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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 9, 2015 | 讻状讛 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 18

讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转讙诇讞转 讟讜诪讗讛 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 转讙诇讞转 诇讗 转讙诇讞转 讚谞讝讬专讜转 拽转谞讬

as if it enters your mind to say that the baraita is discussing the shaving done as a result of the nazirite鈥檚 impurity, and contrasts a nazirite with a leper, do the end of a leper鈥檚 days of confirmed leprosy not require shaving? A leper must shave when he is purified from his condition, so how can he be described as unfit for shaving? Rather, the baraita must be referring to the nazirite鈥檚 shaving of purity, as suggested above (17b). The Gemara rejects this: No, it could be that the baraita is discussing the shaving done as a result of the nazirite鈥檚 impurity, and when it states that a leper is unfit for shaving, the baraita is teaching about the shaving of naziriteship, and the baraita is stating that a leper is unfit for any shaving of a nazirite, since he must first shave for his leprosy.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜 讘讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉 讜诇驻讟讜专 讗转 讛谞讝讬专 讘拽讘专 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉

The Gemara suggests another proof to answer the question of whether one who vows naziriteship while in a cemetery must shave upon undergoing purification. Come and hear a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he defiles his consecrated head, he shall shave his head on the day of his purification, on the seventh day shall he shave it鈥 (Numbers 6:9). The baraita explains: The verse is speaking of a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, who requires hair removal and the bringing of birds as offerings. And this verse comes to exempt a nazirite who vowed while in the grave, i.e., a cemetery, that he does not require hair removal and the bringing of birds.

讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 诪转讞诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉

The baraita continues its analysis of this halakha. For one might have explained differently: And are these matters, the ruling that such a nazirite is exempt, not inferred with an a fortiori inference to reach the opposite conclusion: Just as a nazirite who was pure from the outset and who subsequently became impure requires hair removal and the bringing of birds, if one was impure from the outset, as he took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, is it not logical that he should require hair removal and the bringing of birds?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜 讘诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 讜谞讟诪讗 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 砖讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉 讜诇驻讟讜专 讗转 讛谞讝讬专 讘拽讘专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Therefore the verse states: 鈥淎nd he defiles his consecrated head,鈥 indicating that the verse speaks only of one who was a pure nazirite and later became impure, and that only he requires hair removal and the bringing of birds. And the verse serves to exempt the nazirite who vowed while in a place of a grave, who was ritually impure from the outset. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that a nazirite who was ritually impure from the outset does not have to shave; this answers the question of Rav Ashi.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讟诪讗 砖谞讝专 诇谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讗诇讗 砖讟诪讗 砖谞讝专 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讜谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

搂 After resolving the question, the Gemara discusses additional halakhot involving a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship. Who is the tanna who taught this baraita that the Sages taught in the previous discussion: The difference between an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a pure nazirite who became ritually impure is only the following halakha: That with regard to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of the term of naziriteship. But with regard to a pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛 讞诇讛 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诪讬谞讬 讚讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讚讟讛专讛 诪砖讘讬注讬 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬诇讗

Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Naziriteship of purity takes effect only from the eighth day. When a nazirite becomes impure during his term, he begins to count his term of observing naziriteship in purity only on the day following his purification. For if you say it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that the naziriteship of purity takes effect from the seventh day of his purification process?

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜拽讚砖 讗转 专讗砖讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讘讗转 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 转讙诇讞转讜

The Gemara clarifies: What is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that Rav 岣sda referred to? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a ritually impure nazirite who underwent the purification rite: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head on that day鈥 (Numbers 6:11). This means that he renews the sanctity of his hair growth, i.e., begin observing his naziriteship in purity, on the day of the bringing of his offerings, the eighth day of his purification. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This means that he renews the sanctity of his hair growth on the day of his shaving, the seventh day of his purification.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 谞讝讬专 砖谞讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛专讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛 诪砖讘讬注讬 讞讬讬诇讗 讜诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 (讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗) 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 砖注讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚

搂 The Gemara cites a related halakha: And that which we learned in a mishna (Karetot 9a): If a nazirite became impure by contracting many consecutive impurities, he brings only one set of offerings. Who taught that? Rav 岣sda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said the naziriteship of purity takes effect from the seventh day of his purification process. And you find this, that he contracts ritual impurity several times consecutively, in a case where he became ritually impure on the seventh day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day. And whose opinion is it? It is that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Since the appropriate time to bring an offering had not yet arrived, as all agree that his offerings are only brought on the eighth day, if he became ritually impure a second time he is obligated to bring only one set of offerings.

