Perek 'Shnei Nezirim'
1)
(a)What does our Mishnah obligate two Nezirim to do if a witness testifies that he saw one of them become a Tamei Mes, but does not know which one?
(b)Is it necessary for one of the Nezirim to do this?
(c)Is the Tana speaking when the Nezirim themselves deny the testimony or when they are silent?
1)
(a)If a witness testifies that he saw one of two Nezirim become a Tamei Mes, but does not know which one - both of them must consider themselves Safek Tamei. Consequently, our Mishnah obligates them to bring a Korban Tum'ah and a Korban Taharah. One of them takes the two Korbanos and stipulates that if he is the Tamei one, 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 Shali'ach could do so on their behalf.
(c)The Tana is speaking - when the Nezirim themselves are silent, because one witness is not believed against the person himself (as we will learn in Kidushin).
2)
(a)What do the two Nezirim bring at the end of the initial thirty-day period?
(b)What does the Nazir who actually brings it stipulate?
(c)When are they permitted to drink wine and become Tamei Mes?
2)
(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 Mes - after the final Korban Tahor has been brought.
3)
(a)What principle do we learn from Sotah (regarding Safek Tum'ah)?
(b)What is now the problem with our Mishnah?
(c)In order to resolve it, how do we establish the case?
(d)How does Rav Ashi prove this from the words of the witness cited in our Mishnah?
3)
(a)We learn from Sotah that 'Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Yachid (wherever, like in the case of Sotah, there are two people) Tamei; b'Reshus ha'Rabim (where there at least three people present), Tahor'.
(b)The problem with our Mishnah is - that since, together with the witness, there are three people, making it a case of 'Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Rabim', the two Nezirim ought to be Tahor).
(c)We resolve it however - by establishing our Mishnah when the witness saw the Nazir becoming Tamei from a distance, in which case the area where the Tum'ah occurred remains a Reshus ha'Yachid.
(d)Rav Ashi proves this from the words of the witness cited in our Mishnah - who says that he does not 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.
4)
(a)What happens to Terumah that touched a Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Yachid?
(b)In that case, why do we not consider both Nezirim Vadai Tamei?
(c)If the source for 'Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' is also Sotah (i.e. we infer 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 Vadai Tahor when it is possible to be true). In that case, how can we initially ask that, since there were three people present, the two Nezirim ought to be Tahor (seeing as that cannot possibly be true [and we know that one of them is definitely Tamei])?
(d)How will we reconcile this with the Sugya in Chulin, which learns 'Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' (not from a Chazakah, but) from Sotah?
4)
(a)Terumah that touched a Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Yachid - must be burned (because it is considered Vadai Tamei).
(b)Nevertheless, we consider the two Nezirim in our Mishnah as Safek (and not Vadai) - because it would simply not be true, seeing as we know that one of them is Tahor (and from Sotah we give a Safek Tamei the Din of Vadai only when it is possible to be true).
(c)If the source for 'Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' would also be Sotah (that Safek Tum'ah that is not in a Reshus ha'Yachid is Tahor), we would apply the same principle there (that it is only Vadai Tahor when it is possible to be true [and we know that one of them was definitely Tamei]). And we initially ask that, since there were three people present, the two Nezirim ought to be Tahor (even though that cannot possibly be true [since we know that one of them is definitely Tamei]), because in fact - 'Safek Tum'ah b'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 b'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' (not from a Chazakah, but) from Sotah - is only the 'Havah Amina' (the Gemara's initial contention), but not its conclusion.
57b----------------------------------------57b
5)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that two Nezirim who are Safek Tamei require shaving. How can the Tana permit a Safek Nazir to remove his Pe'os?
(b)What can we prove from the fact that Shmuel did not establish our Mishnah by a Gadol and that it is permitted because 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Lo Shmah Hakafah?
(c)According to Mar Zutra, Shmuel's answer is referring to the Seifa (the Mishnah later which we have already discussed). What does the Tana say there?
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 Min ha'Din, permitted to remove their Pe'os).
(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 Shmah Hakafah - it is clear that he holds 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Shmah Hakafah'.
(c)According to Mar Zutra, Shmuel's answer is referring to the Seifa (the Mishnah later, which we have already discussed), where the Tana says - that a Nazir who is both a Safek Tamei Mes and a Safek Metzora Muchlat requires four shavings.
6)
(a)What did Rav Ada bar Ahavah ask Rav Huna, who forbids a Gadol to shave the Pe'os of a Katan?
(b)What did he comment, when Rav Huna replied that the barber was Chovah? Who was Chovah?
(c)What was the tragic result of Rav Ada bar Ahavah's careless comment?
(d)In which point did Rav Huna disagree with Rav Ada bar Ahavah?
6)
(a)When Rav Ada bar Ahavah saw Rav Huna's children's hair, including their Pe'os cut, he asked Rav Huna, who forbids a Gadol to shave the Pe'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 Pe'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 can 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 Pe'os, a woman is (as we shall now see).
7)
(a)What does Rav Huna Darshen from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Lo Sakifu Pe'as Roshchem, v'Lo Sashchis Es Pe'as Zekanecha"?
(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. How does he explain "Lo Sakifu Pe'as Roshchem"?
(c)Seeing as "Lo Sakifu" obviously refers to the Nikaf (because the Torah writes "Pe'as Roshchem"), on what basis does Rav Ada bar Ahavah incorporate the Makif?
(d)How do we know that Rav Ada permits even a man to shave a Katan?
7)
(a)Rav Huna Darshens from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Lo Sakifu Pe'as Roshchem, v'Lo Sashchis Es Pe'as Zekanecha" - that whoever is not included in the Lav of destroying one's beard (i.e. a woman), is not included in the Lav of not shaving the Pe'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 he permits even a man to shave a Katan - because he asked Rav Huna 'l'Didach (according to you), Ma'an Megale'ach Lehon', implying that he personally, had no problem as to who might have shaved them.
8)
(a)What does Rav Ada bar Ahavah say about a woman ...
1. ... cutting her Pe'os?
2. ... shaving a Gadol?
(b)Like whom is the Halachah in all three points, Rav Huna or Rav Ada bar Ahavah?
(c)With which two concessions do they both agree?
8)
(a)Rav Ada bar Ahavah ...
1. ... permits a woman to cut her Pe'os - because he agrees with Rav Huna's Derashah 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 Metzia holds like him.
(c)They unanimously agree - that a woman is permitted to shave both her own Pe'os and those of a Katan.
9)
(a)According to Rav Huna (who does not compare the Makif to the Nikaf), what will be the Din regarding a man shaving the Pe'os of a Nochri?
(b)What about shaving a woman?
9)
(a)According to Rav Huna (who does not compare the Makif to the Nikaf) - a man will nevertheless be permitted to shave the Pe'os of a Nochri (because the Torah writes "Pe'as Roshchem".
(b)It is not certain however, what Rav Huna will hold with regard to shaving the Pe'os of a woman.