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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 8, 2023 | 讟状讜 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Nazir 44

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of our fellow Hadran learner, Miriam Kerzner. In her eighties, Miriam was drawn into the world of the Gemara鈥檚 intricacies and excitements, enchanted by Rabbanit Michelle鈥檚 teachings and enthralled with the intellectual challenges. Talmud became an integral and vibrant part of her life during the long days of Corona and nurtured her during her illness. She joined us in learning up to her last days. Yehi Zichra Baruch, with much comfort to her family from the Hadran Zoom family.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett. “Eishet Chayil who embodied qualities from each of the 4 Imahot. Your legacy lives on in your great-granddaughter.”

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim ben Yaakov Yisrael, Rav Chaim Kanievsky.

Of the three prohibitions of nazir, there are stringencies in some that don’t exist in the other(s). Impurity and shaving are strict as they cancel the previous days, whereas drinking wine does not. The prohibition to drink wine is stricter than the others as there is no situation in which drinking wine is permitted, whereas a nazir who becomes a leper can shave and if there is a met mitzva, the nazir can become impure. Another stringency of impurity over shaving is that impurity cancels all the days and requires a sacrifice, whereas shaving only cancels thirty days and there is no sacrifice. There is a long discussion in the Gemara full of many suggestions of why we wouldn’t learn laws from one to the other, in the style of: “If this one is more lenient than this one in this way and yet more stringent in another, why isn’t the other one that is stringent in the first way, also stringent in the second way!” Or the reverse. Each answer provides is either based on a verse or some other clear explanation as to why the logical inference is not followed. The Mishna explains what is the process for a nazir who becomes impure to a dead body. The shaving is to be done on the seventh day. But is it part of the purification process and therefore one can only bring the sacrifices on the following day, even if one pushed off the shaving to the eighth day, or not? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree. After Rabbi Akiva’s explanation that it is different from the leper, does Rabbi Tarfon concede? A zav cannot go into the Levite camp on the seventh day or purification even after going to the mikveh (status of a tvul yom) as is derived from a verse. Abaye questions this drasha as the same thing appears by nazir and yet the halacha is not the same.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇砖讚专讛 讜诇讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜诇专讜讘 讘谞讬讬谞讜 讜诇专讜讘 诪谞讬讬谞讜 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讗诪专转 诪讛 讗讞讜转讜 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讙讜驻讛 转诇讜讬 讘讜 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇砖讚专讛 讜诇讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜诇专讜讘 讘谞讬讬谞讛 讜诇专讜讘 诪谞讬讬谞讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讙讜驻讜 转诇讜讬 讘讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇砖讚专讛 讜诇讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜诇专讜讘 讘谞讬讬谞讜 讜诇专讜讘 诪谞讬讬谞讜

One might have thought that he may not become impure to bury a spine, or for a skull, or to bury most of the skeleton or most of the number of bones of other relatives for whom a priest becomes impure. You say in response: Just as his sister is unique in that her body is dependent upon the brother tending to her burial, and he becomes impure to bury a spine, or to bury a skull, or to bury most of her skeleton, or to bury most of her number of bones, so too, with regard to every person whose body is dependent upon him, i.e., his other close relatives, he becomes impure to bury a spine, or to bury a skull, or to bury most of his skeleton, or to bury most of his number of bones. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rav that a priest may not become impure to bury any relative whose head has been severed.

讛讛讬讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 砖诪转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘讙讬谞讝拽 讜讘讗讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讜讛讜 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讘讗 讜砖讗诇 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 讜讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 [砖注诪讜]

The Gemara answers: That baraita also represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: An incident occurred in which the father of Rabbi Yitz岣k the priest died in Ginzak, and they came and informed him after three years had passed, and he came and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Elisha and four Elders who were with him whether he was permitted to become ritually impure by transferring his father鈥檚 remains to his ancestral grave, as was the custom.

讜讗诪专讜 诇讗讘讬讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讞住专

And they said to Rabbi Yitz岣k that the verse states: 鈥淔or his father鈥 (Leviticus 21:2), which indicates a priest may become impure only when his father is whole, and not when he is lacking. After three years the father鈥檚 body was certainly not whole, and therefore his son, a priest, was no longer permitted to become impure to bury him.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘谞讝讬专 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛转讙诇讞转 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 讞讜诪专 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘转讙诇讞转 诪讘讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 砖讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛转讙诇讞转 住讜转专讬谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专

MISHNA: Three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: Contracting ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and shaving his hair, and eating or drinking any substances that emerge from the vine. There is a greater stricture with regard to the prohibitions of impurity and shaving than that of substances that emerge from the vine, as impurity and shaving negate his naziriteship, i.e., he must add thirty days to his term of naziriteship or start it afresh. But if he eats or drinks that which emerges from the vine, this does not negate his naziriteship.

讞讜诪专 讘讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 诪讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘转讙诇讞转 砖讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讜转讙诇讞转 讛讜转专讜 诪讻诇诇谉 讘转讙诇讞转 诪爪讜讛 讜讘诪转 诪爪讜讛

Conversely, there is a greater stricture with regard to substances that emerge from the vine than with regard to impurity and shaving, as in the case of products that emerge from the vine nothing is exempted from its general prohibition in certain circumstances, i.e., there are no exceptions. But with regard to impurity and shaving certain cases are exempted from their general prohibition. For example, there are the cases of obligatory shaving, e.g., a leper who was purified during his naziriteship, and of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. A nazirite may tend to the burial of a met mitzva, despite the fact that he will thereby contract ritual impurity from a corpse.

讜讞讜诪专 讘讟讜诪讗讛 诪讘转讙诇讞转 砖讛讟讜诪讗讛 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讜转讙诇讞转 讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉

The mishna adds: And there is a greater stricture with regard to impurity than with regard to shaving, as a nazirite鈥檚 impurity negates all his days of naziriteship and begins his term afresh, and he is liable to bring an offering for it, before starting his new term of naziriteship. But shaving negates only thirty days at most, and he is not liable to bring an offering for it.

讙诪壮 讜讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 转讜转专 诪讻诇诇讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讬谉 讜诪讛 讬讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 砖住讜转专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讜转专 诪讻诇诇讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And perhaps one should say that the ritual impurity of a nazirite should not be exempted from its general prohibition even for a met mitzva, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of wine: And if wine, whose prohibition is lighter, as it does not negate his naziriteship, is nevertheless not exempted from its general prohibition, then with regard to impurity, which is stringent, as it does negate his naziriteship, is it not logical that it should not be exempted from its general prohibition?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states, in addition to the general prohibition: 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6), that: 鈥淔or his father or his mother, for his brother or for his sister, he shall not become impure when they die鈥 (Numbers 6:7). This verse teaches that it is to bury his father or for his mother that he may not become impure; however, he becomes impure to bury a met mitzva.

讜讬讬谉 讬讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 住讜转专转 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讬讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专 诇讗住讜专 讬讬谉 诪爪讜讛 讻讬讬谉 专砖讜转

The Gemara suggests: If so, one can make the reverse argument. And let wine be exempted from its general prohibition due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: If impurity, which negates naziriteship, is exempted from its general prohibition; with regard to wine, which does not negate naziriteship, is it not logical that it should be exempted from its general prohibition for the sake of a mitzva, e.g., for one who took an oath to drink wine? The Gemara answers: It is for this reason that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3). The emphasis on the words 鈥渨ine and strong drink鈥 comes to prohibit obligatory wine like optional wine.

讜讬讬谉 讬住转讜专 讗转 讛讻诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讬住转讜专

The Gemara further asks: And let wine negate all his days of naziriteship, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: If impurity, which is exempted from its general prohibition, negates all of his naziriteship, then with regard to wine, which is not exempted from its general prohibition, is it not all the more so logical that it should negate his entire naziriteship?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 讻讬 讟诪讗 谞讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 住讜转专转 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讬谉 住讜转专

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淏ut the former days shall be void, for his naziriteship was rendered impure鈥 (Numbers 6:12). The phrase 鈥渇or his naziriteship was rendered impure鈥 is apparently redundant, as it is clear from the context that the verse is referring to an impure nazirite. Rather, this teaches that only impurity negates his naziriteship, and wine does not negate it.

讜讛转讙诇讞转 转住转讜专 讗转 讛讻诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讜诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 注砖讜 讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诪讬讟诪讗 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 转讙诇讞转 砖注砖讜 讘讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诪转讙诇讞 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转住转讜专 讗转 讛讻诇

The Gemara continues to ask along the same lines: And let shaving negate all his naziriteship, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: And if in the case of impurity, in which the one who renders another impure is not like the one who becomes impure, i.e., one who renders a nazirite ritually impure does not perform a transgression, as only the nazirite who contracts the impurity has performed a transgression, impurity nevertheless negates all his naziriteship; then with regard to shaving, in which the one who shaves is like the one who is shaved, as someone who shaves a nazirite also performs a transgression, is it not logical that it should negate all his naziriteship?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 讻讬 讟诪讗 谞讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讗讬谉 转讙诇讞转 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淏ut the former days shall be void, for his naziriteship was rendered impure鈥 (Numbers 6:12). The emphasis on the phrase 鈥渇or his naziriteship was rendered impure鈥 teaches that impurity negates all, and shaving does not negate all.

讜讟讜诪讗讛 谞注砖讛 讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诪讬讟诪讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讙诇讞转 讜诪讛 转讙诇讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诪转讙诇讞 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞注砖讛 讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诪讬讟诪讗

The Gemara suggests: But in that case, one can argue the opposite: With regard to impurity, let the one who renders another impure be like the one who becomes impure, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of shaving: If in the case of shaving, which negates only thirty days, the one who shaves is like the one who is shaved; then, with regard to impurity, which negates all, is it not logical that the one who renders another impure should be like the one who becomes impure?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜 诇诪讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜

The Gemara responds: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he renders impure his consecrated head鈥 (Numbers 6:9). This teaches that the prohibition of impurity applies only to one who renders impure his consecrated head, but not to others who render him impure.

讜转讙诇讞转 诇讗 谞注砖讛 讘讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诪转讙诇讞 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讜诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 诇讗 注砖讜 讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诪讬讟诪讗 转讙诇讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诪转讙诇讞

The Gemara suggests: But if so, one can say the reverse: And with regard to shaving, let the one who shaves not be like the one who is shaved, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: And if in the case of impurity, which is stringent in that it negates all his naziriteship, the one who renders another impure is nevertheless not like the one who becomes impure; then with regard to shaving, which negates only thirty days, is it not all the more so logical that one who shaves should not be like the one who is shaved?

讗诪专 拽专讗 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 拽专讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讬注讘讜专 诇讗讞专

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head鈥 (Numbers 6:5). Since the verse is written in the passive, read into the verse that he, the nazirite himself, shall not cause a razor to come upon his head; and read the verse as also referring to any other person, who shall not cause a razor to come upon the nazirite鈥檚 head.

讜转讙诇讞转 诇讗 转讜转专 诪讻诇诇讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讬谉 讜诪讛 讬讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 转讙诇讞转 砖住讜转专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讜转专 诪讻诇诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讜 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara asks: And let shaving not be exempted from its general prohibition in the case of a leper, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of wine: And if wine, which does not negate naziriteship, is not exempted from its general prohibition; then, with regard to shaving, which does negate naziriteship, is it not logical that it should not be exempted from its general prohibition? The Gemara answers: Therefore, the Merciful One states with regard to a leper: 鈥淭hat he shall shave all his hair,鈥 and adds: 鈥淥ff his head鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). And the Merciful One further states: 鈥淎nd his beard,鈥 which teaches that he shaves despite the prohibition of naziriteship.

讜转讙诇讞转 诇讗 转住转讜专 讻诇诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讬谉 讜诪讛 讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 转讙诇讞转 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转住转讜专 讘注讬谞谉 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara proposes the reverse argument: And let shaving not negate naziriteship at all, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of wine: And if wine, which is not exempted from its general prohibition, does not negate naziriteship; then with regard to shaving, which is exempted from its general prohibition, is it not logical that it should not negate naziriteship? The Gemara answers: We require hair growth, and there is none at that point. Consequently, the nazirite must necessarily wait until his hair is of sufficient length to shave.

