Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 6, 2015 | 讻状讘 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 15

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜 诪讬 砖谞讝专讜 转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘专讗砖讜 诪讬转讬讘讬 谞讝讬专 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讬诪讬讜 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讜诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讜诇讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜谞讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to impurity, it is different, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he defile his consecrated head鈥 (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 岣nina, 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 岣nina.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讜谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘谉 注讚 砖讘注讬诐 诇讗 讛驻住讬讚 讻诇讜诐 诇讗讞专 砖讘注讬诐 住讜转专 砖讘注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 转讙诇讞转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜诐 砖讘注讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 转谞谉 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 注讚 砖讘注讬诐 诇讗 讛驻住讬讚 讻诇讜诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讗讬转讙讜专讬 诪讬转讙专 讗诇讗 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 注讚 砖讘注讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讞专 砖讘注讬诐 住讜转专 砖讘注讬诐 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 砖讘注讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 谞讜诇讚 讗讞专 砖讘注讬诐 住讜转专 砖讘注讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讗讞专 讗讞专

The Gemara asks further: Come and hear a statement that contradicts Rav鈥檚 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.

讗讘诇 讗讞专 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 住转专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 谞讜诇讚 注讚 砖讘注讬诐 诇讗 讛驻住讬讚 讻诇讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞专 砖讘注讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 住转专 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讞专 诪诪砖 讜讻谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜专讘 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜讘专 讗转 诪转讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇专讙诇 讘讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 讙讝讬专转 砖讘注讛

搂 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鈥檈d 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.

砖诪谞讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇专讙诇 讘讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 讙讝讬专转 砖诇砖讬诐 讜诪讜转专 诇住驻专 注专讘 讛专讙诇 讜讗诐 诇讗 住讬驻专 注专讘 讛专讙诇 讗住讜专 诇住驻专 讗讞专 讛专讙诇

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.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 住讬驻专 拽讜讚诐 讛专讙诇 诪讜转专 诇住驻专 讗讞专 讛专讙诇 砖讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜转 砖诇砖讛 诪讘讟诇转 讙讝讬专转 砖讘注讛 讻讱 诪爪讜转 砖讘注讛 诪讘讟诇转 讙讝讬专转 砖诇砖讬诐

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖讘讬注讬 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗诇讗 讘讗讘讬诇讜转 砖讘注讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讛 讘砖谞讬 砖诇讛

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.

讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

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 Pesa岣, which is observed by those who did not sacrifice the Paschal offering on the first Pesa岣. 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 诪诪讗讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗

The Gemara clarifies this: What is the rationale of Rabbi Yosei for his opinion that she is exempt from observing the second Pesa岣? Isn鈥檛 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.

讜诪讬 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讬

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

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讻谉 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇诪驻专注 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

But isn鈥檛 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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣 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.

诪讗讬 诇诪驻专注 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

The Gemara responds to this attempted proof: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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鈥檚 opinion, as, if it enters your mind that they become ritually impure retroactively by Torah law, why are they exempt from observing the second Pesa岣 if by Torah law they were impure at the time the offering was slaughtered?

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转讛讜诐 讚讝讬讘讛 讛转讬专讜

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 Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣. 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.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 住讘专 诇诪驻专注 诪讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 (讗讘诇) 讛专讜讗讛 讝讘 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 住讜转专 讗转 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞住转讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜诪讜

搂 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 Yo岣nan said to him that it should negate only its own day, i.e., he should require only one additional clean day.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 住转专 讻讜诇讛讜 住转专 讗讬 诇讗 住转专 诇讗 谞住转讜专 讜诇讗 讬讜诪讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 谞住转讜专 讜诇讗 讬讜诪讜

The Gemara expresses surprise: Whichever way you look at Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling that it negates a single day? Rather, say instead that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 15

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜 诪讬 砖谞讝专讜 转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘专讗砖讜 诪讬转讬讘讬 谞讝讬专 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讬诪讬讜 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讜诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讜诇讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜谞讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to impurity, it is different, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he defile his consecrated head鈥 (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 岣nina, 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 岣nina.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讜谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘谉 注讚 砖讘注讬诐 诇讗 讛驻住讬讚 讻诇讜诐 诇讗讞专 砖讘注讬诐 住讜转专 砖讘注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 转讙诇讞转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜诐 砖讘注讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 转谞谉 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 注讚 砖讘注讬诐 诇讗 讛驻住讬讚 讻诇讜诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讗讬转讙讜专讬 诪讬转讙专 讗诇讗 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 注讚 砖讘注讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讞专 砖讘注讬诐 住讜转专 砖讘注讬诐 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 砖讘注讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 谞讜诇讚 讗讞专 砖讘注讬诐 住讜转专 砖讘注讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讗讞专 讗讞专

The Gemara asks further: Come and hear a statement that contradicts Rav鈥檚 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.

讗讘诇 讗讞专 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 住转专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 谞讜诇讚 注讚 砖讘注讬诐 诇讗 讛驻住讬讚 讻诇讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞专 砖讘注讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 住转专 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讞专 诪诪砖 讜讻谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜专讘 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜讘专 讗转 诪转讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇专讙诇 讘讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 讙讝讬专转 砖讘注讛

搂 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鈥檈d 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.

砖诪谞讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇专讙诇 讘讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 讙讝讬专转 砖诇砖讬诐 讜诪讜转专 诇住驻专 注专讘 讛专讙诇 讜讗诐 诇讗 住讬驻专 注专讘 讛专讙诇 讗住讜专 诇住驻专 讗讞专 讛专讙诇

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.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 住讬驻专 拽讜讚诐 讛专讙诇 诪讜转专 诇住驻专 讗讞专 讛专讙诇 砖讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜转 砖诇砖讛 诪讘讟诇转 讙讝讬专转 砖讘注讛 讻讱 诪爪讜转 砖讘注讛 诪讘讟诇转 讙讝讬专转 砖诇砖讬诐

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖讘讬注讬 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗诇讗 讘讗讘讬诇讜转 砖讘注讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讛 讘砖谞讬 砖诇讛

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.

讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

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 Pesa岣, which is observed by those who did not sacrifice the Paschal offering on the first Pesa岣. 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 诪诪讗讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗

The Gemara clarifies this: What is the rationale of Rabbi Yosei for his opinion that she is exempt from observing the second Pesa岣? Isn鈥檛 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.

讜诪讬 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讬

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

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讻谉 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇诪驻专注 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

But isn鈥檛 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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣 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.

诪讗讬 诇诪驻专注 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

The Gemara responds to this attempted proof: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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鈥檚 opinion, as, if it enters your mind that they become ritually impure retroactively by Torah law, why are they exempt from observing the second Pesa岣 if by Torah law they were impure at the time the offering was slaughtered?

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转讛讜诐 讚讝讬讘讛 讛转讬专讜

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 Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣. 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.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 住讘专 诇诪驻专注 诪讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 (讗讘诇) 讛专讜讗讛 讝讘 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 住讜转专 讗转 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞住转讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜诪讜

搂 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 Yo岣nan said to him that it should negate only its own day, i.e., he should require only one additional clean day.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 住转专 讻讜诇讛讜 住转专 讗讬 诇讗 住转专 诇讗 谞住转讜专 讜诇讗 讬讜诪讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 谞住转讜专 讜诇讗 讬讜诪讜

The Gemara expresses surprise: Whichever way you look at Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling that it negates a single day? Rather, say instead that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

Scroll To Top