Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 20

1) TWO WITNESSES WHO GIVE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT A NAZIR

QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue regarding the Halachah in a case where one witness says, "I saw that person accept 2 sets of Nezirus," and a second witness says, "I saw him accept 5 sets of Nezirus." Beis Shamai says that the witnesses contradict each other and their testimony is discounted. Beis Hillel says that the person must practice 2 sets of Nezirus, because 2 is included in 5, and thus both witnesses are agreeing that the person accepted 2 sets of Nezirus.

Rav clarifies this Machlokes and says that if the two witnesses are "Moneh," that is, they enumerate the individual sets of Nezirus that the person accepted, then even Beis Hillel agrees that the witnesses do not join together.

The Gemara explains that even without Rav's statement, we would know that if the witness who says that the person accepted 5 sets of Nezirus says specifically that he accepted 5 *and not 2*, and the other witness says that he accepted 2 *and not 5*, then the witnesses cannot join and their testimony is discounted. Rav, though, is teaching that when witness says that the person accepted "1 and 2" sets of Nezirus, and the other witness says that he accepted "3, 4, and 5" sets of Nezirus, they still cannot join together. Ma'arava disagree with Rav and say that in such a case, the witnesses do join together (with regard to requiring the person to observe 2 sets of Nezirus), since the second witness was merely adding to what the first witness said and was not arguing with him.

A number of points in this Gemara are unclear.

First, what does it mean that a witness said that the person accepted "5 and not 2" sets of Nezirus? If he saw the person accept 5 sets of Nezirus, then obviously he saw him accept 2 sets as well, because in order to accept 5 sets, he had to first accept 2! If the Gemara means that he saw him accept 5 and not *just* 2, and the other witness says that he saw him accept *only 2* and not 5, then why should the witnesses not be able to join together with regard to 2 sets? We should still say that since 2 is included in 5, they are both agreeing about 2 sets of Nezirus! Why does the case of the Beraisa, in which the two witnesses *are* able to join because 2 is included in 5, differ from this case?

Second, in Rav's case, what does it mean that one witness says that he saw the person accept "1 and 2" sets, and the other says that he saw him accept "3, 4, and 5" sets? If the second witness says that he saw the person accept Nezirus number 3, then he is acknowledging that the person already accepted sets 1 and 2, so it is as if he is testifying about 1 and 2 as well and he is in agreement with the first witness!

Furthermore, what logic is there for Rav's case of "Moneh" to be considered a greater form of contradictory testimony than the case in the Beraisa?

ANSWERS:

(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES cites the HAGAHAH on the ROSH who explains that the main difference between the case of the Beraisa and the other two cases involves the details of a person's acceptance of Nezirus: how many sets of Nezirus did the person accept in each statement? Did he accept all 5 sets in one statement, or in more than one statement? The case of the Beraisa is where the witnesses did not clarify how many statements the Nazir made. It is possible that the witnesses are in complete agreement, because the Nazir first accepted 2 sets of Nezirus in 2 statements, and then later added another 3 sets of Nezirus in 3 statements. In such a case, we say according to Beis Hillel that the witnesses join together because they might be in agreement.

In contrast, in the case in which one witness says "5 and not 2," the witness testifies that the person accepted 5 sets of Nezirus in one statement (as opposed to 5 statements). The other witness testifies that the person accepted only 2 sets of Nezirus in one statement, and in such a case the witnesses are contradicting each other and cannot join together. In the case in which the first witness says "1 and 2" and the other witness says, "3, 4, and 5," the second witness implies that the person accepted the first 3 sets of Nezirus in *one* statement. Therefore, Rav says that Beis Hillel agrees that the witnesses cannot join and the person is not a Nazir. Ma'arava argue and say that when the witness said that the person accepts "3, 4, and 5" sets of Nezirus, he did not mean that the first 3 sets were accepted in one statement. Rather, he relies on the first witness to explain how the Nazir accepted the first 2 sets, and he just adds sets numbers 3, 4, and 5.

This indeed seems to be the intention of the ROSH (DH Amar Rav).

(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES assumes that if the two witnesses testify about two different instances in which the person accepted Nezirus, they cannot join together. They can join together only when they testify about the *same* event. It is possible that Beis Hillel holds that the testimony of the two witnesses can be joined together even when they argue about whether the Nazir accepted 5 sets of Nezirus at once, or 2 sets at once, since 2 is included in 5, and both witnesses agree that the person accepted at least 2 sets of Nezirus at that particular moment. If so, the Beraisa's case might be when both witnesses are testifying about the same statement of acceptance of Nezirus, where one witness says that the person, in his statement at that time and on that day, accepted 2 sets of Nezirus, and the other witness says that in that statement he accepted 5 sets. Beis Hillel rules that the witnesses join together. Beis Shamai says that the witnesses do not join together.

The case of Rav, in contrast, is where the witnesses testify about separate, individual statements of Nezirus. For example, one witness says, "I saw him accept 1 Nezirus on Sunday and another Nezirus on Monday," and the second witness says, "I saw him accept a set of Nezirus on Tuesday, another on Wednesday, and another on Thursday." The second witness calls those sets of Nezirus the third, fourth, and fifth sets, respectively, because he has in mind that *if* the other witness's testimony is true, then the statements of acceptance of Nezirus that he, the second witness, saw will be the third, fourth, and fifth sets of Nezirus. Rav says that Beis Hillel agrees in that case that the person is not a Nazir, since the two witnesses are testifying about completely different statements (and we cannot say that 2 is included in 5). Ma'arava argue and say that the second witness means to confirm the testimony of the first witness, by calling the Nezirus accepted on Tuesday the "third" set, and if so the two witnesses are in total agreement about the first two sets of Nezirus. Hence, in such a case even Beis Shamai agrees that the witnesses join together and the person becomes a Nazir (for two sets of Nezirus).

20b