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-grain–bulk 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-grain–bulk 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-grain–bulk 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),
