Nazir 15
שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְטִמֵּא רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ״, מִי שֶׁנִּזְרוֹ תָּלוּי לוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ. מֵיתִיבִי: נָזִיר שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ יָמָיו — אָסוּר לְגַלֵּחַ וְלִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן וְלִטָּמֵא לְמֵתִים, וְאִם גִּילַּח וְשָׁתָה יַיִן וְנִטְמָא לְמֵתִים — הֲרֵי זֶה סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. תְּיוּבְתָּא.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לִכְשֶׁיְּהֵא לִי בֵּן״ וְ״נָזִיר מֵאָה יוֹם״, נוֹלַד לוֹ בֵּן עַד שִׁבְעִים — לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. לְאַחַר שִׁבְעִים — סוֹתֵר שִׁבְעִים. שֶׁאֵין תִּגְלַחַת פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: יוֹם שִׁבְעִים עוֹלֶה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן. תְּנַן: נוֹלַד לוֹ עַד שִׁבְעִים — לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עוֹלָה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, אִיתְּגוֹרֵי מִיתְּגַר! אֶלָּא בְּדִין הוּא דְּלָא לִיתְנֵי ״עַד שִׁבְעִים״, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״אַחַר שִׁבְעִים סוֹתֵר שִׁבְעִים״, קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא ״שִׁבְעִים״.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא: נוֹלַד אַחַר שִׁבְעִים — סוֹתֵר שִׁבְעִים. מַאי ״אַחַר״? אַחַר אַחַר.
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.
אֲבָל אַחַר מַמָּשׁ מַאי — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא סָתַר? אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי נוֹלַד עַד שִׁבְעִים לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם? אֲפִילּוּ אַחַר שִׁבְעִים נָמֵי, הָא אָמְרַתְּ לָא סָתַר! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ ״אַחַר״ מַמָּשׁ. וְכֵן מַתְנִיתִין לְרַב, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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.
וְרַב כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? אִילֵּימָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹבֵר אֶת מֵתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים קוֹדֶם לָרֶגֶל — בָּטְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ גְּזֵירַת שִׁבְעָה.
§ 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.
שְׁמֹנָה יָמִים קוֹדֶם לָרֶגֶל — בָּטְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ גְּזֵירַת שְׁלֹשִׁים. וּמוּתָּר לְסַפֵּר עֶרֶב הָרֶגֶל, וְאִם לֹא סִיפֵּר עֶרֶב הָרֶגֶל — אָסוּר לְסַפֵּר אַחַר הָרֶגֶל.
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.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא סִיפֵּר קוֹדֶם הָרֶגֶל — מוּתָּר לְסַפֵּר אַחַר הָרֶגֶל, שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּצְוַת שְׁלֹשָׁה מְבַטֶּלֶת גְּזֵירַת שִׁבְעָה — כָּךְ מִצְוַת שִׁבְעָה מְבַטֶּלֶת גְּזֵירַת שְׁלֹשִׁים.
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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר שְׁבִיעִי עוֹלֶה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אֶלָּא בַּאֲבֵילוּת שִׁבְעָה דְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל בְּנָזִיר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — לָא!
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.
אֶלָּא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלֶיהָ בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ,
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.
וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, וּפְטוּרָה מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.
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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ? מִמַּאי? וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא מְטַמֵּא.
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.
וּמִי סָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָכִי?
The Gemara questions this explanation: And does Rabbi Yosei hold in accordance with this ruling that she is impure only from that moment onward?
וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וְכֵן שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלֶיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְמַפְרֵעַ — פְּטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.
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.
מַאי לְמַפְרֵעַ — מִדְּרַבָּנַן. הָכִי נָמֵי מִיסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אַמַּאי פְּטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי?
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?
לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, תְּהוֹם דְּזִיבָה הִתִּירוּ.
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.
וְאַף רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא סָבַר לְמַפְרֵעַ מִדְּרַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: (אֲבָל) הָרוֹאֶה זָב בַּשְּׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ — סוֹתֵר אֶת שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא נִסְתּוֹר אֶלָּא יוֹמוֹ.
§ 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.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי סָתַר, כּוּלְּהוּ סָתַר. אִי לָא סָתַר — לָא נִסְתּוֹר וְלֹא יוֹמוֹ! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לָא נִסְתּוֹר וְלָא יוֹמוֹ.
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.
