Nazir 15

שאני הכא דאמר רחמנא וטמא ראש נזרו מי שנזרו תלוי לו בראשו מיתיבי נזיר שכלו לו ימיו אסור לגלח ולשתות יין ולטמא למתים ואם גילח ושתה יין ונטמא למתים הרי זה סופג את הארבעים תיובתא

The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to impurity, it is different, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And he defile his consecrated head” (Numbers 6:9), which indicates that even one whose naziriteship is dependent only upon his head, i.e., one who has completed his naziriteship other than shaving, is liable to receive lashes if he contracts impurity. The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, from a baraita: A nazirite whose days are completed is forbidden to shave, and is forbidden to drink wine, and is forbidden to contract impurity from corpses. And if he did shave, or drink wine, or contract impurity from corpses, he incurs the forty lashes administered to one who violates a Torah prohibition. This baraita clearly states that he is flogged for any of the three prohibitions, which is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.

מתני׳ הריני נזיר לכשיהא לי בן ונזיר מאה יום נולד לו בן עד שבעים לא הפסיד כלום לאחר שבעים סותר שבעים שאין תגלחת פחות משלשים יום

MISHNA: In the case of one who said: I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and he added: I am hereby a nazirite from now for one hundred days, and he then began observing the one hundred days of his naziriteship, if a son is born to him up to seventy days from the start of his naziriteship he has not lost anything. He pauses from the observance of the naziriteship of one hundred days and observes the thirty-day term for his son. He then completes the thirty or more days left of his initial naziriteship. However, if his son is born after seventy days, this negates the first seventy days, and he must observe a full hundred days after he completes the naziriteship for his son. The reason is that here, he is unable to merely complete the remaining days of his initial naziriteship after shaving at the completion of the naziriteship for his son, since shaving cannot be performed after a period of less than thirty days.

גמ׳ אמר רב יום שבעים עולה לכאן ולכאן תנן נולד לו עד שבעים לא הפסיד כלום ואי סלקא דעתך עולה לכאן ולכאן איתגורי מיתגר אלא בדין הוא דלא ליתני עד שבעים ומשום דקתני סיפא אחר שבעים סותר שבעים קתני רישא שבעים

GEMARA: Rav said: The seventieth day itself counts for here and for there, as the last of the seventy days of his term of naziriteship as well as the first day of the naziriteship for his son. The Gemara questions Rav’s statement. We learned in the mishna: If a son is born to him up to seventy, he has not lost anything. This seems to include the seventieth day as well. And if it enters your mind that it counts for here and for there, not only has he not lost anything, but he even gains a day, so why would the mishna state: He has not lost anything? The Gemara answers: Rather, by right the mishna should not have taught: Up to seventy he has not lost anything, since if the son is born on the seventieth day he actually gains, as stated above, but due to the fact that it is taught in the last clause of the mishna: After seventy it negates seventy, in which case he does lose, the tanna therefore teaches the first clause with the contrasting expression: Up to seventy he has not lost anything.

תא שמע מסיפא נולד אחר שבעים סותר שבעים מאי אחר אחר אחר

The Gemara asks further: Come and hear a statement that contradicts Rav’s opinion from the last clause of the mishna: If the son is born after seventy days, it negates the first seventy days. If, as Rav stated, one day can count for both terms, then the final day of the thirty-day term for his son also counts toward his hundred-day term, meaning that there will be thirty days remaining for a full hair growth; in that case, why should he forfeit the first days? The Gemara answers this: What is the meaning of: After? It means after, after. The mishna is referring to the second day after the seventieth, the seventy-second day, so that there do not remain thirty days for his hair to grow.

אבל אחר ממש מאי הכי נמי דלא סתר אי הכי מאי איריא דתני נולד עד שבעים לא הפסיד כלום אפילו אחר שבעים נמי הא אמרת לא סתר אלא שמע מינה אחר ממש וכן מתניתין לרב שמע מינה

The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation, what would be the halakha if a son is born on the day that actually comes after the seventieth, the seventy-first day; so too, would Rav say that it does not negate the previous days, because he has thirty days remaining to grow his hair? If so, why does the tanna specifically teach: If he is born up to seventy he has not lost anything? The same would hold true even for a case where he was born on the day after seventy as well, as didn’t you say that it does not negate? Rather, one must learn from this that: After, means the actual day after, the seventy-first day, and likewise conclude that the mishna is difficult for Rav. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that the tanna of the mishna disagrees with Rav.

