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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 10, 2015 | 讻状讜 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 shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 19

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讝讬专 讜讛讘讬讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讛讝讬专 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 讜讛讝讬专 讜讛讘讬讗 讗讬诪转讬 讛讝讬专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘讬讗

the verse therefore states: 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 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 Yo岣nan ben Beroka, is as follows: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring,鈥 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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗

Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讘注诇 诪讬注拽专 注拽专 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讬转讬 讗讬 拽住讘专 讘注诇 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 谞诪讬 诇讬讬转讬 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讘注诇 诪讬注拽专 注拽专 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专

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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讘专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诪讗砖专 讞讟讗 注诇 讛谞驻砖 讜讻讬 讘讗讬讝讜 谞驻砖 讞讟讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 砖爪讬注专 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 爪讬注专 注爪诪讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 谞拽专讗 讞讜讟讗 讛诪爪注专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇 讚讘专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

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: 鈥淎nd make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul鈥 (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鈥檚 nullification, she did not actually become a nazirite.

讜讛讗 讘谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖谞讛 讘讞讟讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar鈥檚 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.

讬爪讗 讜谞讻谞住 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 拽转谞讬 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬爪讗 讞诇 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讜讛讝讛 讜砖谞讛 讜讟讘诇

搂 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.

讗诇讗 谞讻谞住 讛讜讗 讚注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 诇讗 谞讻谞住 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪驻专砖转 诇谉 讻讛诇讬谉 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬转讜

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.

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 砖讬讛讬讜 讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘讟诪讗 砖谞讝专 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 住讜转专

搂 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: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void鈥 (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings unless he had his 鈥渇irst days鈥 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 a impure nazirite.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讟诪讗 谞讝专讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讟讜诪讗讛 谞讝专

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, according to Ulla鈥檚 explanation? The verse states: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void because his consecration was ritually impure鈥 (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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 讜谞讟诪讗 讘转讞诇转 诪讗讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 住讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 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 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 专讗砖讜谞讬诐

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: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void鈥 (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that this halakha does not apply until he will have 鈥渇irst days鈥 as a nazirite, and in this case the nazirite does not have his first days completed, as he became ritually impure right away.

谞讟诪讗 讘住讜祝 诪讗讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 住讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪讗讛 讞住专 讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 住讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讬砖 诇讜 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞专讜谞讬诐

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: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void,鈥 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: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void,鈥 indicating by inference that there are last ones, and this nazirite has first ones and last ones.

讜讛讗 讘讟诪讗 砖谞讝专 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讜谞讟诪讗 讘转讞诇转 诪讗讛 讜拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讜 讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗

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 鈥渇irst days,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讛诇讬谉 讬诪讬诐 讚拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚谞驻拽 讞讚 讜诪转讞讬诇讬谉 转专讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚谞驻拽讬谉 转专讬谉 讜诪转讞讬诇讬谉 转诇转讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转讗 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬驻诇讜 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淏ut the former days shall be void [yippelu]鈥 (Numbers 6:12) in the plural, which means at least two days need to have passed.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 讬诪讬诐 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 讬驻诇讜 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讬驻诇讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚谞驻拽讬谉 转专讬谉 讜注讬讬诇讬谉 转诇转讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬驻诇讜 讜讗讬 讻转讘 讬驻诇讜 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讬诪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for the verse to write 鈥渄ays鈥 and it was also necessary for it to write 鈥渟hall be void鈥 in the plural. For if the Merciful One wrote in the Torah only 鈥渄ays鈥 and had not also written 鈥渟hall be void鈥 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 鈥渟hall be void.鈥 And if the Merciful One wrote in the Torah 鈥渟hall be void鈥 and had not also written 鈥渄ays,鈥 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 鈥渄ays,鈥 indicating that he must have observed at least part of the second day.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讝专 谞讝讬专讜转 讛专讘讛 讜讛砖诇讬诐 讗转 谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗 诇讗专抓 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛讬诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讘转讞诇讛

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.

诪注砖讛 讘讛讬诇谞讬 讛诪诇讻讛 砖讛诇讱 讘谞讛 诇诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗诐 讬讘讜讗 讘谞讬 诪谉 讛诪诇讞诪讛 讘砖诇讜诐 讗讛讗 谞讝讬专讛 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讜讘讗 讘谞讛 诪谉 讛诪诇讞诪讛 讜讛讬转讛 谞讝讬专讛 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讜讘住讜祝 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 注诇转讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛讜专讜讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖转讛讗 谞讝讬专讛 注讜讚 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讗讞专讜转 讜讘住讜祝 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞讟诪讗转 讜谞诪爪讗转 谞讝讬专讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞转 砖谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讝讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛

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.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讘转讞诇讛 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讜砖讛 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛

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,

  • 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 shleima 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 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 19

