Nazir

The Master said: 'If any one of them polled without a razor, or left behind two hairs, his act is invalid.'  R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: This implies that Torah-law accepts [the principle that] the majority  counts as the whole.  In what way [does this follow]? — From the fact that the All-Merciful reveals in the cafe of the nazirite that, On the seventh day he shall shave it,  [for we infer that] here only [is his duty unfulfilled] until the whole [has been shaved],  whilst elsewhere the majority counts as the whole. R. Jose son of R. Hanina demurred to this: But this [verse] is speaking of a defiled nazirite? In the West  they laughed at this [objection]. Consider, [they said]. That a defiled nazirite is required to use a razor [in shaving his head] is inferred from a ritually pure nazirite.  [It stands to reason then that] we can now infer the rule of the ritually pure nazirite from the defiled nazirite, viz. that just as when the latter leaves two hairs standing his act is invalid, so when the former leaves two hairs standing his act is invalid. Abaye propounded [the following question]: What [would be the Law] if a nazirite shaved and left two hairs standing, and then when his head showed a new growth shaved off [those two hairs], would this hold up [the termination of the naziriteship] or not? Raba propounded [the following question]: What [would be the law] if a nazirite shaved, leaving two hairs standing,  and then shaved one and one fell out? R. Aha of Difti  asked Rabina: Has Raba any doubt in the case where hair is shaved one at a time?  — [He replied], We must say then, [the question arises if] one fell out and he shaved the other. He then replied:  Here is no polling, for here is no hair. But if there is no hair here, then polling has been performed?  — The meaning is: Although there is no hair left, the duty to poll has not been validly observed. MISHNAH. A NAZIRITE MAY SHAMPOO [HIS HAIR] AND PART IT [WITH HIS FINGERS] BUT MAY NOT COMB IT. GEMARA. HE MAY SHAMPOO [HIS HAIR] AND PART IT [WITH HIS FINGERS]. Who is the author of this opinion? — It is R. Simeon who says a breach of the law which is not intended is allowed.  BUT HE MAY NOT COMB IT; here we come round to the opinion of the Rabbis.  [Are we then to understand that] the first clause is by R. Simeon and the next one by the Rabbis? — Rabbah replied: The whole is by R. Simeon, [for] a man who combs his hair intends to remove loose strands. MISHNAH. R. ISHMAEL SAID: HE IS NOT TO CLEANSE IT WITH EARTH BECAUSE IT CAUSES THE HAIR TO FALL OUT. GEMARA. The Academy wished to know whether we read 'because it causes the hair to fall out,' or 'because of [the kinds of earth that] cause the hair to fall out.' Where would a practical difference arise? In the case where there is a variety of earth that does not cause it to fall out. If you say that we read 'because it causes it to fall out,' then wherever we know that it does not cause it to fall out, it could be used. But if you say 'because of [the kinds of earth that] cause it to fall out' that he may not use any kind at all! This was left undecided. MISHNAH. A NAZIRITE WHO HAS DRUNK WINE ALL DAY LONG HAS INCURRED A SINGLE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD 'DO NOT DRINK,' 'DO NOT DRINK' AND HE DRANK,  HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING]. FOR POLLING ALL DAY LONG HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD, 'DO NOT POLL,' 'DO NOT POLL AND HE DID POLL,  HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING]. FOR DEFILING HIMSELF [BY CONTACT] WITH THE DEAD ALL DAY LONG HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD, DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF, DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF, AND HE DID DEFILE HIMSELF,  HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING].