Today's Daf Yomi
March 21, 2023 | כ״ח באדר תשפ״ג
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat 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’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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף-יומי-לנשים): Play in new window | Download
גמ׳ איבעיא להו עצם כשעורה הלכה ורביעית דם קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה
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?
או דלמא רביעית דם הלכה ועצם כשעורה קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה תא שמע עצם כשעורה הלכה ורביעית דם קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה:
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.
הדרן עלך כהן גדול
שני נזירים שאמר להן אחד ראיתי אחד מכם שנטמא ואיני יודע איזה מכם מגלחין ומביאין קרבן טומאה וקרבן טהרה ואומר אם אני הוא טמא קרבן טומאה שלי וקרבן טהרה שלך ואם אני הוא הטהור קרבן טהרה שלי וקרבן טומאה שלך
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.
וסופרין שלשים יום ומביאין קרבן טהרה ואומר אם אני הוא הטמא קרבן טומאה שלי וקרבן טהרה שלך וזה קרבן טהרתי ואם אני הוא הטהור קרבן טהרה שלי וקרבן טומאה שלך וזה קרבן טהרתך:
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.
גמ׳ קתני שני נזירים שאמר להם ראיתי אחד מכם שנטמא ואיני יודע איזה מכם ואמאי כל ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד מהיכא ילפינן לה מסוטה
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.
מה סוטה בועל ונבעלת אף כל ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד כגון דאיכא בי תרי אבל הכא שני נזירים והאי דקאי גביהון הא תלתא הוה ליה ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים וכל ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים ספיקו טהור
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.
אמר רבה בר רב הונא באומר ראיתי טומאה שנזרקה ביניכם אמר רב אשי דיקא נמי
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,
דקתני ואיני יודע איזה מכם שמע מינה:
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.
מגלחין ומביאין: ואמאי דילמא לאו טמאין אינון וקעביד הקפה אמר שמואל באשה וקטן
§ 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.
ולוקמא בגדול והקפת כל הראש לא שמה הקפה מדלא מוקים לה הכי שמע מינה קסבר שמואל הקפת כל הראש שמה הקפה
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.
מר זוטרא מתני לה להא שמעתא דשמואל אסיפא נזיר שהיה טמא בספק ומוחלט בספק אוכל בקדשים לאחר ששים יום ומגלח ארבע תגלחות והא קעביד הקפה אמר שמואל באשה וקטן
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.
אמר רב הונא המקיף את הקטן הרי הוא חייב אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה לרב הונא ודידך מאן מגלח להון אמר ליה חובה תקברינון חובה לבניה כולהו שני דרב אדא בר אהבה לא אקיים ליה זרעא לרב הונא
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.
מכדי תרוייהו סבירא הקפת כל הראש שמה הקפה במאי קמיפלגי רב הונא סבר לא תקפו פאת ראשכם ולא תשחית [את] פאת זקנך כל שיש לו השחתה יש לו הקפה והני נשי הואיל וליתנהו בהשחתה ליתנהו נמי בהקפה
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.
ורב אדא בר אהבה סבר אחד המקיף ואחד הניקף במשמע ואיתקש מקיף לניקף כל היכא דניקף מיחייב מקיף נמי מיחייב והאי קטן הואיל והוא גופיה לאו בר עונשין הוא דמיחייב מקיף נמי לא מיחייב
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.
לימא הקפת כל הראש תנאי היא דתנו רבנן ראשו מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר לא תקפו פאת ראשכם
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),
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat 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.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Nazir: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time
Nazir 57
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
גמ׳ איבעיא להו עצם כשעורה הלכה ורביעית דם קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה
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?
או דלמא רביעית דם הלכה ועצם כשעורה קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה תא שמע עצם כשעורה הלכה ורביעית דם קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה:
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.
הדרן עלך כהן גדול
שני נזירים שאמר להן אחד ראיתי אחד מכם שנטמא ואיני יודע איזה מכם מגלחין ומביאין קרבן טומאה וקרבן טהרה ואומר אם אני הוא טמא קרבן טומאה שלי וקרבן טהרה שלך ואם אני הוא הטהור קרבן טהרה שלי וקרבן טומאה שלך
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.
וסופרין שלשים יום ומביאין קרבן טהרה ואומר אם אני הוא הטמא קרבן טומאה שלי וקרבן טהרה שלך וזה קרבן טהרתי ואם אני הוא הטהור קרבן טהרה שלי וקרבן טומאה שלך וזה קרבן טהרתך:
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.
גמ׳ קתני שני נזירים שאמר להם ראיתי אחד מכם שנטמא ואיני יודע איזה מכם ואמאי כל ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד מהיכא ילפינן לה מסוטה
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.
מה סוטה בועל ונבעלת אף כל ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד כגון דאיכא בי תרי אבל הכא שני נזירים והאי דקאי גביהון הא תלתא הוה ליה ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים וכל ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים ספיקו טהור
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.
אמר רבה בר רב הונא באומר ראיתי טומאה שנזרקה ביניכם אמר רב אשי דיקא נמי
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,
דקתני ואיני יודע איזה מכם שמע מינה:
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.
מגלחין ומביאין: ואמאי דילמא לאו טמאין אינון וקעביד הקפה אמר שמואל באשה וקטן
§ 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.
ולוקמא בגדול והקפת כל הראש לא שמה הקפה מדלא מוקים לה הכי שמע מינה קסבר שמואל הקפת כל הראש שמה הקפה
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.
מר זוטרא מתני לה להא שמעתא דשמואל אסיפא נזיר שהיה טמא בספק ומוחלט בספק אוכל בקדשים לאחר ששים יום ומגלח ארבע תגלחות והא קעביד הקפה אמר שמואל באשה וקטן
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.
אמר רב הונא המקיף את הקטן הרי הוא חייב אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה לרב הונא ודידך מאן מגלח להון אמר ליה חובה תקברינון חובה לבניה כולהו שני דרב אדא בר אהבה לא אקיים ליה זרעא לרב הונא
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.
מכדי תרוייהו סבירא הקפת כל הראש שמה הקפה במאי קמיפלגי רב הונא סבר לא תקפו פאת ראשכם ולא תשחית [את] פאת זקנך כל שיש לו השחתה יש לו הקפה והני נשי הואיל וליתנהו בהשחתה ליתנהו נמי בהקפה
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.
ורב אדא בר אהבה סבר אחד המקיף ואחד הניקף במשמע ואיתקש מקיף לניקף כל היכא דניקף מיחייב מקיף נמי מיחייב והאי קטן הואיל והוא גופיה לאו בר עונשין הוא דמיחייב מקיף נמי לא מיחייב
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.
לימא הקפת כל הראש תנאי היא דתנו רבנן ראשו מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר לא תקפו פאת ראשכם
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),
