Nazir 19
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִזִּיר … וְהֵבִיא״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא — הִזִּיר. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִזִּיר … וְהֵבִיא״, אֵימָתַי הִזִּיר — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵבִיא.
the verse therefore states: “And 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,” indicating: Even though he has not brought his guilt-offering he has nevertheless consecrated his days for the start of a new term of naziriteship. The opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, is as follows: The verse states: “And he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring,” which means: When has he consecrated his days of naziriteship, i.e., when does his new term of naziriteship begin? It begins when he has already brought his guilt-offering.
מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר וְנִטְמְאָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ — מְבִיאָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עוֹלַת הָעוֹף.
The Gemara poses a question: Who is the tanna who taught this that the Sages taught: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and became ritually impure, leading her to designate a bird for a sin-offering, a bird for a burnt-offering, and a sheep for a guilt-offering, and afterward her husband nullified her vow of naziriteship for her, she brings the bird sin-offering and she does not bring the bird burnt-offering?
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא.
Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, the burnt-offering is a gift, and she would bring it despite the fact that her naziriteship was nullified. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the burnt-offering is part of the atonement process, and since her naziriteship was nullified, there is no longer a need for atonement.
מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר בַּעַל מִיעְקָר עָקַר — חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי לָא לַיְיתֵי. אִי קָסָבַר בַּעַל מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף נָמֵי לַיְיתֵי! לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר בַּעַל מִיעְקָר עָקַר, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר.
The Gemara asks: What does he hold? If he holds that the husband uproots a vow entirely when he nullifies it, and she is considered not to have vowed at all, she should not bring the bird sin-offering, as she was never a nazirite, and she does not need atonement. Conversely, if he holds that the husband severs the vow from that point onward, but it did take effect beforehand, she should also bring the bird burnt-offering, as she requires atonement for becoming impure while she was a nazirite. The Gemara answers: Actually, he holds that the husband uproots the vow, and why is she obliged to bring a sin-offering? Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״? וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה? אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא, הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, the esteemed one, says: What is the meaning when the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul” (Numbers 6:11)? And with which soul did this person sin by becoming a nazirite? Rather, in afflicting himself by abstaining from wine, he is considered to have sinned with his own soul, and he must bring a sin-offering for the naziriteship itself, for causing his body to suffer. And an a fortiori inference can be learned from this: Just as this person, in afflicting himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner, in the case of one who afflicts himself by abstaining from everything, through fasting or other acts of mortification, all the more so is he described as a sinner. According to this opinion, Rabbi Yishmael holds that since the woman afflicted herself by abstaining from wine she must bring a sin-offering, even though, due to her husband’s nullification, she did not actually become a nazirite.
וְהָא בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא כְּתִיב, וַאֲנַן אֲפִילּוּ נָזִיר טָהוֹר קָאָמְרִינַן! קָסָבַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר נָזִיר טָהוֹר נָמֵי חוֹטֵא הוּא, וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא — הוֹאִיל וְשָׁנָה בַּחֵטְא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s dictum: But this verse, labeling the nazirite a sinner, is written with regard to an impure nazirite, and we are saying that even a pure nazirite is a sinner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that a pure nazirite is also a sinner. And this is the reason that the statement that a nazirite is a sinner is written in reference to an impure nazirite rather than a pure one: Since he repeated his sin, as his impurity causes him to start his naziriteship again, he thereby deprives himself for a longer period. He should have taken extra care to prevent this from happening.
יָצָא וְנִכְנַס — עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. קָתָנֵי עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. מִשּׁוּם דְּיָצָא חָל עֲלֵיהּ נְזִירוּת? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא וְהִזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל.
§ The mishna taught that if one took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, left the cemetery, and then entered it again, the days he spent outside do count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship, and he is obligated to bring the offerings of ritual impurity upon reentering the cemetery. The mishna teaches: They do count as part of his tally. The Gemara questions the meaning of this linkage: Does naziriteship take effect for him because he merely left the ritually impure place? He is still ritually impure, and he cannot begin counting his term of naziriteship until after he has undergone the purification process. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where he left and received the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer on the third day, and he again received the sprinkling on the seventh day and immersed, after which he entered the cemetery a second time. Since he is now ritually pure, his naziriteship takes effect.
אֶלָּא נִכְנַס הוּא דְּעוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, לֹא נִכְנַס אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן?! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא יָצָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ נִכְנַס — עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן.
