Previous daf

1)

(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 friend's.

(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 behalf (Tosfos).

(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 Kidushin) Tosfos.

(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 true).

(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.

5)

(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 man).

(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).
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).

(b) The Halachah is like Rav Huna in all three points - because the Sugya in Bava Metzi'a holds like him.

(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).