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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 7, 2015 | 讻状讙 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 16

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讗讬 讻讜转讬讱 讚讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪驻专注 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 诇诪驻专注 诪讚专讘谞谉

And Rabbi Oshaya said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with your opinion, as he too says that in this case one becomes impure from now and onward, and any impurity after the start of the seventh day does not cause him to forfeit the previous clean days. The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 statement: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei say that the impurity is retroactive, as stated above? Rather, Rabbi Oshaya must certainly hold as follows: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling that he is impure retroactively? It means that he is rendered impure only by rabbinic law, but not by Torah law.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻讚讬 住讘专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讝讘讛 讙诪讜专讛 讚诪讬讬转讗 拽专讘谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬讗 讘驻诇讙讬讛 讚讬讜诪讗 讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讬讛 讚讬讜诪讗 住诇讬拽 诇讛 诇砖讬诪讜专 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚拽讗 砖驻注讛 转诇转讗 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讞讝讬讗 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 砖讛讜转 讚住诇讬拽 诇讬讛 诇诪谞讬讬谞讗

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement: And as to Rabbi Yosei, now, he holds that the status of part of the day is like that of an entire day. How can you find a full-fledged zava who brings an offering? Since she sees a discharge at the midpoint of the day, the other half of the day counts for her as a full day of observing, as part of the day is considered to be like all of a day. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that she continuously discharges blood for three days consecutively. And if you wish, say that she saw a discharge on three consecutive days close to sunset. In that case she is impure on each occasion at the end of one day and the beginning of the next, so that there was not any time to become pure on the following day so as to be included for her counting of a clean day corresponding to an impure one.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 诇讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬爪讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诐 讙讬诇讞 诇讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗

MISHNA: One who said: I am hereby a nazirite, without specifying how long his term of naziriteship would last, shaves his hair on the thirty-first day after the start of his naziriteship, as an unspecified term of naziriteship lasts thirty days. And if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he explicitly said: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days, then, if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Since the naziriteship would have been for thirty days even without him stating: For thirty days, this addition is understood to indicate that he will observe naziriteship for a full thirty days.

诪讬 砖谞讝专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 诪讙诇讞 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讙诇讞 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讞住专 讗讞讚 讬爪讗

One who accepted two terms of naziriteship shaves at the close of the first naziriteship on the thirty-first day, and at the close of the second term on the sixty-first day. Since his second term of naziriteship begins after shaving on the thirty-first day, the sixty-first day of the first term is the thirty-first day of his second term. And if he shaved for the first term on the thirtieth day, he shaves for the second term on the sixtieth day, which is the thirty-first day after the start of his second term of naziriteship. And if he shaved for the second term on day sixty less one, he has fulfilled his obligation, as this is the thirtieth day of his second term.

讜讝讜 注讚讜转 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 驻驻讬讬住 注诇 诪讬 砖谞讝专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 砖讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讙诇讞 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诇讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 诇讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讞住专 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 砖讬讜诐 砖诇 砖诇砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

And this testimony was attested to by Rabbi Pappeyas, who heard from his teachers with regard to one who vowed to observe two terms of naziriteship, that if he shaved for the first term on the thirtieth day, he shaves for the second term on the sixtieth day. And if he shaved for the second term on the day sixty less one, he has fulfilled his obligation, because the thirtieth day of the first term of naziriteship counts as part of his tally of the second term.

诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖讘注讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 诪讗讛 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 住讜转专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖讘注讛

One who said: I am hereby a nazirite, without further specification, if he became ritually impure through contact with a corpse on the thirtieth day of his term of naziriteship, it negates the entire tally, and he must start his naziriteship afresh. Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven days, which he must observe until his purification, after which he brings his offerings. If he said: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days, and he became impure on the thirtieth day, everyone agrees that it negates the entire tally. If he said: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, if he became impure on the one hundredth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only thirty days, and he observes the final thirty days again. If he became impure on the one hundred and first day before bringing his offerings, it negates only thirty days, but does not negate all of the observed days. Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven days.

讙诪壮 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖讘注讛

GEMARA: The mishna taught: One who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and became ritually impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally; Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven.

拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 砖讘注讛 住讜转专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 砖诇讬诪讬谉

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer holds that when anyone becomes ritually impure after the completion of his term of naziriteship, but before he brought his offerings, only seven days are negated, and the thirtieth day is after the completion of his term. The mishna then teaches that one who said: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days, and became impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in this case, since it is an instance where he explicitly said that he accepts naziriteship on himself for a full thirty days, and his ritual impurity therefore occurs during his naziriteship period.

讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 讜谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 诪讗讛 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讻讜诇讛 讻讚讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘专 驻讚讗 讜专讘 诪转谞讗

The mishna also taught that if one said: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, and he became impure on the one hundredth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer says it negates only thirty. And this entire mishna should be explained as we discussed it, in accordance with the opinions of bar Padda and Rav Mattana earlier (5a鈥6b).