The Gemara poses another question: According to the precise reading of the mishna, his term of naziriteship starts only if he reentered the cemetery; however, is it only if he returned and entered the cemetery that those days count as part of his tally, but if he did not enter, and remained outside the cemetery, those days do not count as part of his tally? Why should the start of the naziriteship be dependent upon his reentering the cemetery? The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state this halakha, that those days count as part of his tally, in the case of one who left the cemetery and began his naziriteship, but even if he entered the cemetery again immediately after his purification, those days count as part of his tally, and he will be obligated to bring the offerings of ritual impurity upon his reentry.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְפָרְשַׁתְּ לַן כְּהָלֵין מִילֵּי? אָמַר לְהוֹן: אָמֵינָא דִּלְמָא לָא צְרִיכִיתוּ.
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: What is the reason you did not explain it to us with these words of Shmuel, as explained above? He said to them: I said to myself that perhaps you do not require that explanation, as I thought it was apparent that this is the proper explanation of the mishna.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא בּוֹ בְּיוֹם — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ״ — עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים. אָמַר עוּלָּא: לָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּטָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר, אֲבָל בַּנָּזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — אֲפִילּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד סוֹתֵר.
§ The mishna also taught an additional halakha: Rabbi Eliezer says: This halakha does not apply to one who entered the cemetery on that very day that he left it, as it is stated with regard to the halakhot of an impure nazirite: “But the first days shall be void” (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings unless he had his “first days” of ritual purity, during which he observed his naziriteship. Ulla said: Rabbi Eliezer said this halakha, that one day of naziriteship in purity is not sufficient to obligate him to bring offerings if he becomes impure, only with regard to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, but a pure nazirite who became impure, even if he was only pure for one day of naziriteship, it negates that day of his tally and he must bring the offerings of an impure nazirite.
אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי טָמֵא נִזְרוֹ״ — מִשּׁוּם דִּבְטוּמְאָה נְזַר.
Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, according to Ulla’s explanation? The verse states: “But the first days shall be void because his consecration was ritually impure” (Numbers 6:12), which he explains as follows: Why are his first days rendered void? They are void because he took a vow of naziriteship, consecrating himself, when he was in a state of ritual impurity.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מֵאָה יוֹם״, וְנִטְמָא בִּתְחִלַּת מֵאָה, יָכוֹל יְהֵא סוֹתֵר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ לוֹ יָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים, וְזֶה אֵין לוֹ רִאשׁוֹנִים.
Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita that is not in accordance with the opinion of Ulla: One who said: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, and he became ritually impure immediately, at the beginning of the one hundred days, one might have thought it should negate the time he spent as a nazirite. The verse therefore states: “But the first days shall be void” (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that this halakha does not apply until he will have “first days” as a nazirite, and in this case the nazirite does not have his first days completed, as he became ritually impure right away.
נִטְמָא בְּסוֹף מֵאָה, יָכוֹל יְהֵא סוֹתֵר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ״ — מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא אַחֲרוֹנִים, וְזֶה אֵין לוֹ אַחֲרוֹנִים. נִטְמָא בְּיוֹם מֵאָה חָסֵר אַחַת, יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא סוֹתֵר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ״ — מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא אַחֲרוֹנִים, וְזֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ רִאשׁוֹנִים וְאַחֲרוֹנִים.
The baraita continues: If one became ritually impure at the end of one hundred days, that is, on the hundredth day, one might have thought it should negate the days he had counted. The verse therefore states: “But the first days shall be void,” indicating by inference that there are other days that can be called the last ones, while this nazirite does not have last days, as he has already completed the tally of his naziriteship. If he became impure on the one hundredth day less one, one might have thought it should not negate the days he had counted. Therefore, the verse states: “But the first days shall be void,” indicating by inference that there are last ones, and this nazirite has first ones and last ones.