讜讬讬谉 讬住转讜专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讙诇讞转 讜诪讛 转讙诇讞转 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 住讜转专转 讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬住转讜专 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专 讙讘讬 讬讬谉 讛讗 拽讗讬诐 砖注专讜

The Gemara asks: And let wine negate thirty days, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of shaving: And if shaving, which is exempted from its general prohibition, nevertheless negates thirty days; then with regard to wine, which is not exempted from its general prohibition, is it not logical that it should negate thirty days? The Gemara answers: As that reason for the halakha that shaving causes a nazirite to negate thirty days is only due to hair growth, so that he has sufficient hair at the end of his naziriteship to shave, the halakha does not apply with regard to wine, since his hair remains in place. The nazirite himself has not changed, so the fact that he has drunk wine is not sufficient reason to negate any time.

诪转谞讬壮 转讙诇讞转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 诪讝讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘砖讘讬注讬 讜诪讙诇讞 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讘砖诪讬谞讬 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇诪爪讜专注

MISHNA: With regard to the shaving of ritual impurity performed by a nazirite who became impure during his naziriteship, how is it performed? The priest would sprinkle the waters of purification on him on the third and the seventh days after he contracted his impurity, as performed for all those who contracted impurity imparted by a corpse. And he shaves his hair on the seventh day and brings his offerings on the eighth day. And if he shaved on the eighth day he brings his offerings on that day, this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: What is the difference between this ritual and that of a leper? A leper also shaves on the seventh day and sacrifices his offerings on the eighth. However, if a leper shaves on the eighth day he brings his offerings on the ninth day, not on the day of his shaving.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讛 讟讛专转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讬诪讬讜 讜诪爪讜专注 讟讛专转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘转讙诇讞转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诪注讜专讘 砖诪砖

Rabbi Akiva said to him: The purification of this impure nazirite depends on his days, as he immerses on the seventh day like all those who contract impurity imparted by a corpse, which means he is already ritually pure on the eighth day. But with regard to a leper, his purification depends on his shaving. Any immersion performed earlier is of no account, and must be repeated. And a leper brings his offering only if the sun has set following his immersion. Since offerings are not sacrificed at night, the bringing of his offering is postponed until the following day.

讙诪壮 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 讛诇诇 讙讬诇讞 讘砖诪讬谞讬 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讘转砖讬注讬 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬转讬 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讘砖诪讬谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Tarfon accept this claim from Rabbi Akiva, or did he not accept it? Come and hear an answer to this from that which Hillel the amora taught: If a nazirite shaved on the eighth day, he brings his offerings on the ninth. And if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Tarfon accepted the claim from Rabbi Akiva, let the nazirite bring his offerings on the eighth day itself, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rather, this baraita is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who remains steadfast in his rejection of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讟讘诇 讘砖讘讬注讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 讟讘诇 讘砖讘讬注讬

Rava said: This is not difficult, i.e., it is possible that Rabbi Tarfon accepted Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion with regard to a nazirite who shaved on the eighth day, and there is a difference between the two statements: In this case of the mishna, it is referring to a nazirite who immersed on the seventh day, which means that he is entirely pure on the eighth and can therefore bring his offerings on the same day after shaving. By contrast, in that case of Hillel鈥檚 baraita, it is referring to one who did not immerse on the seventh. Consequently, as he immerses on the eighth day he may sacrifice his offerings only after sunset, on the ninth day.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇讞讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讛讜砖注讬讗 讚讬转讘讬谉 讜拽讗诪专讬谉 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜谞转谞诐 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讗讬诪转讬 讛讜讗 [讘讗] 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讟讘诇 讜注砖讛 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讗讬谉 诇讗 讟讘诇 讜注砖讛 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 诇讗

Abaye said: I encountered the members of the assembly of Rav Natan bar Hoshaya sitting and saying the following: The verse states with regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] who immerses on the seventh day of his purification: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day he shall take for himself two turtledoves or two young pigeons and come before the Lord to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 15:14). When does he come to the courtyard to sacrifice his offerings? Only when he has immersed on the seventh day and performed the requirement to wait until sunset. In that case, yes, he brings his offerings, but if he has not immersed and has not performed the requirement to wait until sunset, no, he may not enter the courtyard.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖诇 讝讘 讻讝讘 讚诪讬

Apparently, this tanna maintains that one who immersed himself that day to release himself from the status of a zav is considered like an actual zav. Just as a zav is prohibited from entering the Levite camp in his state of impurity, the same applies to him on the day of his immersion, as he must wait until after sunset, when he is entirely pure.

讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜谉 讗谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 (讜讛讘讬讗 讗讜转诐) 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬诪转讬 讛讜讗 [讘讗] 讘讝诪谉 砖讟讘诇 讜注砖讛 讛注专讘 砖诪砖

Abaye adds: Upon hearing this, I said to those Sages: If that is so, with regard to an impure nazirite too, as it is written: And he shall bring them, referring to the verse 鈥淎nd on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Numbers 6:10), this can be explained in a similar manner: When does he come to the courtyard to sacrifice his offerings? When he has immersed himself and performed the requirement to wait until sunset.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 43-50 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 prohibitions of the Nazir. Each one has an aspect that is more...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 44: Shaving for Purity

The first Mishnah on the daf compares the three Nazir prohibitions and how each one has its own stringency. The...

Nazir 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 44

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇砖讚专讛 讜诇讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜诇专讜讘 讘谞讬讬谞讜 讜诇专讜讘 诪谞讬讬谞讜 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讗诪专转 诪讛 讗讞讜转讜 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讙讜驻讛 转诇讜讬 讘讜 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇砖讚专讛 讜诇讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜诇专讜讘 讘谞讬讬谞讛 讜诇专讜讘 诪谞讬讬谞讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讙讜驻讜 转诇讜讬 讘讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇砖讚专讛 讜诇讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜诇专讜讘 讘谞讬讬谞讜 讜诇专讜讘 诪谞讬讬谞讜

One might have thought that he may not become impure to bury a spine, or for a skull, or to bury most of the skeleton or most of the number of bones of other relatives for whom a priest becomes impure. You say in response: Just as his sister is unique in that her body is dependent upon the brother tending to her burial, and he becomes impure to bury a spine, or to bury a skull, or to bury most of her skeleton, or to bury most of her number of bones, so too, with regard to every person whose body is dependent upon him, i.e., his other close relatives, he becomes impure to bury a spine, or to bury a skull, or to bury most of his skeleton, or to bury most of his number of bones. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rav that a priest may not become impure to bury any relative whose head has been severed.

讛讛讬讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 砖诪转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘讙讬谞讝拽 讜讘讗讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讜讛讜 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讘讗 讜砖讗诇 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 讜讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 [砖注诪讜]

The Gemara answers: That baraita also represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: An incident occurred in which the father of Rabbi Yitz岣k the priest died in Ginzak, and they came and informed him after three years had passed, and he came and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Elisha and four Elders who were with him whether he was permitted to become ritually impure by transferring his father鈥檚 remains to his ancestral grave, as was the custom.

讜讗诪专讜 诇讗讘讬讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讞住专

And they said to Rabbi Yitz岣k that the verse states: 鈥淔or his father鈥 (Leviticus 21:2), which indicates a priest may become impure only when his father is whole, and not when he is lacking. After three years the father鈥檚 body was certainly not whole, and therefore his son, a priest, was no longer permitted to become impure to bury him.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘谞讝讬专 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛转讙诇讞转 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 讞讜诪专 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘转讙诇讞转 诪讘讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 砖讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛转讙诇讞转 住讜转专讬谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专

MISHNA: Three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: Contracting ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and shaving his hair, and eating or drinking any substances that emerge from the vine. There is a greater stricture with regard to the prohibitions of impurity and shaving than that of substances that emerge from the vine, as impurity and shaving negate his naziriteship, i.e., he must add thirty days to his term of naziriteship or start it afresh. But if he eats or drinks that which emerges from the vine, this does not negate his naziriteship.