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讝专 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讛 砖诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讬爪讗 讜谞讻谞住 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛

MISHNA: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the three offerings of impurity, brought by a nazirite when rendered ritually impure by contact with a corpse, despite having been in a cemetery. If he left the cemetery and entered it again, those days do count as part of his tally, meaning the naziriteship takes effect, and he does bring the offerings of impurity for reentering the cemetery.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讜 讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐

Rabbi Eliezer says: This halakha does not apply to one who entered the cemetery on the very day that he left it, as it is stated with regard to the halakhot of a ritually impure nazirite: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void鈥 (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings until he will have 鈥渇irst days鈥 of purity, during which he observed his naziriteship.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 诪讬 砖谞讝专 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 住讘专 诪讬转诇讗 转诇讬讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖讻讞讗 讟讛专讛 讞讬讬诇讗 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讗讬 讛讚专 讜讗诪专 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to one who vowed to be a nazirite while in a cemetery. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Naziriteship takes effect for him, and Reish Lakish said: Naziriteship does not take effect for him. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions: Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said naziriteship takes effect for him, holds that from the moment he accepts naziriteship upon himself it is pending, so that when it is found that he is in a state of ritual purity it takes immediate effect. The vow registers from when he states it, but it cannot take effect in practice as long as he stands in a ritually impure location. And Reish Lakish said that naziriteship does not take effect for him at all. Consequently, if he again said after leaving the cemetery that he accepts a vow of naziriteship, it takes effect for him; but if he does not repeat his vow, he is not a nazirite.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讬 砖谞讝专 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讛 砖诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讛讗 诪讬讞诇 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 拽专讘谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of the tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity despite having been in a cemetery. Rabbi Yo岣nan infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but as far as the issue of the naziriteship taking effect, it does take effect for him. Reish Lakish said to him: It means he is not included in the law of prohibited ritual impurity, and therefore he is not included in the law of the offerings. He is not a nazirite at all.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讜谞讝专 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讜诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讜诇讬讟诪讗 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 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讬讬诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 讗诪讗讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:14): One who was impure and took a vow of naziriteship must still observe the halakhot of a nazirite: He is prohibited from shaving, and from drinking wine, and from becoming impure from a corpse. And if he shaved, or if he drank wine, or if he became impure from a corpse, he incurs [sofeg] the forty lashes administered to one who actively transgresses a negative Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yo岣nan asks: Granted, if you say that naziriteship takes effect despite his ritual impurity, that is the reason that he incurs the forty lashes, similar to any nazirite who transgresses the prohibitions of naziriteship. But if you say the naziriteship does not take effect while he is ritually impure, why does he incur the forty lashes?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 16

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讗讬 讻讜转讬讱 讚讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪驻专注 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 诇诪驻专注 诪讚专讘谞谉

And Rabbi Oshaya said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with your opinion, as he too says that in this case one becomes impure from now and onward, and any impurity after the start of the seventh day does not cause him to forfeit the previous clean days. The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 statement: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei say that the impurity is retroactive, as stated above? Rather, Rabbi Oshaya must certainly hold as follows: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling that he is impure retroactively? It means that he is rendered impure only by rabbinic law, but not by Torah law.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻讚讬 住讘专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讝讘讛 讙诪讜专讛 讚诪讬讬转讗 拽专讘谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬讗 讘驻诇讙讬讛 讚讬讜诪讗 讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讬讛 讚讬讜诪讗 住诇讬拽 诇讛 诇砖讬诪讜专 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚拽讗 砖驻注讛 转诇转讗 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讞讝讬讗 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 砖讛讜转 讚住诇讬拽 诇讬讛 诇诪谞讬讬谞讗

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement: And as to Rabbi Yosei, now, he holds that the status of part of the day is like that of an entire day. How can you find a full-fledged zava who brings an offering? Since she sees a discharge at the midpoint of the day, the other half of the day counts for her as a full day of observing, as part of the day is considered to be like all of a day. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that she continuously discharges blood for three days consecutively. And if you wish, say that she saw a discharge on three consecutive days close to sunset. In that case she is impure on each occasion at the end of one day and the beginning of the next, so that there was not any time to become pure on the following day so as to be included for her counting of a clean day corresponding to an impure one.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 诇讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬爪讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诐 讙讬诇讞 诇讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗

MISHNA: One who said: I am hereby a nazirite, without specifying how long his term of naziriteship would last, shaves his hair on the thirty-first day after the start of his naziriteship, as an unspecified term of naziriteship lasts thirty days. And if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he explicitly said: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days, then, if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Since the naziriteship would have been for thirty days even without him stating: For thirty days, this addition is understood to indicate that he will observe naziriteship for a full thirty days.

诪讬 砖谞讝专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 诪讙诇讞 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讙诇讞 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讞住专 讗讞讚 讬爪讗

One who accepted two terms of naziriteship shaves at the close of the first naziriteship on the thirty-first day, and at the close of the second term on the sixty-first day. Since his second term of naziriteship begins after shaving on the thirty-first day, the sixty-first day of the first term is the thirty-first day of his second term. And if he shaved for the first term on the thirtieth day, he shaves for the second term on the sixtieth day, which is the thirty-first day after the start of his second term of naziriteship. And if he shaved for the second term on day sixty less one, he has fulfilled his obligation, as this is the thirtieth day of his second term.

