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. If his Tiglachas is a Mitzvah, he must use a Ta'ar (razor), but if he merely is required to remove his hair, he may do so 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, like the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tahor, and must be done with a razor. The Tosefta states that a Safek Nazir Tamei who is also a Safek Metzora shaves four Tiglachos, which implies that all of his Tiglachos are equal and must be done with a razor (since the fourth one, the Tiglachas for a Nazir Tahor, certainly must be done with a razor). If a Nazir Tamei merely needs to remove his hair in any manner, the Tosefta should mention only three Tiglachos.

TOSFOS asks that the Gemara's proof is difficult to understand. Even if the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei is not a Mitzvah, the Tosefta still needs to mention four Tiglachos. Each of the four Tiglachos is a Safek Tiglachas of Nazir Tahor. Hence, the Safek requires that he perform a proper Tiglachas with a razor (but not necessarily because the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei is a Mitzvah).

Tosfos answers that the third Tiglachas (of the Nazir who is a Safek Nazir Tamei and a Safek Nazir Tahor) should be able to be performed without a razor if the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei does not require a razor, since the person does not need to perform the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tahor at this point since he will not be able to drink wine now anyway.

The answer of Tosfos is problematic. Tosfos writes that if he is Nazir Tahor, he is allowed to cut off his hair since he will not drink wine now anyway. However, even though he will observe more days of Nezirus, he might be a Nazir Tahor and thus he is prohibited from shaving his head (unless he does so with a razor for the Tiglachas Mitzvah of a Nazir Tahor)!

One possible answer is that if he indeed is a Nazir Tahor, he has already observed the required Nezirus period and therefore he is now after "Melos," after the conclusion of his Nezirus. Perhaps after "Melos" 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 is punished with Malkus for cutting his hair without performing a Tiglachas Mitzvah.

(a) The BIRKAS ROSH and the BRISKER RAV (Hilchos Nezirus 8) explain that although a Nazir is not permitted to cut his hair after "Melos" if he has not yet offered his Korbenos Nezirus, he is permitted to cut his hair (without a razor) after he has offered one of his Korbanos, since the Mitzvah of Tiglachas is not a precondition for the allowance to drink one or cut hair (that is, Tiglachas is not "Me'akev"). In the case of the Tosefta, the Nazir already offered a Korban Olah for the Nezirus Taharah before the Tiglachas, and therefore he is not prohibited from cutting his hair.

This approach, however, is not consistent with the words of Tosfos. Tosfos writes that he is permitted to cut his hair "because he still is not able to drink wine." Why does Tosfos not write simply that he may cut his hair because he already offered his Korban, and Tiglachas is not Me'akev?

Moreover, even if Tiglachas is not Me'akev, a Nazir Tahor has a Mitzvah to perform the Tiglachas, and if he cuts his hair without a razor he is Mevatel that Mitzvah. Even when his hair grows back it will not be the "hair of Nezirus" (hair which grew during his days of Nezirus) and he will never be able to cut the "hair of Nezirus" with a razor since it was already cut.

Apparently, the intention of Tosfos is that even after the Nazir offers 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 considered 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 the Nazir is not drinking wine in any case, he may cut his hair and wait another thirty days to perform the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tahor.

(b) As mentioned earlier (see Insights to 60:2), the RAMBAM rules that a Metzora "b'Yemei Sefiro" may undergo Haza'ah in order to become Tahor from his Tum'as Mes. According to this view, the BIRKAS ROSH and the BRISKER RAV 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, why does the second Tiglachas not serve as both the second Tiglachas of a Metzora and as the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei (when Haza'ah was done before the Tiglachas)? The only reason why Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai says (60b) that one Tiglachas cannot serve for both obligations of a Nazir Tamei and of a Metzora is that they are different types of Tiglachas Mitzvah. However, if the Nazir Tamei does not need a Tiglachas Mitzvah but simply needs to remove his hair, the Tiglachas of Metzora certainly should be able to serve that purpose! It must be that the Tiglachas of a Nazir Tamei is Tiglachas Mitzvah as well.

QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that the source that a Nochri may not bring a Korban Nezirus is the verse, "l'Olah" (Vayikra 22:18), which excludes a Nochri from bringing a Korban Nezirus. A second verse, "Bnei Yisrael" (Bamidbar 6:2), teaches that a Nochri cannot become a Nazir at all.

The Gemara asks that perhaps the second verse does not teach that a Nochri cannot be a Nazir. Rather, perhaps that verse teaches that a Nochri cannot shave for his Nezirus based on the Korbanos his father set aside for his own Nezirus before he died.

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

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

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