4616 —הבהרות בדיני נזיר ומצורע, ומנהגי תפילה

B"H, 10 Menachem Av, 5716.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g Haraha"ch iy"a nu"n oseik b-tzt"z etc. Ephraim Eliezer HaKohen

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I acknowledge receipt of your letter from Erev Rosh Chodesh Menachem and your previous letter. As you requested, I will mention—without a vow—the matters you wrote about at the holy resting place of my father-in-law, the Rebbe zatzukal lehavdil ben chaim l'chaim nasi Yisrael.

Regarding your comment on the commentary to Mishnah Nazir chapter 8 mishnah 6, specifically the second principle about the shaving of a Metzora after immersion—which seems to contradict what is written in the Torah—one should also note Negaim 14:42 and Nazir 6:6 (and we derive one shaving from another), which implies that if he immersed and then shaved, the immersion does not count. See also Rambam Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at 11:4 and its commentaries.

Initially I wanted to suggest that it was written in Peirush HaMishnayot "achar ha-tevilah," meaning "after—the immersion." If the small line above the word "achar" was omitted or smudged, typesetters may not have noticed to correct it. Or perhaps it should read "achar hakvisah," as in the language of Scripture. See Tiferes Yisrael and Mishnah Acharonah (Negaim 14:42), as well as Minchas Chinuch mitzvah 173 section 7.

However, I later saw that this does not resolve a deeper question: What is Rambam's intent in mentioning immersion here at all? It is not relevant to this case since he does not bring up sprinkling or birds etc. Therefore it seems there is a scribal error here; it should say "after the decision" or "after the determination." The typesetter who did not understand saw "and he immersed" in the text and "corrected." The note that it is after the decision is necessary because this is central to the second principle—that during quarantine there is no shaving (Negaim 8:48).

Since we are on this topic, one should note that for Nazir it appears that shaving for impurity must be specifically after immersion. The reason for the difference between Metzora and Nazir can be explained based on Nazir 6:6—that a Metzora's purification depends on his shaving while a Nazir's purification depends on his days. Since according to this he can shave later, he must shave specifically after immersion; after all, we derive impurity shaving from purity shaving in several matters, and purity shaving must be done in purity specifically.

Furthermore—in impurity shaving if he placed hair under a pot he has fulfilled his obligation; meaning that shaving must be specifically after immersion. That Rambam does not explicitly bring this law can be explained by his general rule of only bringing explicitly stated laws rather than those derived indirectly. See also Lechem Mishneh to Hilchos Nezirus 6:11 (see there for Rambam's precise wording). Also see Minchas Chinuch mitzvah 406 that shaving is after immersion. There is no time now to check if this law is brought elsewhere explicitly.

Regarding your comment in Likkutei Torah Balak (72b) about saying on Motzaei Shabbat "Al Tira Avdi Yaakov," and why it does not appear in the Siddur—the reason is simple: it is not customary to say it. Nevertheless, an explanation was given for those who do—since every custom has its place. This follows what is explained in Pri Etz Chaim regarding prayer customs (Shaar HaTefillah beginning of chapter 1). Also see Likkutei Torah Shir HaShirim (20b): "Or Chadash al Tzion Ta'ir..." with its explanation; similarly there Nitzavim (45a) about Rosh Hashanah shofar made from a simple ram etc., among others.

Blessings.

Summary

The Rebbe addresses intricate halachic questions about Metzora and Nazir laws by analyzing textual variants and sources in Rambam and Mishnah. He also clarifies that certain prayer customs are omitted from standard liturgy simply because they are not universally practiced but still have valid foundations.