(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 61

NAZIR 61, 62 - The preparation of the study material for these Dafim was supported by a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, for which the Kollel is grateful.


QUESTION: Rami bar Chama asks whether the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei is a Tiglachas *Mitzvah* like the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tahor or whether the Nazir Tamei merely needs to remove the hair of Tum'ah. The difference is that if it is a Mitzvah, then he must use a Ta'ar (razor), while if he just needs to remove his hair, then he may do it in any manner, even with a depilatory agent. The Gemara proves from the Tosefta cited earlier (60a) that the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei is a Mitzvah and must be done with a razor just like the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tahor, from the fact that the Tosefta says that a Safek Nazir Tamei who is also a Safek Metzora shaves four Tiglachos, implying that all of the Tiglachos are equal and are done with a razor (since the fourth one, the Tiglachas for a Nazir Tahor, is certainly done with a razor). If a Nazir Tamei just needs to remove his hair in any manner, the Mishnah should mention only three Tiglachos.

TOSFOS asks why should the Mishnah mention three Tiglachos? Every one of the four Tiglachos is a *Safek* Tiglachas of Nazir Tahor! Hence, because of that Safek he should need a razor, and not because of the possibility that he is a Nazir Tamei!

Tosfos answers that the third Tiglachas, when the Nazir is a Safek Nazir Tamei and a Safek Nazir Tahor, should be able to be done without a razor if the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei does not require a razor, since the person does not have to perform the Tiglachas of Nazir Tahor at this point since he is not going to be drinking wine now anyway.

How can Tosfos write that if he is Nazir Tahor, he is allowed to cut off his hair as long as he is not going to drink wine anyway? Even though he is going to be observing more days of Nezirus, he might be a Nazir Tahor and thus he is prohibited to shave his head (unless it is done with a razor, for the Tiglachas Mitzvah of a Nazir Tahor)!

The answer that we might suggest is that if he is actually a Nazir Tahor, then he has already observed the required Nezirus period and therefore it is now after "Melos," after the conclusion of his Nezirus, and after "Melos" perhaps a Nazir Tahor is permitted to cut his hair (in a manner that is not the Tiglachas Mitzvah). However, the Gemara earlier (15a) concludes that even after "Melos," a Nazir receives Malkus for cutting his hair when it is not a Tiglachas Mitzvah!


(a) The BIRCHAS ROSH and the GRIZ (Hilchos Nezirus ch. 8) explain that although a Nazir is not permitted to cut his hair after "Melos" if he has not yet brought his Korbanos Nezirus, nevertheless *after* he has brought one of his Korbanos, he *is* permitted to cut his hair (without a razor), since Tiglachas is not Me'akev him from drinking wine or cutting his hair. The Nazir in our case already brought a Korban Olah for the Nezirus Taharah before the Tiglachas, and therefore there is no Isur for him to cut his hair.

The problem is that Tosfos does not seem to be saying this. Tosfos writes that he is permitted to cut his hair "because he still is not able to drink wine." Why does Tosfos not write that he may cut his hair because he already brought his Korban and Tiglachas is not Me'akev?

Second, even if Tiglachas is not Me'akev, it is a Mitzvah for a Nazir Tahor to perform the Tiglachas, and if he cuts his hair without a razor he will be Mevatel that Mitzvah. Even when his hair grows back it will not be the "hair of Nezirus" and thus he will never be able to cut the "hair of Nezirus" with a razor since it has already been cut.

Apparently the intention of Tosfos is that even after the Nazir brings his Korbanos, as long as the Nazir has not started to drink wine he still has the title of a Nazir and the hair that grows back is the hair of Nezirus. Therefore, when his hair grows back he can fulfill the Mitzvas Aseh of Tiglachas. This is what Tosfos means when he says that since he is not drinking wine in any case, he may cut his hair and wait another thirty days to do the Tiglachas Taharah.

(b) As we mentioned earlier (see Insights to 60b), the RAMBAM rules that a Metzora "b'Yimei Sefiro" may do Haza'ah to become Tahor from his Tum'as Mes. According to this, the BIRCHAS ROSH and the GRIZ explain that the Gemara's proof that a Nazir Tamei does not need a Tiglachas Mitzvah is as follows: If the Nazir Tamei simply must get rid of his hair, then why does the second Tiglachas not serve as both the second Tiglachas of a Metzora and as the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei (when he had Haza'ah before the Tiglachas)? The only reason Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai (60b) said that one Tiglachas cannot serve for both Nazir Tamei and Metzora is because they are different types of Tiglachas Mitzvah. However, if the Nazir Tamei does not need to have a Tiglachas *Mitzvah* but simply has to have his hair removed, then the Tiglachas of Metzora should serve the purpose of removing his hair! It must be that there is a Mitzvah of Tiglachas for a Nazir Tamei as well.


QUESTION: The Gemara tells us that the source that a Nochri cannot bring a Korban Nezirus is from the verse that says, "l'Olah" (Vayikra 22:18), excluding a Nochri from bringing a Korban Nezirus. A second verse, "Bnei Yisrael" (Bamidbar 6:2), teaches that a Nochri cannot be a Nazir at all. The Gemara asks how can we be sure that the second verse is teaching that a Nochri cannot be a Nazir at all? Perhaps it is teaching that a Nochri cannot be Megale'ach for his Nezirus using the Korbanos that his father set aside for his own Nezirus before he died.

What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara just taught that a Nochri does not bring Korbanos Nezirus at all!

ANSWER: The ROSH, cited by the SHITAH MEKUBETZES, answers that the Gemara means to say that perhaps the verse of *"l'Olah"* is only saying that a Nochri cannot bring the Korbanos Nezirus of his father, but it does not exclude him from bringing his own Korbanos. The verse of "Bnei Yisrael" is adding that he does not bring any Korbanos at all.

(See also the Acharonim, who discuss this question at length and suggest numerous other answers.)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,