וְהָא, בְּטָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מֵאָה״, וְנִטְמָא בִּתְחִלַּת מֵאָה, וְקָתָנֵי ״עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ לוֹ יָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים״, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
Abaye now concludes his objection to Rava: But with regard to this halakha of the baraita, you cannot say it is referring to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship from the fact that it teaches: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, and he became impure immediately at the beginning of the one hundred, indicating that it is discussing one who became impure after his term had already started. And it further teaches: Until he will have “first days,” which proves that Rabbi Eliezer states his halakha even with regard to a pure nazirite who later became impure. This is a conclusive refutation of Ulla, and his opinion is rejected.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: הָלֵין יָמִים דְּקָאָמְרִינַן, דְּנָפֵק חַד וּמַתְחִילִין תְּרֵין, אוֹ דִּלְמָא דְּנָפְקִין תְּרֵין וּמַתְחִילִין תְּלָתָא? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ, אֲתָא שַׁיְילֵיהּ לְרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״יִפְּלוּ״ כְּתִיב.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Those first days that we said he must observe in ritual purity according to Rabbi Eliezer, does it mean that one day has finished and a second has started, so that if he became impure on the second day it negates his tally, or perhaps it means that two days have finished, and a third has started, which would mean it negates his tally only if he became impure after the beginning of the third day? An answer was not available to him, so Rav Pappa went to ask Rava, who said to him: It is written: “But the former days shall be void [yippelu]” (Numbers 6:12) in the plural, which means at least two days need to have passed.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״יָמִים״ וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״יִפְּלוּ״, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״יָמִים״ וְלָא כְּתַב ״יִפְּלוּ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עַד דְּנָפְקִין תְּרֵין וְעָיְילִין תְּלָתָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״יִפְּלוּ״. וְאִי כְּתַב ״יִפְּלוּ״ וְלָא כְּתַב ״יָמִים״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ חַד, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״יָמִים״.
The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for the verse to write “days” and it was also necessary for it to write “shall be void” in the plural. For if the Merciful One wrote in the Torah only “days” and had not also written “shall be void” in the plural, I would say that the halakha applies only if two days have finished and a third has started. The Merciful One therefore wrote in the Torah the plural form of “shall be void.” And if the Merciful One wrote in the Torah “shall be void” and had not also written “days,” I would say even one day, that is, the halakha applies even if he became ritually impure on the first day. The Merciful One therefore wrote in the Torah “days,” indicating that he must have observed at least part of the second day.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁנָּזַר נְזִירוּת הַרְבֵּה, וְהִשְׁלִים אֶת נְזִירוּתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא לָאָרֶץ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּבֵית הִילֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר בַּתְּחִלָּה.
MISHNA: One who vowed many days of naziriteship while outside Eretz Yisrael, and completed his naziriteship, and afterward came to Eretz Yisrael, in order to bring the offerings at the end of his naziriteship, Beit Shammai say: He must be a nazirite for thirty days, so that he has observed a term of naziriteship in ritual purity in Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel say: He is a nazirite from the beginning, that is, he must observe his entire naziriteship again.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּהֵילֵנִי הַמַּלְכָּה שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּנָהּ לְמִלְחָמָה, וְאָמְרָה: אִם יָבוֹא בְּנִי מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה בְּשָׁלוֹם — אֱהֵא נְזִירָה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים. וּבָא בְּנָהּ מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה, וְהָיְתָה נְזִירָה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וּבְסוֹף שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים עָלְתָה לָאָרֶץ, וְהוֹרוּהָ בֵּית הִלֵּל שֶׁתְּהֵא נְזִירָה עוֹד שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים אֲחֵרוֹת. וּבְסוֹף שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נִטְמֵאת. וְנִמְצֵאת נְזִירָה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַת שָׁנָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא הָיְתָה נְזִירָה אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה.
The mishna cites a related story: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene, whose son had gone to war, and she said: If my son will return from war safely, I will be a nazirite for seven years. And her son returned safely from the war, and she was a nazirite for seven years. And at the end of seven years, she ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel instructed her, in accordance with their opinion, that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years. And at the end of those seven years she became ritually impure, and was therefore required to observe yet another seven years of naziriteship, as ritual impurity negates the tally of a nazirite. And she was found to be a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Yehuda said: She was a nazirite for only fourteen years and not twenty-one.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר בַּתְּחִלָּה. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים מִשּׁוּם גּוּשָׁהּ גָּזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ,
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: He must be a nazirite for thirty days, and Beit Hillel say: He is a nazirite from the beginning. The Gemara suggests a possible explanation of their dispute: Let us say that they disagree about this, that Beit Shammai hold that when the Sages declared that the land of the nations outside of Eretz Yisrael is impure, they decreed so with regard to its earth. In other words, they decreed that only the earth of the land of the nations is impure, but its airspace remains pure. If so, it is not a severe level of ritual impurity, and one who observed a vow of naziriteship outside of Eretz Yisrael is not considered to be impure to the extent that he would be required to start his naziriteship afresh once entering Eretz Yisrael,
