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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 21, 2023 | 讻状讞 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 57

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Nancy Kolodny in honor of Lisa Kolodny on her birthday. 鈥淲ith appreciation and love to my amazing daughter-in-law. May your learning and chesed continue to grow in the new year鈥.

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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鈥檛 it forbidden to shave off one鈥檚 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鈥檚 head is forbidden. Some say that Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛


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?


讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛诇讻讛 讜注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛 转讗 砖诪注 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛:


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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇



砖谞讬 谞讝讬专讬诐 砖讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讞讚 专讗讬转讬 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讱 讜讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟讛讜专 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讱


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.


讜住讜驻专讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟诪讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讱 讜讝讛 拽专讘谉 讟讛专转讬 讜讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟讛讜专 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讱 讜讝讛 拽专讘谉 讟讛专转讱:


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.


讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 砖谞讬 谞讝讬专讬诐 砖讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讗讬转讬 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 讜讗诪讗讬 讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讛讬讻讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讛 诪住讜讟讛


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.


诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘讜注诇 讜谞讘注诇转 讗祝 讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬 转专讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 砖谞讬 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讙讘讬讛讜谉 讛讗 转诇转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专


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.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 专讗讬转讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖谞讝专拽讛 讘讬谞讬讻诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬


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,


讚拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


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.


诪讙诇讞讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉: 讜讗诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讗讬谞讜谉 讜拽注讘讬讚 讛拽驻讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉


搂 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.


讜诇讜拽诪讗 讘讙讚讜诇 讜讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 诪讚诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讛讻讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛


The Gemara analyzes Shmuel鈥檚 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.


诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗住讬驻讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讘住驻拽 讜诪讜讞诇讟 讘住驻拽 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讙诇讞 讗专讘注 转讙诇讞讜转 讜讛讗 拽注讘讬讚 讛拽驻讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪拽讬祝 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讚讬讚讱 诪讗谉 诪讙诇讞 诇讛讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 转拽讘专讬谞讜谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讘谞讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讗 讗拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 讝专注讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗


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: 岣va my wife does it, as she is not prohibited from rounding their heads. Rav Adda bar Ahava exclaimed in anger: 岣va 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鈥檚 children did not survive. His children died due to the curse pronounced by Rav Adda.


诪讻讚讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 住讘讬专讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讘专 诇讗 转拽驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 讜诇讗 转砖讞讬转 [讗转] 驻讗转 讝拽谞讱 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讛砖讞转讛 讬砖 诇讜 讛拽驻讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讛砖讞转讛 诇讬转谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讛拽驻讛


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: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (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.


讜专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 住讘专 讗讞讚 讛诪拽讬祝 讜讗讞讚 讛谞讬拽祝 讘诪砖诪注 讜讗讬转拽砖 诪拽讬祝 诇谞讬拽祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讬拽祝 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪拽讬祝 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗讬 拽讟谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗讜 讘专 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪拽讬祝 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘


And Rav Adda bar Ahava, who permits anyone to shave a minor boy鈥檚 head, maintains: Both one who rounds and one who is rounded are included in the phrase 鈥測ou shall not round,鈥 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.


诇讬诪讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讗砖讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转拽驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐


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鈥檌m? As the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to a verse that deals with the shaving of a leper: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). Why must the verse state: 鈥淗is head,鈥 after it has already stated: 鈥淎ll his hair鈥? The baraita explains that since it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads鈥 (Leviticus 19:27),

  • 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: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 prohibitions of the Nazir. Each one has an aspect that is more...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 57: Am I Impure, or Is That You?

Opening with questions about the nazir's status - pure or impure? Namely, a third party observed one of two nezirim...
arnolfini

A Proper Wife

A search for Rav Huna in the Gemara would not take long. This second generation Babylonian Amora has literally hundreds...

Nazir 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 57

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛


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?


讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛诇讻讛 讜注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛 转讗 砖诪注 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛:


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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇



砖谞讬 谞讝讬专讬诐 砖讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讞讚 专讗讬转讬 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讱 讜讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟讛讜专 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讱


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.


讜住讜驻专讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟诪讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讱 讜讝讛 拽专讘谉 讟讛专转讬 讜讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟讛讜专 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讱 讜讝讛 拽专讘谉 讟讛专转讱:


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.


讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 砖谞讬 谞讝讬专讬诐 砖讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讗讬转讬 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 讜讗诪讗讬 讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讛讬讻讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讛 诪住讜讟讛


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.


诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘讜注诇 讜谞讘注诇转 讗祝 讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬 转专讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 砖谞讬 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讙讘讬讛讜谉 讛讗 转诇转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专


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.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 专讗讬转讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖谞讝专拽讛 讘讬谞讬讻诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬


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,


讚拽转谞讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


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.


诪讙诇讞讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉: 讜讗诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讗讬谞讜谉 讜拽注讘讬讚 讛拽驻讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉


搂 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.


讜诇讜拽诪讗 讘讙讚讜诇 讜讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 诪讚诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讛讻讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛


The Gemara analyzes Shmuel鈥檚 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.


诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗住讬驻讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讘住驻拽 讜诪讜讞诇讟 讘住驻拽 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讙诇讞 讗专讘注 转讙诇讞讜转 讜讛讗 拽注讘讬讚 讛拽驻讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪拽讬祝 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讚讬讚讱 诪讗谉 诪讙诇讞 诇讛讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 转拽讘专讬谞讜谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讘谞讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讗 讗拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 讝专注讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗


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: 岣va my wife does it, as she is not prohibited from rounding their heads. Rav Adda bar Ahava exclaimed in anger: 岣va 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鈥檚 children did not survive. His children died due to the curse pronounced by Rav Adda.


诪讻讚讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 住讘讬专讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 砖诪讛 讛拽驻讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讘专 诇讗 转拽驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐 讜诇讗 转砖讞讬转 [讗转] 驻讗转 讝拽谞讱 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讛砖讞转讛 讬砖 诇讜 讛拽驻讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讛砖讞转讛 诇讬转谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讛拽驻讛


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: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you destroy the corners of your beard鈥 (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.


讜专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 住讘专 讗讞讚 讛诪拽讬祝 讜讗讞讚 讛谞讬拽祝 讘诪砖诪注 讜讗讬转拽砖 诪拽讬祝 诇谞讬拽祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讬拽祝 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪拽讬祝 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗讬 拽讟谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗讜 讘专 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪拽讬祝 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘


And Rav Adda bar Ahava, who permits anyone to shave a minor boy鈥檚 head, maintains: Both one who rounds and one who is rounded are included in the phrase 鈥測ou shall not round,鈥 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.


诇讬诪讗 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讗砖讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转拽驻讜 驻讗转 专讗砖讻诐


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鈥檌m? As the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to a verse that deals with the shaving of a leper: 鈥淗e shall shave all his hair; his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). Why must the verse state: 鈥淗is head,鈥 after it has already stated: 鈥淎ll his hair鈥? The baraita explains that since it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads鈥 (Leviticus 19:27),

Scroll To Top