讜讝讜 注讚讜转 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 驻驻讬讬住 注诇 诪讬 砖谞讝专 砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 砖讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讙诇讞 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诇讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 诇讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讞住专 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 砖讬讜诐 砖诇 砖诇砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

And this testimony was attested to by Rabbi Pappeyas, who heard from his teachers with regard to one who vowed to observe two terms of naziriteship, that if he shaved for the first term on the thirtieth day, he shaves for the second term on the sixtieth day. And if he shaved for the second term on the day sixty less one, he has fulfilled his obligation, because the thirtieth day of the first term of naziriteship counts as part of his tally of the second term.

诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖讘注讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 诪讗讛 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 住讜转专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖讘注讛

One who said: I am hereby a nazirite, without further specification, if he became ritually impure through contact with a corpse on the thirtieth day of his term of naziriteship, it negates the entire tally, and he must start his naziriteship afresh. Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven days, which he must observe until his purification, after which he brings his offerings. If he said: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days, and he became impure on the thirtieth day, everyone agrees that it negates the entire tally. If he said: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, if he became impure on the one hundredth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only thirty days, and he observes the final thirty days again. If he became impure on the one hundred and first day before bringing his offerings, it negates only thirty days, but does not negate all of the observed days. Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven days.

讙诪壮 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖讘注讛

GEMARA: The mishna taught: One who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and became ritually impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally; Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven.

拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 砖讘注讛 住讜转专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 砖诇讬诪讬谉

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer holds that when anyone becomes ritually impure after the completion of his term of naziriteship, but before he brought his offerings, only seven days are negated, and the thirtieth day is after the completion of his term. The mishna then teaches that one who said: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days, and became impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in this case, since it is an instance where he explicitly said that he accepts naziriteship on himself for a full thirty days, and his ritual impurity therefore occurs during his naziriteship period.

讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 讜谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 诪讗讛 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讻讜诇讛 讻讚讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘专 驻讚讗 讜专讘 诪转谞讗

The mishna also taught that if one said: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, and he became impure on the one hundredth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer says it negates only thirty. And this entire mishna should be explained as we discussed it, in accordance with the opinions of bar Padda and Rav Mattana earlier (5a鈥6b).

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讝专 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讛 砖诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讬爪讗 讜谞讻谞住 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛

MISHNA: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the three offerings of impurity, brought by a nazirite when rendered ritually impure by contact with a corpse, despite having been in a cemetery. If he left the cemetery and entered it again, those days do count as part of his tally, meaning the naziriteship takes effect, and he does bring the offerings of impurity for reentering the cemetery.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讜 讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐

Rabbi Eliezer says: This halakha does not apply to one who entered the cemetery on the very day that he left it, as it is stated with regard to the halakhot of a ritually impure nazirite: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void鈥 (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings until he will have 鈥渇irst days鈥 of purity, during which he observed his naziriteship.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 诪讬 砖谞讝专 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 住讘专 诪讬转诇讗 转诇讬讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖讻讞讗 讟讛专讛 讞讬讬诇讗 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讗讬 讛讚专 讜讗诪专 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to one who vowed to be a nazirite while in a cemetery. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Naziriteship takes effect for him, and Reish Lakish said: Naziriteship does not take effect for him. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions: Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said naziriteship takes effect for him, holds that from the moment he accepts naziriteship upon himself it is pending, so that when it is found that he is in a state of ritual purity it takes immediate effect. The vow registers from when he states it, but it cannot take effect in practice as long as he stands in a ritually impure location. And Reish Lakish said that naziriteship does not take effect for him at all. Consequently, if he again said after leaving the cemetery that he accepts a vow of naziriteship, it takes effect for him; but if he does not repeat his vow, he is not a nazirite.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讬 砖谞讝专 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讛 砖诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讛讗 诪讬讞诇 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 拽专讘谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of the tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity despite having been in a cemetery. Rabbi Yo岣nan infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but as far as the issue of the naziriteship taking effect, it does take effect for him. Reish Lakish said to him: It means he is not included in the law of prohibited ritual impurity, and therefore he is not included in the law of the offerings. He is not a nazirite at all.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讜谞讝专 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讜诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讜诇讬讟诪讗 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 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讬讬诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 讗诪讗讬 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:14): One who was impure and took a vow of naziriteship must still observe the halakhot of a nazirite: He is prohibited from shaving, and from drinking wine, and from becoming impure from a corpse. And if he shaved, or if he drank wine, or if he became impure from a corpse, he incurs [sofeg] the forty lashes administered to one who actively transgresses a negative Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yo岣nan asks: Granted, if you say that naziriteship takes effect despite his ritual impurity, that is the reason that he incurs the forty lashes, similar to any nazirite who transgresses the prohibitions of naziriteship. But if you say the naziriteship does not take effect while he is ritually impure, why does he incur the forty lashes?

Scroll To Top