讚讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讗讬 讚谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 (讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬) 讻讜诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讗专讬讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜讗讬 讚谞讟诪讗 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讛专讬 讬爪转讛 砖注讛 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉

For if you say it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how can this mishna be explained? If it deals with a nazirite who became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that all these impurities are in fact one long ritual impurity, because he never reached the eighth day, which would renew his observance of naziriteship in ritual purity, so the mishna would not refer to this as a case of multiple impurities. And if the mishna is referring to a nazirite who became ritually impure on the eighth day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the eighth day, the appropriate time to bring an offering had already arrived, and if he becomes ritually impure at that stage, it is not viewed as a continuation of the previous ritual impurity, and he is obligated to bring another set of offerings.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诪讗砖专 讞讟讗 注诇 讛谞驻砖 讜讛讚专 讜拽讚砖 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜拽讚砖 讗转 专讗砖讜

The Gemara clarifies the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 ruling that he begins counting only from the eighth day? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall prepare one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul鈥 (Numbers 6:11), and the same verse again states immediately afterward: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head.鈥 This shows that the naziriteship of purity commences only after he has brought his offerings. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says in response: If so, if the verse intended to teach us that his naziriteship starts only on the eighth day, let the verse merely state: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head,鈥 since that phrase addresses the bringing of his offerings, which is on the eighth.

讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖诪讬谞讬 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖讘讬注讬 讜专讘讬 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讛讛讜讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜

Why do I need the extra phrase 鈥渙n that day鈥 (Numbers 6:11)? This teaches that if it does not apply to the matter of the eighth day, since the verse is speaking of that day anyway, apply it to the matter of the seventh day, so that 鈥渙n that day鈥 means the day when he becomes ritually purified, even before he brings his offerings. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn鈥檛 it written 鈥渙n that day鈥? What halakha does he derive from these additional words? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: That verse comes for this purpose, to tell you that even though he did not yet bring his offerings, he starts counting his naziriteship of purity from the eighth day. This is derived from the verse鈥檚 emphasis of: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head on that day,鈥 indicating that it depends on the day itself, rather than the bringing of the offerings.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讟诪讗 讚讞讝讬讗 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And what forced Rav 岣sda to establish this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Let him establish it as referring to a case where one became impure by seeing, i.e., contracting, impurity on the night preceding the eighth day each time. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the naziriteship of purity begins at the start of, presumably the night preceding, the eighth day. Therefore, this case will be one of a nazirite contracting ritual impurity many times. Nevertheless, the nazirite will be obligated to bring only one set of offerings for all of them, because each case of ritual impurity occurred at night, when he is unable to bring the offerings for his previous ritual impurity, as offerings can be brought only during the day. And therefore it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

诪讚诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Since he did not establish it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in this way, shall we say that Rav 岣sda holds that night is not considered premature? In other words, although he cannot in practice bring his offerings until the morning, as the Temple service was performed only in the daytime, the night is not considered a premature time, but rather it is viewed as part of the day in which it is appropriate to bring his offerings. Consequently, the halakha of one who becomes ritually impure on the night preceding the eighth day is the same as that of one who contracted ritual impurity on the eighth day itself, and they are both required to bring an additional set of offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讗 讘讛讗 转诇讬讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬诇讬讗 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讗讬诪转 诪讬讞讝讬 诇拽专讘谉 诇爪驻专讗 谞讝讬专讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 注讚 爪驻专讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬诇讬讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛 讞讬讬诇讗 诪讗讜专转讗

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: This conclusion is incorrect, as even if Rav 岣sda holds that the night is considered to be premature, he could not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the offerings and his new term of naziriteship depend on each other: If you say night is considered premature, when is he fit to bring his offerings? Only in the morning. Accordingly, naziriteship also does not take effect until the morning. And if you say night is not considered premature, and he is already obligated in his offerings at night, in that case naziriteship of purity takes effect from the evening, which means that the ritual impurity he suffered at night renders him obligated to bring an additional set of offerings. Consequently, the mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whether night is considered premature or not, and nothing can be inferred from here with regard to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion in that matter.

