讬诇讞 砖注专讛 砖注专讛 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗


Similarly, Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, and afterward shaved one of them, and the other one fell out of its own accord, what is the halakha? Is this considered shaving one鈥檚 entire head or not? Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma as to whether one can shave his head one hair by one hair? How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?


讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞砖专讛 讗讞转 讜讙讬诇讞 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讬诇讜讞 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 砖注专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗讬 砖注专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讙讬诇讜讞 讬砖 讻讗谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖注专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诪爪讜转 讙讬诇讜讞 讗讬谉 讻讗谉:


Rather, say that the dilemma is as follows: If one hair fell out and he shaved the other one, what is the halakha? Has he performed the obligation of shaving if there was only one hair left when he came to shave? Ravina said to him: In that case there is no shaving here; there is no hair here. The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: If there is no hair here, then there is shaving here, as no hair remains. The Gemara explains: This is what he said: Even though there is no hair here, as only one hair remains, nevertheless there is no fulfillment of the mitzva of shaving here, as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount.


诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 讞讜驻祝 讜诪驻住驻住 讗讘诇 诇讗 住讜专拽:


MISHNA: A nazirite may shampoo [岣fef ] his head and separate [mefaspes] his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. However, he may not comb his hair.


讙诪壮 讞讜驻祝 讜诪驻住驻住 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 诇讗 住讜专拽 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉


GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who maintains that a nazirite may shampoo and separate his hairs? It is Rabbi Shimon, who says: An unintentional act is permitted. Even if hairs do fall out as a result of this action, as he did not intend this to happen the action is permitted. Yet in the latter clause of the mishna, which states: However, he may not comb his hair, we have come to the opinion of the Rabbis. Although this nazirite also does not intend to tear out any hair when he combs it, it is nevertheless prohibited.


专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讻诇 讛住讜专拽 诇讛住讬专 谞讬诪讬谉 诪讚讜诇讚诇讜转 诪转讻讜讬谉:


This leads to a surprising conclusion, that the first clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and the latter clause is the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba said: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he maintains that anyone who combs his hair intends to remove stray hairs, and therefore this is considered an intentional act.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讞讜祝 讘讗讚诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖专转 讗转 讛砖注专:


MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: A nazirite may not shampoo his hair with earth because this causes the hair to fall out.


讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪砖专转 讗转 讛砖注专 转谞谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪驻谞讬 讛诪砖专转 转谞谉 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛


GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Do we learn: Because it removes hair, i.e., earth in general removes hair, or do we perhaps learn: Because of that which removes hair. In other words, although some types of earth do not remove hair, it is prohibited to use these as well, due to those types that do remove hair. The Gemara inquires: What is the difference of this textual question?


讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讚诪讛 讚诇讗 诪转专讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪砖专转 转谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讚诇讗 诪转专讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪驻谞讬 讛诪砖专转 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗 转讬拽讜:


The Gemara explains: There is a difference in a case where there is a type of earth that does not remove hair. If you say that we learned in the mishna: Because it removes hair, then in a case where we know that it does not remove hair it is fine to shampoo with that substance. However, if you say the text reads: Because of that which removes hair, this indicates that the Sages prohibited using any type of earth, due to the type that removes hair. If so, a nazirite may not shampoo his head with any earth at all, not even if it does not remove hair. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转砖转讛 讗诇 转砖转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讬讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转讙诇讞 讗诇 转讙诇讞 讜讛讜讗 诪讙诇讞 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讬讛 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转讟诪讗 讗诇 转讟诪讗 讜讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转:


MISHNA: A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If people said to him during the course of the day: Do not drink, do not drink, and nevertheless he continues to drink, he is liable for each and every time he was warned. If a nazirite kept shaving all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every time he was warned. If he became ritually impure from a corpse many times all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he continues to become impure, he is liable for each and every time he was warned.


讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪拽专讗 诪诇讗 讚讘专 讛讻转讜讘 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 诇讛讝讛讬专讜 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诇讛讝讛讬专讜 注诇 讛讘讬讗讛 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗


GEMARA: A dispute among amora鈥檌m was stated. Rabba said that Rav Huna said: The Torah stated a halakha involving a nazirite in a categorical verse: 鈥淗e shall not become impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die鈥 (Numbers 6:7). This includes all manners of contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, whether ritual impurity imparted by contact, by carrying, or in a tent, i.e., a corpse under the same roof. When the Torah states: 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6), it serves to warn him with regard to contracting impurity from a corpse in any manner, as above, and to warn him with regard to entering an enclosure with a corpse, which is a unique prohibition applicable to a nazirite that is added by the phrase 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body,鈥 and he is liable separately for each. However, with regard to one contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, the verse does not warn him, and he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讛讜砖讬讟讜 诇讜 诪转讜 讜诪转 讗讞专 讜谞讙注 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛


And Rav Yosef says in the form of an oath: By God! Rav Huna actually says that he is separately liable even for contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, not only if he entered an enclosure with a corpse. As Rav Huna says: With regard to a nazirite who was standing in a cemetery, who is already ritually impure, and they extended his corpse, i.e., the corpse of his relative, to him, and similarly if they extended a different corpse to him and he touched it, he is liable. But why is he liable; he has already become impure and is standing in his state of impurity? Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this that Rav Huna said he is separately liable even for contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse?


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讻讛谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诪转 诪讜谞讞 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 讜讛讜砖讬讟讜 诇讜 诪转讜 讜诪转 讗讞专 讜谞讙注 讘讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讘诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇诇 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讞讜诇诇 讜注讜诪讚


Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from a baraita: With regard to a priest who had a corpse placed on his shoulder, and they extended his corpse, i.e., the corpse of his relative, to him, and similarly if they extended a different corpse to him and he touched it, one might have thought that he should be liable even for this contact. Therefore, the verse states, with regard to the prohibition against a High Priest becoming impure: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane the Sanctuary of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:12). This teaches that the prohibition of impurity applies to one who is not yet profaned, excluding this one who is already profaned and standing in that state of ritual impurity.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转讟诪讗 讗诇 转讟诪讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬诐


Rav Yosef said to him: But if, as you claim, one is not liable for contracting one impurity after another, the mishna should pose a difficulty for you. As we learned in the mishna: If a nazirite became ritually impure from corpses many times all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he continues to become impure, he is liable for each and every time he was warned. But why should this be so? He has already become impure and is standing in his state of impurity.


讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉


Rather, the mishna and baraita pose a difficulty for each other. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as here the baraita is referring to a concurrent contact with impurity, i.e., when he touched the second corpse he was still in contact with the first, so he is not liable for the second impurity. Conversely, there the mishna is referring to impurity that was not a concurrent contact. He touched the second corpse only after he had separated himself from the first, and therefore he is liable for each impurity.


讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗


The Gemara asks: And this halakha, that a nazirite is exempt from being flogged for a second contact with a corpse in a case of concurrent impurity, does it apply by Torah law? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef say that Rabbi Yannai said: They stated the principle of concurrent impurity only with regard to partaking of teruma and consecrated foods, i.e., that one who touches a person who is in contact with a corpse is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse for seven days. However, with regard to a nazirite, i.e., the question of whether a nazirite is considered ritually impure and has to bring offerings due to this contact, and with regard to one who performs the ritual of the Paschal offering, this halakha does not apply. And if you say that this halakha applies by Torah law, what is different between the case of teruma and the case of a nazirite?


讻讗谉 讘讞讬讘讜专讬 讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 讻讗谉 讘讞讬讘讜专讬 讗讚诐 讘诪转


The Gemara explains that there are two different types of concurrent impurity. Here, where there is a difference between teruma and a nazirite, it is referring to concurrent contact of one person with another person. If one touched another while the other was in contact with a corpse, the impurity of the first is by rabbinic law. By contrast, there it is referring to concurrent contact of a person with a corpse. One who is touching a corpse is considered linked to impurity by Torah law with regard to his second contact with a corpse.


讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讚讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬诐


The Gemara summarizes: The fact that one who is touching a corpse is not liable for contact with a second corpse leads to Rabba鈥檚 aforementioned ruling: However, with regard to contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, i.e., if a person contracted impurity imparted by a corpse and then touched another corpse while still in contact with the first corpse, he is not liable for the second impurity, as he has already become impure and is standing in his state of ritual impurity.


讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘讬讗讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗谉 讘讘讬转


The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to impurity and entering one should say likewise, that when he enters an enclosure containing a corpse when he is in contact with a corpse, he has already become impure and is standing in his impurity. Why should he be flogged again for entering the enclosure? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In the case of impurity and entering one must again distinguish between two instances: Here, where Rav Huna said that one will be liable for both contractions of impurity, it is referring to one who was pure and who went into a house that contained a corpse, rendering him liable twice. The entering the house and the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof, occurred simultaneously, and therefore he is liable twice, once for contracting ritual impurity and once for violating the particular prohibition against a nazirite entering an enclosure with a corpse in it.


讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛


Whereas there, where he is liable only once, it is referring to one who was in a field. In other words, if a nazirite touched a corpse in a field and subsequently entered an enclosure with a corpse in it while he was still in contact with the first corpse, he is not liable separately for that entering, as he was already ritually impure.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 37-42 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the concept of 鈥渢he taste of forbidden food is prohibited鈥 and how it relates to...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 42: If a Nazir Is Bald, Can He Shave?

Tongue in cheek: what really counts as shaving? How much hair can be left, with what tool, etc. Plus, 3...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 41: The Other Side

After exploring the opinion of the Rabbis on daf 40 the Gemara explores the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and how...

Nazir 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 42

讛讗 讙讚讬诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 诪讛诐:


indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: 鈥淵ou shall make for yourself fringes鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be from them, wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讻讜诇诐 砖讙讬诇讞讜 砖诇讗 讘转注专 讗讜 砖砖讬讬专讜 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诇讗 注砖讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


搂 The Gemara returns to the mishna that teaches that nazirites, lepers, and Levites must shave their hair. The Master said above: And with regard to all of them, if they shaved with an implement other than a razor, or if they left two hairs uncut, they have done nothing. Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: That is to say that the principle: The majority of an entity is considered like all of it, applies by Torah law.


诪诪讗讬 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讬讙诇讞谞讜 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜诇讜 讛讗 讘注诇诪讗 专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜


The Gemara asks: From where do we learn this? The Gemara explains: This principle is derived from the fact that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah and specified with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淥n the seventh day he shall shave it鈥 (Numbers 6:9), despite the fact that the same verse already stated: 鈥淎nd he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing.鈥 This teaches that it is only in this case here that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving until there is the removal of all of it, i.e., shaving part of his head is insufficient. This shows that in general the majority of an entity is like all of it.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讘谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讻转讬讘 诪讞讻讜 注诇讛 讘诪注专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讚讘转注专 诪谞诇谉 诪谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 讬诇讬祝 诇讬转讬 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 讜诇讬诇祝 诪谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 诪讛 讟诪讗 讻讬 砖讬讬专 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 注讘讚 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 砖讬讬专 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 注讘讚


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, objects to this assertion. This verse: 鈥淥n the seventh day he shall shave it,鈥 is written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite, not a pure one, whereas the halakha in the mishna applies even to a pure nazirite. This shows that the above inference is invalid. They laughed at this difficulty in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael: After all, from where do we derive the halakha that an impure nazirite shaves with a razor? It is derived from the halakha of a pure nazirite. If so, let the case of a pure nazirite come and derive the following halakha from the case of an impure nazirite: Just as with regard to an impure nazirite, if he leaves two hairs he has done nothing, here too, if a pure nazirite leaves two hairs he has done nothing.


讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 谞讝讬专 砖讙讬诇讞 讜砖讬讬专 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 爪诪讞 专讗砖讜 讜讞讝专 讜讙讬诇讞谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪注讻讘讬 讗讜 诇讗


On the same topic, Abaye raised a dilemma: With regard to a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, which is not considered an act of shaving, if the hairs of his head grew and he again shaved, this time those two hairs alone, what is the halakha? Do these hairs invalidate the fulfillment of his obligation or not? Has he now completed his initial act of shaving, or is the shaving of two hairs from a head full of hair of no significance, and he must now shave his entire head?


讘注讬 专讘讗 谞讝讬专 砖讙讬诇讞 讜讛谞讬讞 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜讙讬诇讞 讗讞转 讜谞砖专讛 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讙讬诇讞 砖注专讛 砖注专讛 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗


Similarly, Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, and afterward shaved one of them, and the other one fell out of its own accord, what is the halakha? Is this considered shaving one鈥檚 entire head or not? Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma as to whether one can shave his head one hair by one hair? How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?


讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞砖专讛 讗讞转 讜讙讬诇讞 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讬诇讜讞 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 砖注专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗讬 砖注专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讙讬诇讜讞 讬砖 讻讗谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖注专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诪爪讜转 讙讬诇讜讞 讗讬谉 讻讗谉:


Rather, say that the dilemma is as follows: If one hair fell out and he shaved the other one, what is the halakha? Has he performed the obligation of shaving if there was only one hair left when he came to shave? Ravina said to him: In that case there is no shaving here; there is no hair here. The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: If there is no hair here, then there is shaving here, as no hair remains. The Gemara explains: This is what he said: Even though there is no hair here, as only one hair remains, nevertheless there is no fulfillment of the mitzva of shaving here, as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount.


诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 讞讜驻祝 讜诪驻住驻住 讗讘诇 诇讗 住讜专拽:


MISHNA: A nazirite may shampoo [岣fef ] his head and separate [mefaspes] his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. However, he may not comb his hair.


讙诪壮 讞讜驻祝 讜诪驻住驻住 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 诇讗 住讜专拽 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉


GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who maintains that a nazirite may shampoo and separate his hairs? It is Rabbi Shimon, who says: An unintentional act is permitted. Even if hairs do fall out as a result of this action, as he did not intend this to happen the action is permitted. Yet in the latter clause of the mishna, which states: However, he may not comb his hair, we have come to the opinion of the Rabbis. Although this nazirite also does not intend to tear out any hair when he combs it, it is nevertheless prohibited.


专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讻诇 讛住讜专拽 诇讛住讬专 谞讬诪讬谉 诪讚讜诇讚诇讜转 诪转讻讜讬谉:


This leads to a surprising conclusion, that the first clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and the latter clause is the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba said: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he maintains that anyone who combs his hair intends to remove stray hairs, and therefore this is considered an intentional act.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讞讜祝 讘讗讚诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖专转 讗转 讛砖注专:


MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: A nazirite may not shampoo his hair with earth because this causes the hair to fall out.


讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪砖专转 讗转 讛砖注专 转谞谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪驻谞讬 讛诪砖专转 转谞谉 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛


GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Do we learn: Because it removes hair, i.e., earth in general removes hair, or do we perhaps learn: Because of that which removes hair. In other words, although some types of earth do not remove hair, it is prohibited to use these as well, due to those types that do remove hair. The Gemara inquires: What is the difference of this textual question?


讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讚诪讛 讚诇讗 诪转专讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪砖专转 转谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讚诇讗 诪转专讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪驻谞讬 讛诪砖专转 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗 转讬拽讜:


The Gemara explains: There is a difference in a case where there is a type of earth that does not remove hair. If you say that we learned in the mishna: Because it removes hair, then in a case where we know that it does not remove hair it is fine to shampoo with that substance. However, if you say the text reads: Because of that which removes hair, this indicates that the Sages prohibited using any type of earth, due to the type that removes hair. If so, a nazirite may not shampoo his head with any earth at all, not even if it does not remove hair. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转砖转讛 讗诇 转砖转讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讬讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转讙诇讞 讗诇 转讙诇讞 讜讛讜讗 诪讙诇讞 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讬讛 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转讟诪讗 讗诇 转讟诪讗 讜讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转:


MISHNA: A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If people said to him during the course of the day: Do not drink, do not drink, and nevertheless he continues to drink, he is liable for each and every time he was warned. If a nazirite kept shaving all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every time he was warned. If he became ritually impure from a corpse many times all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he continues to become impure, he is liable for each and every time he was warned.


讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪拽专讗 诪诇讗 讚讘专 讛讻转讜讘 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 诇讛讝讛讬专讜 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诇讛讝讛讬专讜 注诇 讛讘讬讗讛 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗


GEMARA: A dispute among amora鈥檌m was stated. Rabba said that Rav Huna said: The Torah stated a halakha involving a nazirite in a categorical verse: 鈥淗e shall not become impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die鈥 (Numbers 6:7). This includes all manners of contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, whether ritual impurity imparted by contact, by carrying, or in a tent, i.e., a corpse under the same roof. When the Torah states: 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6), it serves to warn him with regard to contracting impurity from a corpse in any manner, as above, and to warn him with regard to entering an enclosure with a corpse, which is a unique prohibition applicable to a nazirite that is added by the phrase 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body,鈥 and he is liable separately for each. However, with regard to one contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, the verse does not warn him, and he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讛讜砖讬讟讜 诇讜 诪转讜 讜诪转 讗讞专 讜谞讙注 讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛


And Rav Yosef says in the form of an oath: By God! Rav Huna actually says that he is separately liable even for contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, not only if he entered an enclosure with a corpse. As Rav Huna says: With regard to a nazirite who was standing in a cemetery, who is already ritually impure, and they extended his corpse, i.e., the corpse of his relative, to him, and similarly if they extended a different corpse to him and he touched it, he is liable. But why is he liable; he has already become impure and is standing in his state of impurity? Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this that Rav Huna said he is separately liable even for contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse?


