Nazir - Daf 57
- Case where two nezirim are told that one of them became tamei
The eighth Perek begins: שני נזירים, שאמר להן אחד ראיתי אחד מכם שנטמא ואיני יודע איזה מכם – Two nezirim to whom someone said, “I saw one of you become tamei, but I do not know which,” they both shave at the end of thirty days, and together bring the korbanos of a nazir tamei and a nazir tahor, and each says: אם אני הוא טמא קרבן טומאה שלי וקרבן טהרה שלך - “If I am the tamei one, the korban for tumah is mine and the korban for taharah is yours," ואם אני הוא הטהור קרבן טהרה שלי וקרבן טומאה שלך – “and if I am the tahor one, the korban for taharah is mine and the korban for tumah is yours.” The true nazir tahor has thus completed his obligation, and the nazir tamei begins his nezirus term. After thirty days, they jointly bring korbanos for a nazir tahor, and stipulate that the korbanos should be assigned to whomever is the current nazir tahor.
- Why this is not a case of safek tumah in reshus harabim
The Gemara asks why the two nezirim are treated as tamei out of doubt. All laws of safek tumah are derived from the laws of sotah: מה סוטה בועל ונבעלת – Just as with a sotah, there are the adulterer and adulteress present, אף כל ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד כגון דאיכא בי תרי – so too every safek tumah in a reshus hayachid is ruled stringently when there are only two people present, אבל הכא שני נזירים והאי דקאי גביהון הא תלתא – but here, the two nezirim and this witness standing near them makes three people, הוה ליה ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים – it is doubtful tumah in a reshus harabim, which is ruled leniently! Rabbah bar bar Channah answered: באומר ראיתי טומאה שנזרקה ביניכם – It is speaking where he says, “I saw tumah thrown between you,” but was not near them, so it is considered that they were standing in a reshus hayachid. Rav Ashi adds that the Mishnah, which implies that he never knew who became tamei, supports this explanation. Tosafos adds that although it is a reshus hayachid, they are not both rendered tamei with certainty (as is usually the rule), because it is impossible that they both became tamei, so each remains tamei out of doubt.
- The disputes about cutting peyos of a minor, and a woman’s cutting someone’s peyos
Rav Huna said: המקיף את הקטן הרי הוא חייב – One who rounds the corners of a minor’s head is liable for malkos. Rav Ada bar Ahava said to him: ודידך מאן מגלח להון – “And who shaves your [children]?” It was common practice during his time that children had their head shaved, including their temples. When Rav Huna said it was his wife Chovah, Rav Ada responded, תקברינון חובה לבניה – “Does Chovah want to bury her children?” [He held that since הקפה of minors is forbidden, it would be equally prohibited for a woman to do so.] The Gemara relates that during Rav Ada’s lifetime, Rav Huna’s children did not survive. Their positions are explained: Rav Huna holds that since הקפה is written near the prohibition to destroy one’s beard, he darshens כל שיש לו השחתה יש לו הקפה – anyone who is subject to the prohibition to destroy their beard is subject to the prohibition to round the corners of their heads. Women, who do not have the former prohibition, are not subject to the prohibition of הקפה, even of a man’s head. Rav Ada holds: אחד המקיף ואחד הניקף במשמע – both the one rounding and the one whose head is being rounded are implied by the prohibition, which teaches that wherever the one being shaved is exempt (such as a minor), it is permitted for an adult to perform the shaving.