讙讜驻讗 谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 谞讟诪讗 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖诪讬谞讬 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诪转讞讬诇 讜诪讜谞讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

搂 The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta 4:8) concerning the matter of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity many times itself: If a nazirite became impure, and then became impure on the seventh day of his purification process, and again became impure on the following seventh day of his purification process, he brings only one set of offerings. If he became impure on the eighth day, and again became impure on the following eighth day, he brings a set of offerings for each and every time he became impure. Nevertheless, he begins counting his ritually pure naziriteship immediately on the eighth day, even if he has not yet brought his offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 注诇 讛讻诇 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讛讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讜谞讟诪讗 讜讛讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讜谞讟诪讗 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 诪讜谞讛

And the Rabbis say: If he had not yet brought his offerings on the eighth day when he became impure, it is considered one long period of ritual impurity, and he brings one set of offerings for all the times he became impure, until he has brought his sin-offering at the end of his period of ritual impurity. It is only then that he can begin counting his next term of naziriteship. Therefore, if he brought his sin-offering and then became impure, and again brought his sin-offering and then again became impure, he brings a set of offerings for each and every one. If he brought his sin-offering and did not yet bring his guilt-offering, he begins to count his term of naziriteship in ritual purity.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讞讟讗转讜 注讬讻讘转讜 讻谉 讗砖诪讜 诪注讻讘讜

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: Just as not bringing his sin-offering precludes him from starting his naziriteship in ritual purity, so too, not bringing his guilt-offering precludes him from starting his naziriteship in ritual purity, and if he became impure again before he brought his guilt-offering, he only brings one set of offerings for all his impurities.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜拽讚砖 讗转 专讗砖讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜

After having quoted the baraita, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the three opinions: Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer, his reason is that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head on that day鈥 (Numbers 6:11), which indicates: Even though he has not brought his offerings, the eighth day determines the start of his ritually pure naziriteship. And the Rabbis agree that the phrase 鈥渙n that day鈥 is extra, and it teaches that he begins counting from that day even though he has not brought his guilt-offering, but he does not begin counting until after bringing his sin-offering.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 注讜诇转讜 讜专讘谞谉 注讜诇讛 诇讗 讘注讬 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚讜专讜谉 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

But according to Rabbi Yishmael, why do I need the phrase 鈥渙n that day鈥? According to his opinion the issue depends on the offerings, not the day. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael could have said to you: The phrase 鈥渙n that day鈥 teaches that he can begin counting even though he has not brought his burnt-offering, as he agrees that not bringing the burnt-offering does not preclude him from counting his naziriteship. And the Rabbis respond to this: A burnt-offering does not require a limitation in the text to teach that its omission does not preclude the start of his nazirite-ship in ritual purity, since it is merely a gift and not part of his atonement process.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讝讬专 诇讛壮 讗转 讬诪讬 谞讝专讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讻讘砖 讘谉 砖谞转讜 诇讗砖诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讻诇 讗砖诪讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 砖讛谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 诪注讻讘讜

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of the Rabbis for ruling that only refraining from bringing his sin-offering precludes the start of his new count of naziriteship? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a nazirite who became ritually impure: 鈥淎nd he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring a lamb in its first year for a guilt-offering鈥 (Numbers 6:12). What does this teach? Doesn鈥檛 he wait to begin the days of his naziriteship until after he has brought all of his offerings? Rather, since we have found that all guilt-offerings that are mentioned in the Torah are indispensable for atonement, and before he has brought his guilt-offering he is forbidden from partaking of any sacred offerings, one might have thought that not having brought this guilt-offering also precludes him from counting his ritually pure naziriteship,

  • 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 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 18

讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转讙诇讞转 讟讜诪讗讛 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 转讙诇讞转 诇讗 转讙诇讞转 讚谞讝讬专讜转 拽转谞讬

as if it enters your mind to say that the baraita is discussing the shaving done as a result of the nazirite鈥檚 impurity, and contrasts a nazirite with a leper, do the end of a leper鈥檚 days of confirmed leprosy not require shaving? A leper must shave when he is purified from his condition, so how can he be described as unfit for shaving? Rather, the baraita must be referring to the nazirite鈥檚 shaving of purity, as suggested above (17b). The Gemara rejects this: No, it could be that the baraita is discussing the shaving done as a result of the nazirite鈥檚 impurity, and when it states that a leper is unfit for shaving, the baraita is teaching about the shaving of naziriteship, and the baraita is stating that a leper is unfit for any shaving of a nazirite, since he must first shave for his leprosy.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜 讘讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉 讜诇驻讟讜专 讗转 讛谞讝讬专 讘拽讘专 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉

The Gemara suggests another proof to answer the question of whether one who vows naziriteship while in a cemetery must shave upon undergoing purification. Come and hear a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he defiles his consecrated head, he shall shave his head on the day of his purification, on the seventh day shall he shave it鈥 (Numbers 6:9). The baraita explains: The verse is speaking of a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, who requires hair removal and the bringing of birds as offerings. And this verse comes to exempt a nazirite who vowed while in the grave, i.e., a cemetery, that he does not require hair removal and the bringing of birds.

讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 诪转讞诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉

The baraita continues its analysis of this halakha. For one might have explained differently: And are these matters, the ruling that such a nazirite is exempt, not inferred with an a fortiori inference to reach the opposite conclusion: Just as a nazirite who was pure from the outset and who subsequently became impure requires hair removal and the bringing of birds, if one was impure from the outset, as he took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, is it not logical that he should require hair removal and the bringing of birds?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜 讘诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 讜谞讟诪讗 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 砖讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 讛注讘专转 砖注专 讜讛讘讗转 爪讬驻专讬谉 讜诇驻讟讜专 讗转 讛谞讝讬专 讘拽讘专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Therefore the verse states: 鈥淎nd he defiles his consecrated head,鈥 indicating that the verse speaks only of one who was a pure nazirite and later became impure, and that only he requires hair removal and the bringing of birds. And the verse serves to exempt the nazirite who vowed while in a place of a grave, who was ritually impure from the outset. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that a nazirite who was ritually impure from the outset does not have to shave; this answers the question of Rav Ashi.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讟诪讗 砖谞讝专 诇谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讗诇讗 砖讟诪讗 砖谞讝专 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讜谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

搂 After resolving the question, the Gemara discusses additional halakhot involving a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship. Who is the tanna who taught this baraita that the Sages taught in the previous discussion: The difference between an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a pure nazirite who became ritually impure is only the following halakha: That with regard to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of the term of naziriteship. But with regard to a pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛 讞诇讛 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诪讬谞讬 讚讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讚讟讛专讛 诪砖讘讬注讬 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬诇讗

Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Naziriteship of purity takes effect only from the eighth day. When a nazirite becomes impure during his term, he begins to count his term of observing naziriteship in purity only on the day following his purification. For if you say it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that the naziriteship of purity takes effect from the seventh day of his purification process?

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜拽讚砖 讗转 专讗砖讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讘讗转 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 转讙诇讞转讜

The Gemara clarifies: What is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that Rav 岣sda referred to? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a ritually impure nazirite who underwent the purification rite: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head on that day鈥 (Numbers 6:11). This means that he renews the sanctity of his hair growth, i.e., begin observing his naziriteship in purity, on the day of the bringing of his offerings, the eighth day of his purification. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This means that he renews the sanctity of his hair growth on the day of his shaving, the seventh day of his purification.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 谞讝讬专 砖谞讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛专讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛 诪砖讘讬注讬 讞讬讬诇讗 讜诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 (讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗) 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 砖注讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚

搂 The Gemara cites a related halakha: And that which we learned in a mishna (Karetot 9a): If a nazirite became impure by contracting many consecutive impurities, he brings only one set of offerings. Who taught that? Rav 岣sda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said the naziriteship of purity takes effect from the seventh day of his purification process. And you find this, that he contracts ritual impurity several times consecutively, in a case where he became ritually impure on the seventh day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day. And whose opinion is it? It is that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Since the appropriate time to bring an offering had not yet arrived, as all agree that his offerings are only brought on the eighth day, if he became ritually impure a second time he is obligated to bring only one set of offerings.

