ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 57
***** Sh'nei Nezirim *****
(a) If a witness testifies that he saw one of two Nezirim become a Tamei
Meis, but doesn't know which one - both of them must consider themselves
Safek Tamei. Consequently, they bring a Korban Tum'ah and a Korban Taharah.
One of them takes the two Korbanos and stipulates that if *he* is Tamei,
then the Korban Tum'ah is his and the Korban Tahor, his friend's; whereas if
he is Tahor, then the Korban Taharah is his and the Korban Tamei, his
(b) It is not necessary for one of the Nezirim to do this - each Nazir could
take one Korban and stipulate, or even a Sheli'ach could do so on their
(c) The Tana is speaking - when the Nezirim themselves are silent, because
one witness is not believed against the person himself (as we see in
(a) At the end of the initial thirty-day period - the two Nezirim bring the
Korban of a Nazir Tahor jointly.
(b) The Nazir who actually brings it stipulates - that if *he* was Tamei,
then the first Korban Tum'ah that he brought was his, the Korban Tahor was
his friend's and that the Korban Tahor that he is currently bringing is
therefore his; whereas if he was Tahor, then it will be the reverse.
(c) They are permitted to drink wine and become Tamei Meis - after the final
Korban Tahor has been brought.
(a) Considering that we are speaking about *two* Nezirim, since we learn
from Sotah that 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid (anything less than three
people) Tamei'. Consequently, here too, they are both Tamei.
(b) We resolve the problem that, together with the witness, there are three
people, making it a case of 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus *ha'Rabim'* (in which
case, they ought to be Tahor) - by establishing our Mishnah when the witness
saw the Nazir becoming Tamei from a distance, so that the area where the
Tum'ah occurred remains a Reshus ha'Yachid.
(c) Rav Ashi proves this from the words of the witness cited in our
Mishnah - who says that he doesn't know which of the Nezirim became Tamei
(and not that he forgot), indicating that he was too far away to see which
of them it was that became Tamei.
(a) Terumah that touched a Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid - must be burned
(because it is considered as Vaday Tamei).
(b) Nevertheless, even though we refer to the Din in our Mishnah as Safek
Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, we do not consider them both Vaday Tamei -
because it would simply not be true, seeing as we know one of them to be
Tahor (and from Sotah we learn Tamei, but only when it is possible to be
(c) If the source for 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' is also Sotah
(that Safek Tum'ah that is not in a Reshus ha'Yachid is Tahor), we should
apply the same principle there (that it is only Tahor when it is possible to
be true [and we know that one of them was definitely Tamei]). However, that
is not the case. In fact - 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' is based
on the principle of Chazakah ('Ukmei a'Chezkasei'), which in turn, the
Gemara in Chulin learns from a Pasuk.
(d) The Sugya in Chulin, which learns 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim
Tahor' (not from a Chazakah, but) from Sotah - is only the 'Havah Amina'
(the Gemara's initial contention), but not the conclusion.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that two Nezirim who are Safek Tamei require
shaving. The Tana can only be speaking about a woman or a Katan (who are
permitted to shave their Pei'os [although nowadays, we do not allow
children's Pei'os to be cut]).
(b) From the fact that Shmuel did not establish our Mishnah by a Gadol and
that it is permitted because 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Lo Sh'mah Hakafah - it is
clear that he holds categorically 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah'.
(c) According to Mar Zutra, Shmuel's answer was referring to the Seifa (the
Mishnah on 59b., which we have already discussed), where the Tana says -
that a Nazir who is both a Safek Tamei Meis and a Safek Metzora Muchlat
requires four shavings.
(a) When Rav Ada bar Ahavah saw Rav Huna's children's hair, including their
Pei'os cut, he asked Rav Huna, who forbids a Gadol to shave the Pei'os of a
Katan - who cut their hair.
(b) When Rav Huna replied that the barber was Chovah (his wife), Rav Ada
commented - that Chovah should bury her children (because in his opinion, if
a man is forbidden to shave a child's Pei'os, so is a woman).
(c) The tragic result of Rav Ada bar Ahavah's careless comment was - that
Rav Huna and Chovah had no more children during Rav Ada's lifetime (from
which we should learn never to curse anyone).
(d) Rav Huna disagreed with Rav Ada bar Ahavah - inasmuch as in his opinion,
even though a man is not permitted to shave a child's Pei'os, a woman is (as
we shall now see).
(a) Rav Huna Darshens from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Lo *Sakifu* Pe'as
Roshchem, ve'Lo *Sashchis* es Pe'as Zekanecha" - that whoever is not
included in the La'av of destroying one's beard (i.e. a woman), is not
included in the La'av of not shaving the Pei'os either.
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah only queried him because he maintained that a *man*
is forbidden to shave a Katan. Personally, he is even more lenient than Rav
Huna - because he explains that "Lo *Sakifu* Pe'as Roshchem" incorporates
both the Nikaf (or the Mukaf [the person who is being shaved]) and the Makif
(the barber), and the Torah is comparing them. Consequently, wherever the
former is not Chayav (i.e. a Katan), the latter is not Chayav either (even a
(c) "Lo Sakifu" obviously refers to the Nikaf (because the Torah writes
"Pe'as Roshchem"). Nevertheless, Rav Ada bar Ahavah incorporates the Makif -
because the Torah used the Lashon "Lo Sakifu" rather than "Lo Sukfu".
(d) We know that Rav Ada permits even a man to shave a Katan - because he
asked Rav *'le'Didach* (according to you), Ma'an Megale'ach Lehon', implying
that in his opinion, there was no problem as to who might have shaved them.
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah ...
1. ... permits a woman to cut her Pei'os - because he agrees with Rav Huna's
D'rashah comparing Hakafah to Hashchasah regarding the Nikaf (which is
written specifically in the Pasuk, as we just explained).
(b) The Halachah is like Rav Huna in all three points - because the Sugya in
Bava Metzi'a holds like him.
2. ... does not permit her to shave a Gadol however - because he disagrees
with the Hekesh regarding the Makif (seeing as it is not written explicitly
in the Pasuk, as we explained).
(c) They unanimously agree - that a woman is permitted to shave both her own
Pei'os and those of a Katan.
(a) According to Rav Huna (who does not compare the Makif to the Nikaf) - a
man will nevertheless be permitted to shave the Pei'os of a Nochri (because
the Torah writes "Pe'as Roshchem" (Tosfos).
(b) Tosfos is uncertain however, whether he will also be permitted to shave
the Pei'os of a woman (according to Rav Huna).