ורב כמאן אמרה לשמעתיה אילימא כאבא שאול דתנן הקובר את מתו שלשה ימים קודם לרגל בטלה ממנו גזירת שבעה

§ The Gemara asks: And Rav, in accordance with whose opinion did he say his halakha? Since the tanna of the mishna disagrees with him, which tanna does he follow in ruling that one day may be counted for two different observances? If we say that he stated the ruling in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as we learned in the Tosefta (Mo’ed Katan 2:9): With regard to one who buries his dead three days before a pilgrimage Festival, the rabbinic decree of seven days of mourning is voided for him, i.e., once the Festival begins, he no longer observes the prohibitions and customs of the first seven days of mourning. Since he has mourned for three days, the Festival voids the remainder of the seven days.

שמנה ימים קודם לרגל בטלה ממנו גזירת שלשים ומותר לספר ערב הרגל ואם לא סיפר ערב הרגל אסור לספר אחר הרגל

The baraita continues: If he buried his dead eight days before a pilgrimage Festival, the rabbinic decree of the restrictions of thirty days of mourning is voided for him as well. Since he already observed one day of this type of mourning he need not complete the entire period, and it is therefore permitted for him to cut his hair on the eve of the pilgrimage Festival in honor of the Festival. But if he did not cut his hair on the eve of the pilgrimage Festival, it is prohibited for him to cut his hair after the pilgrimage Festival, until thirty days of mourning have passed.

אבא שאול אומר אפילו לא סיפר קודם הרגל מותר לספר אחר הרגל שכשם שמצות שלשה מבטלת גזירת שבעה כך מצות שבעה מבטלת גזירת שלשים

Abba Shaul says: Even if he did not cut his hair before the pilgrimage Festival, it is permitted for him to cut his hair after the pilgrimage Festival. His reasoning is that just as the mitzva of three voids the rabbinic decree of seven, as was taught before; so the mitzva of seven voids the rabbinic decree of thirty. Since he completed the observance of the seven days of mourning before the Festival, he need not observe the thirty days of mourning.

מאי טעמא דאבא שאול לאו משום דקסבר שביעי עולה לכאן ולכאן דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר אבא שאול אלא באבילות שבעה דרבנן אבל בנזיר דאורייתא לא

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale of Abba Shaul for his opinion that if he observed seven days of mourning before the Festival commenced the thirty-day mourning period is voided? Isn’t it because he holds that the seventh day counts for here and there, i.e., the seventh day is considered both the end of the seven days and the start of the thirty days of mourning, so he had already begun observing his thirty days of mourning before the start of the Festival? This ruling may be the basis for the ruling of Rav. The Gemara rejects this: This does not support Rav, since perhaps Abba Shaul was saying his ruling that the same day counts for both here and there only with regard to the mourning of seven days, which is by rabbinic law, but with regard to a nazirite, whose obligation is by Torah law, he would not say so.

אלא רב דאמר כרבי יוסי דתניא רבי יוסי אומר שומרת יום כנגד יום ששחטו וזרקו עליה בשני שלה

Rather, Rav spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: A woman who observes a clean day for each day she experiences a discharge is a woman who discharges blood for one or two days at a time when she does not expect her menstrual period. The case under discussion is one where she experienced a discharge for one day and they slaughtered a Paschal offering and sprinkled the blood for her on her second day, after she immersed in a ritual bath. At that point, it is unclear whether she will remain clean of discharges for the remainder of the day, in which case she is retroactively pure from the time she immersed and may eat the Paschal offering at night, or whether she will experience a discharge of blood during the day, in which case her immersion is retroactively invalid and she was impure the entire time.

ואחר כך ראתה הרי זו אינה אוכלת ופטורה מלעשות פסח שני

And after that, she saw blood, thereby retroactively clarifying that at the time the Paschal offering was slaughtered she was unfit to partake of it. The halakha is that she may not eat from the Paschal lamb due to her ritual impurity, but she is exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ, which is observed by those who did not sacrifice the Paschal offering on the first Pesaḥ. The reason is that since she was pure when they slaughtered the Paschal offering on her behalf, she has fulfilled the obligation of the offering, despite the fact that she became impure and was unable to eat the offering.

מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי לאו משום דקסבר מקצת היום ככולו ממאי ודלמא משום דקסבר מכאן ולהבא הוא מטמא

The Gemara clarifies this: What is the rationale of Rabbi Yosei for his opinion that she is exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ? Isn’t it because he holds that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day? Since she was pure for part of the day, it is considered as though she was pure the entire day. The Gemara rejects this: From where do you know that this is the rationale? Perhaps it is because Rabbi Yosei holds that one becomes impure from now and onward. He holds that the impurity of a zava starts only from the moment she had a discharge of blood, but she is ritually pure up to that point, so she was ritually pure when they slaughtered the offering for her.

ומי סבר רבי יוסי הכי

The Gemara questions this explanation: And does Rabbi Yosei hold in accordance with this ruling that she is impure only from that moment onward?

והתניא רבי יוסי אומר זב בעל שתי ראיות ששחטו וזרקו עליו בשביעי וכן שומרת יום כנגד יום ששחטו וזרקו עליה ואחר כך ראו אף על פי שמטמאין משכב ומושב למפרע פטורין מלעשות פסח שני

But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] who has had two sightings of discharge, for whom they slaughtered a Paschal offering and sprinkled its blood on the seventh, and final, day of impurity, and similarly, with regard to a woman who observes a clean day for a day, for whom they slaughtered a Paschal offering and sprinkled its blood, and afterward they saw their respective discharges, although they render objects designed for lying and sitting impure retroactively, they are exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ. This is proof that Rabbi Yosei holds that their ritual impurity applies retroactively, rather than from the moment of discharge onward. It must be that the reason why they are nevertheless exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ is that part of the day is like the entire day, and the part of the day before they became impure, during which the blood of the Paschal offering was sprinkled for them, is considered a whole clean day.

מאי למפרע מדרבנן הכי נמי מיסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך מדאורייתא אמאי פטורין מלעשות פסח שני

The Gemara responds to this attempted proof: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement that the ritual impurity applies retroactively? It means that the ritual impurity applies retroactively by rabbinic law. However, by Torah law, the zav or zava is impure only from the time of the new sighting and onward. The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, as, if it enters your mind that they become ritually impure retroactively by Torah law, why are they exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ if by Torah law they were impure at the time the offering was slaughtered?

לעולם אימא לך טומאה דאורייתא תהום דזיבה התירו

The Gemara responds: This is no proof, since actually, I could say to you that this retroactive impurity is by Torah law, and the reason they are exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ is that the Sages permitted impurity of the deep of ziva. The halakha is that in the case of a Paschal offering, an unknown impurity of the dead, called the impurity of the deep, is permitted. In a case where one brought his offering and later became aware that he had contracted impurity from a corpse, if this source of impurity was unknown to everyone, he is not required to observe the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Yosei may hold that the same halakha applies to the impurity of a zava as well: Since the owner of the offering was pure when it was brought and could not have known that she would become impure due to discharge later that day, it is similarly considered an impurity of the deep, and she has therefore fulfilled her obligation.

ואף רבי אושעיא סבר למפרע מדרבנן דתניא רבי אושעיא אמר (אבל) הרואה זב בשביעי שלו סותר את שלפניו ואמר ליה רבי יוחנן לא נסתור אלא יומו

§ The Gemara points out: And even Rabbi Oshaya holds that, according to Rabbi Yosei, the fact that a zav renders objects designed for sitting or lying impure retroactively is only by rabbinic law in this circumstance. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Oshaya says: In a case of one who sees gonorrhea-like discharge on his seventh clean day, this negates the clean days that preceded it and starts his seven days anew. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him that it should negate only its own day, i.e., he should require only one additional clean day.

מה נפשך אי סתר כולהו סתר אי לא סתר לא נסתור ולא יומו אלא אימא לא נסתור ולא יומו

The Gemara expresses surprise: Whichever way you look at Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, it is difficult. If this discharge negates clean days just as the case of a zav who had a discharge during his seven days, it should negate all his clean days, not only the last one. If it does not negate clean days, since it is not considered a discharge within his seven days but rather, as the first sighting of a new ziva, it should not negate any of it, and not even its own day. What, then, is the logic of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling that it negates a single day? Rather, say instead that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: It does not negate at all, and not even its own day, since this discharge is considered to be the first of a new series.