讞讜诪专 讘讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 诪讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘转讙诇讞转 砖讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙驻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讜转讙诇讞转 讛讜转专讜 诪讻诇诇谉 讘转讙诇讞转 诪爪讜讛 讜讘诪转 诪爪讜讛

Conversely, there is a greater stricture with regard to substances that emerge from the vine than with regard to impurity and shaving, as in the case of products that emerge from the vine nothing is exempted from its general prohibition in certain circumstances, i.e., there are no exceptions. But with regard to impurity and shaving certain cases are exempted from their general prohibition. For example, there are the cases of obligatory shaving, e.g., a leper who was purified during his naziriteship, and of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. A nazirite may tend to the burial of a met mitzva, despite the fact that he will thereby contract ritual impurity from a corpse.

讜讞讜诪专 讘讟讜诪讗讛 诪讘转讙诇讞转 砖讛讟讜诪讗讛 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讜转讙诇讞转 讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉

The mishna adds: And there is a greater stricture with regard to impurity than with regard to shaving, as a nazirite鈥檚 impurity negates all his days of naziriteship and begins his term afresh, and he is liable to bring an offering for it, before starting his new term of naziriteship. But shaving negates only thirty days at most, and he is not liable to bring an offering for it.

讙诪壮 讜讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 转讜转专 诪讻诇诇讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讬谉 讜诪讛 讬讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 砖住讜转专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讜转专 诪讻诇诇讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And perhaps one should say that the ritual impurity of a nazirite should not be exempted from its general prohibition even for a met mitzva, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of wine: And if wine, whose prohibition is lighter, as it does not negate his naziriteship, is nevertheless not exempted from its general prohibition, then with regard to impurity, which is stringent, as it does negate his naziriteship, is it not logical that it should not be exempted from its general prohibition?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states, in addition to the general prohibition: 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6), that: 鈥淔or his father or his mother, for his brother or for his sister, he shall not become impure when they die鈥 (Numbers 6:7). This verse teaches that it is to bury his father or for his mother that he may not become impure; however, he becomes impure to bury a met mitzva.

讜讬讬谉 讬讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 住讜转专转 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讬讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专 诇讗住讜专 讬讬谉 诪爪讜讛 讻讬讬谉 专砖讜转

The Gemara suggests: If so, one can make the reverse argument. And let wine be exempted from its general prohibition due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: If impurity, which negates naziriteship, is exempted from its general prohibition; with regard to wine, which does not negate naziriteship, is it not logical that it should be exempted from its general prohibition for the sake of a mitzva, e.g., for one who took an oath to drink wine? The Gemara answers: It is for this reason that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3). The emphasis on the words 鈥渨ine and strong drink鈥 comes to prohibit obligatory wine like optional wine.

讜讬讬谉 讬住转讜专 讗转 讛讻诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讬住转讜专

The Gemara further asks: And let wine negate all his days of naziriteship, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: If impurity, which is exempted from its general prohibition, negates all of his naziriteship, then with regard to wine, which is not exempted from its general prohibition, is it not all the more so logical that it should negate his entire naziriteship?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 讻讬 讟诪讗 谞讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 住讜转专转 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讬谉 住讜转专

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淏ut the former days shall be void, for his naziriteship was rendered impure鈥 (Numbers 6:12). The phrase 鈥渇or his naziriteship was rendered impure鈥 is apparently redundant, as it is clear from the context that the verse is referring to an impure nazirite. Rather, this teaches that only impurity negates his naziriteship, and wine does not negate it.

讜讛转讙诇讞转 转住转讜专 讗转 讛讻诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讜诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 注砖讜 讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诪讬讟诪讗 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 转讙诇讞转 砖注砖讜 讘讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诪转讙诇讞 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转住转讜专 讗转 讛讻诇

The Gemara continues to ask along the same lines: And let shaving negate all his naziriteship, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: And if in the case of impurity, in which the one who renders another impure is not like the one who becomes impure, i.e., one who renders a nazirite ritually impure does not perform a transgression, as only the nazirite who contracts the impurity has performed a transgression, impurity nevertheless negates all his naziriteship; then with regard to shaving, in which the one who shaves is like the one who is shaved, as someone who shaves a nazirite also performs a transgression, is it not logical that it should negate all his naziriteship?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 讻讬 讟诪讗 谞讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讗讬谉 转讙诇讞转 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淏ut the former days shall be void, for his naziriteship was rendered impure鈥 (Numbers 6:12). The emphasis on the phrase 鈥渇or his naziriteship was rendered impure鈥 teaches that impurity negates all, and shaving does not negate all.

