THE MAJORITY IS LIKE THE WHOLE
(Beraisa): If he (a Levi, Metzora or Nazir) shaved without a Ta'ar, or left two hairs, he was not Yotzei (he did not fulfill the Mitzvah).
(Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): This shows that the Torah considers the majority to be like the whole.
Question: How do we infer this?
Answer: It says regarding Nazir "he will shave it" (the entire head). Here, the whole is required. Elsewhere else, the majority is like the whole.
Objection (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): This verse discusses a Tamei Nazir!
Answer (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): We learn that a Nazir Tamei must shave with a Ta'ar from a Nazir Tahor. Likewise, we can learn from a Nazir Tamei that if a Nazir Tahor left two hairs, he was not Yotzei!
Question (Abaye): If a Nazir shaved and left two hairs, and his hair grew (to the size to bend a hair onto its root), and he shaved them (Rashi - and all his hair), was he Yotzei?
Question (Rava): If a Nazir shaved and left two hairs, and he shaved one of them, and the other fell out, what is the law?
Objection (Rav Acha from Difti): Does Rava ask about one who shaves one hair at a time? (Of course he is Yotzei!)
Correction: Rather, Rava asked about if one of the two remaining hairs fell out, and he shaved the last hair. What is the law?
Answer (Ravina): He did not fulfill the Mitzvah to shave; no hair remains.
Objection: If there is no hair left, he was Yotzei!
Correction: Rather, even though no hair remains, he was not Yotzei.
UNINTENTIONAL REMOVAL OF HAIR
(Mishnah): A Nazir may rub (shampoo) his hair, and may separate the hairs, but he may not comb his hair.
(Gemara) Question: Which Tana permits rubbing and separating hairs?
Answer: It is R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven (something unintended that may result in a transgression).
Question: The Seifa forbids combing. This is like Chachamim!
Is the Reisha R. Shimon, and the Seifa is Chachamim?!
Answer (Rabah): The entire Mishnah is like R. Shimon. One who combs intends to uproot dangling strands.
(Mishnah - R. Yishmael): He may not shampoo with earth, because it causes hair to fall out.
(Gemara) Question: Does the Mishnah read 'because it makes hair fall out', or 'because of that (kind of earth) that makes hair to fall out'?
These texts differ about earth that does not make hair fall out.
If the text is 'because it makes hair fall out', if we know that this earth does not, it is permitted;
If the text is 'because of that which makes hair fall out', it is always forbidden.
This question is unresolved.
MULTIPLE LASHES FOR MULTIPLE TRANSGRESSIONS
(Mishnah): If a Nazir drank wine all day, he is liable only once (one set of lashes). If they warned him 'don't drink, don't drink' and he drank, he is liable for each warning.
If he was shaving all day, he is liable only once. If they warned him 'don't shave, don't shave' and he shaved, he is liable for each warning.
If he was being Metamei (exposing himself to Tum'as Mes) all day, he is liable only once. If they warned him 'don't be Metamei, don't be Metamei' and he was Metamei, he is liable for each warning.
(Gemara - Rabah citing Rav Huna): The Torah says "he will not be Metamei (become Tamei)", and also "he will not enter (Ohel ha'Mes, a tent in which there is a Mes)." It discusses all situations (even if he is already Tamei, he is liable for entering Ohel ha'Mes);
He is not lashed twice for Tum'ah twice if the latter Tum'ah is not via an Ohel.
Rav Yosef: I swear, Rav Huna said that even for touching twice, he is liable twice!
(Rav Huna): If a Nazir was in a cemetery and they passed his (dead) relative or any Mes to him, and he touched it, he is liable.
Even though he is already Tamei, Rav Huna obligates him for touching Tum'ah!
Question (Abaye - Beraisa) Suggestion: If a Kohen was carrying a Mes and they passed his relative or any Mes to him, and he touched it, perhaps he is liable!
Rejection: It says "He will not profane" (most change the text to "to profane himself"). The Torah does not discuss one who is already profaned (Tamei).
Counter-question (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): If he was being Metamei all day, he is liable only once. If they warned him 'don't be Metamei, don't be Metamei' and he was Metamei, he is liable for each warning.
Even though he is already Tamei, he is liable for touching Tum'ah!
Version #1 (Tosfos): Since the Beraisa opposes the Mishnah, there must be a mistake in the text, so we reject the Beraisa.
Answer (Abaye): In the Beraisa, there is no separation between the Tum'os (he was still touching the first Mes when he touched the second). In the Mishnah, they are separated.
Version #2 (Rosh): This is unlike the Mishnah! (Rav Yosef asks rhetorically, how do we resolve this?)
Answer (Rav Yosef): In the Beraisa, there is no separation between the Tum'os. In the Mishnah, they are separated. (end of Version #2)
Question: Connected Tum'ah is not mid'Oraisa!
(R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): Connected Tum'ah applies only to Terumah and Kodshim. It does not apply to a Nazir or to one who offers Korban Pesach.
If it was mid'Oraisa, it would apply in all cases!
Answer: If Reuven touched a person who is touching a person touching a Mes, he is Tamei for seven days mid'Rabanan. If he touched a person touching a Mes, he is Tamei for seven days mid'Oraisa (Tosfos. Rashi (Avodah Zarah 37b) - if he touched a person who is no longer touching a Mes, Reuven is Tamei for seven days mid'Rabanan. If he touched a person touching a Mes, he is Tamei for seven days mid'Oraisa.)
Question: If while touching a Mes, he touches another Mes, he is not liable for the latter, because he is already Tamei;
The same applies if he enters Ohel ha'Mes (a room containing a Mes) while he is Tamei (and Rabah obligates in this case)!
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): If the Mes is in a house, he becomes Tamei at the moment he enters, so he is liable for becoming Tamei and for entering;
If the Mes is in a field, he becomes Tamei when he touches it. Even if he later enters Ohel ha'Mes, since he is already Tamei when he enters, he is exempt for entering.