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讝讬专 讜讛讘讬讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讛讝讬专 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 讜讛讝讬专 讜讛讘讬讗 讗讬诪转讬 讛讝讬专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘讬讗

the verse therefore states: 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 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 Yo岣nan ben Beroka, is as follows: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring,鈥 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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗

Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讘注诇 诪讬注拽专 注拽专 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讬转讬 讗讬 拽住讘专 讘注诇 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 谞诪讬 诇讬讬转讬 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讘注诇 诪讬注拽专 注拽专 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专

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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讘专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诪讗砖专 讞讟讗 注诇 讛谞驻砖 讜讻讬 讘讗讬讝讜 谞驻砖 讞讟讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 砖爪讬注专 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 爪讬注专 注爪诪讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讬谉 谞拽专讗 讞讜讟讗 讛诪爪注专 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇 讚讘专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

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: 鈥淎nd make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul鈥 (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鈥檚 nullification, she did not actually become a nazirite.

讜讛讗 讘谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖谞讛 讘讞讟讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar鈥檚 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.

讬爪讗 讜谞讻谞住 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 拽转谞讬 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬爪讗 讞诇 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讜讛讝讛 讜砖谞讛 讜讟讘诇

搂 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.

讗诇讗 谞讻谞住 讛讜讗 讚注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 诇讗 谞讻谞住 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪驻专砖转 诇谉 讻讛诇讬谉 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬转讜

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.

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 砖讬讛讬讜 讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘讟诪讗 砖谞讝专 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 住讜转专

搂 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: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void鈥 (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings unless he had his 鈥渇irst days鈥 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 a impure nazirite.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讟诪讗 谞讝专讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讟讜诪讗讛 谞讝专

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, according to Ulla鈥檚 explanation? The verse states: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void because his consecration was ritually impure鈥 (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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 讜谞讟诪讗 讘转讞诇转 诪讗讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 住讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 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 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 专讗砖讜谞讬诐

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: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void鈥 (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that this halakha does not apply until he will have 鈥渇irst days鈥 as a nazirite, and in this case the nazirite does not have his first days completed, as he became ritually impure right away.

谞讟诪讗 讘住讜祝 诪讗讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 住讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪讗讛 讞住专 讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 住讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讬砖 诇讜 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞专讜谞讬诐

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: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void,鈥 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: 鈥淏ut the first days shall be void,鈥 indicating by inference that there are last ones, and this nazirite has first ones and last ones.

讜讛讗 讘讟诪讗 砖谞讝专 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讜谞讟诪讗 讘转讞诇转 诪讗讛 讜拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讜 讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗

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 鈥渇irst days,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讛诇讬谉 讬诪讬诐 讚拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚谞驻拽 讞讚 讜诪转讞讬诇讬谉 转专讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚谞驻拽讬谉 转专讬谉 讜诪转讞讬诇讬谉 转诇转讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转讗 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬驻诇讜 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淏ut the former days shall be void [yippelu]鈥 (Numbers 6:12) in the plural, which means at least two days need to have passed.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 讬诪讬诐 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 讬驻诇讜 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讬驻诇讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚谞驻拽讬谉 转专讬谉 讜注讬讬诇讬谉 转诇转讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬驻诇讜 讜讗讬 讻转讘 讬驻诇讜 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讬诪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for the verse to write 鈥渄ays鈥 and it was also necessary for it to write 鈥渟hall be void鈥 in the plural. For if the Merciful One wrote in the Torah only 鈥渄ays鈥 and had not also written 鈥渟hall be void鈥 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 鈥渟hall be void.鈥 And if the Merciful One wrote in the Torah 鈥渟hall be void鈥 and had not also written 鈥渄ays,鈥 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 鈥渄ays,鈥 indicating that he must have observed at least part of the second day.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讝专 谞讝讬专讜转 讛专讘讛 讜讛砖诇讬诐 讗转 谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讗 诇讗专抓 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛讬诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讘转讞诇讛

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.

诪注砖讛 讘讛讬诇谞讬 讛诪诇讻讛 砖讛诇讱 讘谞讛 诇诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗诐 讬讘讜讗 讘谞讬 诪谉 讛诪诇讞诪讛 讘砖诇讜诐 讗讛讗 谞讝讬专讛 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讜讘讗 讘谞讛 诪谉 讛诪诇讞诪讛 讜讛讬转讛 谞讝讬专讛 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讜讘住讜祝 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 注诇转讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛讜专讜讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖转讛讗 谞讝讬专讛 注讜讚 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讗讞专讜转 讜讘住讜祝 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 谞讟诪讗转 讜谞诪爪讗转 谞讝讬专讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞转 砖谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讝讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛

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.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讘转讞诇讛 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讜砖讛 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛

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,

Scroll To Top