讜讟讜诪讗讛 谞注砖讛 讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诪讬讟诪讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讙诇讞转 讜诪讛 转讙诇讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诪转讙诇讞 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞注砖讛 讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诪讬讟诪讗

The Gemara suggests: But in that case, one can argue the opposite: With regard to impurity, let the one who renders another impure be like the one who becomes impure, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of shaving: If in the case of shaving, which negates only thirty days, the one who shaves is like the one who is shaved; then, with regard to impurity, which negates all, is it not logical that the one who renders another impure should be like the one who becomes impure?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜 诇诪讟诪讗 专讗砖 谞讝专讜

The Gemara responds: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he renders impure his consecrated head鈥 (Numbers 6:9). This teaches that the prohibition of impurity applies only to one who renders impure his consecrated head, but not to others who render him impure.

讜转讙诇讞转 诇讗 谞注砖讛 讘讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诪转讙诇讞 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讜诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 住讜转专转 讗转 讛讻诇 诇讗 注砖讜 讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诪讬讟诪讗 转讙诇讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 诪讙诇讞 讻诪转讙诇讞

The Gemara suggests: But if so, one can say the reverse: And with regard to shaving, let the one who shaves not be like the one who is shaved, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of impurity: And if in the case of impurity, which is stringent in that it negates all his naziriteship, the one who renders another impure is nevertheless not like the one who becomes impure; then with regard to shaving, which negates only thirty days, is it not all the more so logical that one who shaves should not be like the one who is shaved?

讗诪专 拽专讗 转注专 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 注诇 专讗砖讜 拽专讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬注讘讜专 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讬注讘讜专 诇讗讞专

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淣o razor shall come upon his head鈥 (Numbers 6:5). Since the verse is written in the passive, read into the verse that he, the nazirite himself, shall not cause a razor to come upon his head; and read the verse as also referring to any other person, who shall not cause a razor to come upon the nazirite鈥檚 head.

讜转讙诇讞转 诇讗 转讜转专 诪讻诇诇讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讬谉 讜诪讛 讬讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 转讙诇讞转 砖住讜转专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讜转专 诪讻诇诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讜 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讝拽谞讜

The Gemara asks: And let shaving not be exempted from its general prohibition in the case of a leper, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of wine: And if wine, which does not negate naziriteship, is not exempted from its general prohibition; then, with regard to shaving, which does negate naziriteship, is it not logical that it should not be exempted from its general prohibition? The Gemara answers: Therefore, the Merciful One states with regard to a leper: 鈥淭hat he shall shave all his hair,鈥 and adds: 鈥淥ff his head鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). And the Merciful One further states: 鈥淎nd his beard,鈥 which teaches that he shaves despite the prohibition of naziriteship.

讜转讙诇讞转 诇讗 转住转讜专 讻诇诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讬谉 讜诪讛 讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 转讙诇讞转 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转住转讜专 讘注讬谞谉 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara proposes the reverse argument: And let shaving not negate naziriteship at all, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of wine: And if wine, which is not exempted from its general prohibition, does not negate naziriteship; then with regard to shaving, which is exempted from its general prohibition, is it not logical that it should not negate naziriteship? The Gemara answers: We require hair growth, and there is none at that point. Consequently, the nazirite must necessarily wait until his hair is of sufficient length to shave.

讜讬讬谉 讬住转讜专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讙诇讞转 讜诪讛 转讙诇讞转 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 住讜转专转 讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬住转讜专 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专 讙讘讬 讬讬谉 讛讗 拽讗讬诐 砖注专讜

The Gemara asks: And let wine negate thirty days, due to an a fortiori inference from the prohibition of shaving: And if shaving, which is exempted from its general prohibition, nevertheless negates thirty days; then with regard to wine, which is not exempted from its general prohibition, is it not logical that it should negate thirty days? The Gemara answers: As that reason for the halakha that shaving causes a nazirite to negate thirty days is only due to hair growth, so that he has sufficient hair at the end of his naziriteship to shave, the halakha does not apply with regard to wine, since his hair remains in place. The nazirite himself has not changed, so the fact that he has drunk wine is not sufficient reason to negate any time.