讚讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讗讬 讚谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 (讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬) 讻讜诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讗专讬讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜讗讬 讚谞讟诪讗 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讛专讬 讬爪转讛 砖注讛 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉

For if you say it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how can this mishna be explained? If it deals with a nazirite who became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that all these impurities are in fact one long ritual impurity, because he never reached the eighth day, which would renew his observance of naziriteship in ritual purity, so the mishna would not refer to this as a case of multiple impurities. And if the mishna is referring to a nazirite who became ritually impure on the eighth day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the eighth day, the appropriate time to bring an offering had already arrived, and if he becomes ritually impure at that stage, it is not viewed as a continuation of the previous ritual impurity, and he is obligated to bring another set of offerings.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诪讗砖专 讞讟讗 注诇 讛谞驻砖 讜讛讚专 讜拽讚砖 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜拽讚砖 讗转 专讗砖讜

The Gemara clarifies the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 ruling that he begins counting only from the eighth day? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall prepare one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul鈥 (Numbers 6:11), and the same verse again states immediately afterward: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head.鈥 This shows that the naziriteship of purity commences only after he has brought his offerings. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says in response: If so, if the verse intended to teach us that his naziriteship starts only on the eighth day, let the verse merely state: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head,鈥 since that phrase addresses the bringing of his offerings, which is on the eighth.

讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖诪讬谞讬 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖讘讬注讬 讜专讘讬 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讛讛讜讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜

Why do I need the extra phrase 鈥渙n that day鈥 (Numbers 6:11)? This teaches that if it does not apply to the matter of the eighth day, since the verse is speaking of that day anyway, apply it to the matter of the seventh day, so that 鈥渙n that day鈥 means the day when he becomes ritually purified, even before he brings his offerings. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn鈥檛 it written 鈥渙n that day鈥? What halakha does he derive from these additional words? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: That verse comes for this purpose, to tell you that even though he did not yet bring his offerings, he starts counting his naziriteship of purity from the eighth day. This is derived from the verse鈥檚 emphasis of: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head on that day,鈥 indicating that it depends on the day itself, rather than the bringing of the offerings.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讟诪讗 讚讞讝讬讗 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And what forced Rav 岣sda to establish this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Let him establish it as referring to a case where one became impure by seeing, i.e., contracting, impurity on the night preceding the eighth day each time. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the naziriteship of purity begins at the start of, presumably the night preceding, the eighth day. Therefore, this case will be one of a nazirite contracting ritual impurity many times. Nevertheless, the nazirite will be obligated to bring only one set of offerings for all of them, because each case of ritual impurity occurred at night, when he is unable to bring the offerings for his previous ritual impurity, as offerings can be brought only during the day. And therefore it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

诪讚诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Since he did not establish it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in this way, shall we say that Rav 岣sda holds that night is not considered premature? In other words, although he cannot in practice bring his offerings until the morning, as the Temple service was performed only in the daytime, the night is not considered a premature time, but rather it is viewed as part of the day in which it is appropriate to bring his offerings. Consequently, the halakha of one who becomes ritually impure on the night preceding the eighth day is the same as that of one who contracted ritual impurity on the eighth day itself, and they are both required to bring an additional set of offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讗 讘讛讗 转诇讬讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬诇讬讗 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讗讬诪转 诪讬讞讝讬 诇拽专讘谉 诇爪驻专讗 谞讝讬专讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 注讚 爪驻专讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬诇讬讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛 讞讬讬诇讗 诪讗讜专转讗

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: This conclusion is incorrect, as even if Rav 岣sda holds that the night is considered to be premature, he could not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the offerings and his new term of naziriteship depend on each other: If you say night is considered premature, when is he fit to bring his offerings? Only in the morning. Accordingly, naziriteship also does not take effect until the morning. And if you say night is not considered premature, and he is already obligated in his offerings at night, in that case naziriteship of purity takes effect from the evening, which means that the ritual impurity he suffered at night renders him obligated to bring an additional set of offerings. Consequently, the mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whether night is considered premature or not, and nothing can be inferred from here with regard to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion in that matter.