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讻讛谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诪转 诪讜谞讞 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 讜讛讜砖讬讟讜 诇讜 诪转讜 讜诪转 讗讞专 讜谞讙注 讘讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讘诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇诇 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讞讜诇诇 讜注讜诪讚


Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from a baraita: With regard to a priest who had a corpse placed on his shoulder, and they extended his corpse, i.e., the corpse of his relative, to him, and similarly if they extended a different corpse to him and he touched it, one might have thought that he should be liable even for this contact. Therefore, the verse states, with regard to the prohibition against a High Priest becoming impure: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane the Sanctuary of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:12). This teaches that the prohibition of impurity applies to one who is not yet profaned, excluding this one who is already profaned and standing in that state of ritual impurity.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇 转讟诪讗 讗诇 转讟诪讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬诐


Rav Yosef said to him: But if, as you claim, one is not liable for contracting one impurity after another, the mishna should pose a difficulty for you. As we learned in the mishna: If a nazirite became ritually impure from corpses many times all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he continues to become impure, he is liable for each and every time he was warned. But why should this be so? He has already become impure and is standing in his state of impurity.


讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉


Rather, the mishna and baraita pose a difficulty for each other. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as here the baraita is referring to a concurrent contact with impurity, i.e., when he touched the second corpse he was still in contact with the first, so he is not liable for the second impurity. Conversely, there the mishna is referring to impurity that was not a concurrent contact. He touched the second corpse only after he had separated himself from the first, and therefore he is liable for each impurity.


讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗


The Gemara asks: And this halakha, that a nazirite is exempt from being flogged for a second contact with a corpse in a case of concurrent impurity, does it apply by Torah law? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef say that Rabbi Yannai said: They stated the principle of concurrent impurity only with regard to partaking of teruma and consecrated foods, i.e., that one who touches a person who is in contact with a corpse is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse for seven days. However, with regard to a nazirite, i.e., the question of whether a nazirite is considered ritually impure and has to bring offerings due to this contact, and with regard to one who performs the ritual of the Paschal offering, this halakha does not apply. And if you say that this halakha applies by Torah law, what is different between the case of teruma and the case of a nazirite?


讻讗谉 讘讞讬讘讜专讬 讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 讻讗谉 讘讞讬讘讜专讬 讗讚诐 讘诪转


The Gemara explains that there are two different types of concurrent impurity. Here, where there is a difference between teruma and a nazirite, it is referring to concurrent contact of one person with another person. If one touched another while the other was in contact with a corpse, the impurity of the first is by rabbinic law. By contrast, there it is referring to concurrent contact of a person with a corpse. One who is touching a corpse is considered linked to impurity by Torah law with regard to his second contact with a corpse.


讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讚讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬诐


The Gemara summarizes: The fact that one who is touching a corpse is not liable for contact with a second corpse leads to Rabba鈥檚 aforementioned ruling: However, with regard to contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, i.e., if a person contracted impurity imparted by a corpse and then touched another corpse while still in contact with the first corpse, he is not liable for the second impurity, as he has already become impure and is standing in his state of ritual impurity.


讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘讬讗讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讜拽讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗谉 讘讘讬转


The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to impurity and entering one should say likewise, that when he enters an enclosure containing a corpse when he is in contact with a corpse, he has already become impure and is standing in his impurity. Why should he be flogged again for entering the enclosure? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In the case of impurity and entering one must again distinguish between two instances: Here, where Rav Huna said that one will be liable for both contractions of impurity, it is referring to one who was pure and who went into a house that contained a corpse, rendering him liable twice. The entering the house and the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof, occurred simultaneously, and therefore he is liable twice, once for contracting ritual impurity and once for violating the particular prohibition against a nazirite entering an enclosure with a corpse in it.


讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛


Whereas there, where he is liable only once, it is referring to one who was in a field. In other words, if a nazirite touched a corpse in a field and subsequently entered an enclosure with a corpse in it while he was still in contact with the first corpse, he is not liable separately for that entering, as he was already ritually impure.

Scroll To Top