讙讜驻讗 谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 谞讟诪讗 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讜讞讝专 讜谞讟诪讗 讘砖诪讬谞讬 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诪转讞讬诇 讜诪讜谞讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

搂 The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta 4:8) concerning the matter of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity many times itself: If a nazirite became impure, and then became impure on the seventh day of his purification process, and again became impure on the following seventh day of his purification process, he brings only one set of offerings. If he became impure on the eighth day, and again became impure on the following eighth day, he brings a set of offerings for each and every time he became impure. Nevertheless, he begins counting his ritually pure naziriteship immediately on the eighth day, even if he has not yet brought his offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 注诇 讛讻诇 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讛讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讜谞讟诪讗 讜讛讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讜谞讟诪讗 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 诪讜谞讛

And the Rabbis say: If he had not yet brought his offerings on the eighth day when he became impure, it is considered one long period of ritual impurity, and he brings one set of offerings for all the times he became impure, until he has brought his sin-offering at the end of his period of ritual impurity. It is only then that he can begin counting his next term of naziriteship. Therefore, if he brought his sin-offering and then became impure, and again brought his sin-offering and then again became impure, he brings a set of offerings for each and every one. If he brought his sin-offering and did not yet bring his guilt-offering, he begins to count his term of naziriteship in ritual purity.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讞讟讗转讜 注讬讻讘转讜 讻谉 讗砖诪讜 诪注讻讘讜

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: Just as not bringing his sin-offering precludes him from starting his naziriteship in ritual purity, so too, not bringing his guilt-offering precludes him from starting his naziriteship in ritual purity, and if he became impure again before he brought his guilt-offering, he only brings one set of offerings for all his impurities.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜拽讚砖 讗转 专讗砖讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜

After having quoted the baraita, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the three opinions: Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer, his reason is that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sanctify his head on that day鈥 (Numbers 6:11), which indicates: Even though he has not brought his offerings, the eighth day determines the start of his ritually pure naziriteship. And the Rabbis agree that the phrase 鈥渙n that day鈥 is extra, and it teaches that he begins counting from that day even though he has not brought his guilt-offering, but he does not begin counting until after bringing his sin-offering.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 注讜诇转讜 讜专讘谞谉 注讜诇讛 诇讗 讘注讬 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚讜专讜谉 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

But according to Rabbi Yishmael, why do I need the phrase 鈥渙n that day鈥? According to his opinion the issue depends on the offerings, not the day. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael could have said to you: The phrase 鈥渙n that day鈥 teaches that he can begin counting even though he has not brought his burnt-offering, as he agrees that not bringing the burnt-offering does not preclude him from counting his naziriteship. And the Rabbis respond to this: A burnt-offering does not require a limitation in the text to teach that its omission does not preclude the start of his nazirite-ship in ritual purity, since it is merely a gift and not part of his atonement process.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讝讬专 诇讛壮 讗转 讬诪讬 谞讝专讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讻讘砖 讘谉 砖谞转讜 诇讗砖诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讻诇 讗砖诪讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 砖讛谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 诪注讻讘讜

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of the Rabbis for ruling that only refraining from bringing his sin-offering precludes the start of his new count of naziriteship? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a nazirite who became ritually impure: 鈥淎nd he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring a lamb in its first year for a guilt-offering鈥 (Numbers 6:12). What does this teach? Doesn鈥檛 he wait to begin the days of his naziriteship until after he has brought all of his offerings? Rather, since we have found that all guilt-offerings that are mentioned in the Torah are indispensable for atonement, and before he has brought his guilt-offering he is forbidden from partaking of any sacred offerings, one might have thought that not having brought this guilt-offering also precludes him from counting his ritually pure naziriteship,

Scroll To Top