诪转谞讬壮 转讙诇讞转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 诪讝讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘砖讘讬注讬 讜诪讙诇讞 讘砖讘讬注讬 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讘砖诪讬谞讬 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讘砖诪讬谞讬 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇诪爪讜专注

MISHNA: With regard to the shaving of ritual impurity performed by a nazirite who became impure during his naziriteship, how is it performed? The priest would sprinkle the waters of purification on him on the third and the seventh days after he contracted his impurity, as performed for all those who contracted impurity imparted by a corpse. And he shaves his hair on the seventh day and brings his offerings on the eighth day. And if he shaved on the eighth day he brings his offerings on that day, this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: What is the difference between this ritual and that of a leper? A leper also shaves on the seventh day and sacrifices his offerings on the eighth. However, if a leper shaves on the eighth day he brings his offerings on the ninth day, not on the day of his shaving.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讛 讟讛专转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讬诪讬讜 讜诪爪讜专注 讟讛专转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘转讙诇讞转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 诪注讜专讘 砖诪砖

Rabbi Akiva said to him: The purification of this impure nazirite depends on his days, as he immerses on the seventh day like all those who contract impurity imparted by a corpse, which means he is already ritually pure on the eighth day. But with regard to a leper, his purification depends on his shaving. Any immersion performed earlier is of no account, and must be repeated. And a leper brings his offering only if the sun has set following his immersion. Since offerings are not sacrificed at night, the bringing of his offering is postponed until the following day.

讙诪壮 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 讛诇诇 讙讬诇讞 讘砖诪讬谞讬 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讘转砖讬注讬 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬转讬 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讘砖诪讬谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Tarfon accept this claim from Rabbi Akiva, or did he not accept it? Come and hear an answer to this from that which Hillel the amora taught: If a nazirite shaved on the eighth day, he brings his offerings on the ninth. And if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Tarfon accepted the claim from Rabbi Akiva, let the nazirite bring his offerings on the eighth day itself, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rather, this baraita is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who remains steadfast in his rejection of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讟讘诇 讘砖讘讬注讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 讟讘诇 讘砖讘讬注讬

Rava said: This is not difficult, i.e., it is possible that Rabbi Tarfon accepted Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion with regard to a nazirite who shaved on the eighth day, and there is a difference between the two statements: In this case of the mishna, it is referring to a nazirite who immersed on the seventh day, which means that he is entirely pure on the eighth and can therefore bring his offerings on the same day after shaving. By contrast, in that case of Hillel鈥檚 baraita, it is referring to one who did not immerse on the seventh. Consequently, as he immerses on the eighth day he may sacrifice his offerings only after sunset, on the ninth day.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇讞讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讛讜砖注讬讗 讚讬转讘讬谉 讜拽讗诪专讬谉 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜谞转谞诐 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讗讬诪转讬 讛讜讗 [讘讗] 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讟讘诇 讜注砖讛 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讗讬谉 诇讗 讟讘诇 讜注砖讛 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 诇讗

Abaye said: I encountered the members of the assembly of Rav Natan bar Hoshaya sitting and saying the following: The verse states with regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] who immerses on the seventh day of his purification: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day he shall take for himself two turtledoves or two young pigeons and come before the Lord to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 15:14). When does he come to the courtyard to sacrifice his offerings? Only when he has immersed on the seventh day and performed the requirement to wait until sunset. In that case, yes, he brings his offerings, but if he has not immersed and has not performed the requirement to wait until sunset, no, he may not enter the courtyard.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖诇 讝讘 讻讝讘 讚诪讬

Apparently, this tanna maintains that one who immersed himself that day to release himself from the status of a zav is considered like an actual zav. Just as a zav is prohibited from entering the Levite camp in his state of impurity, the same applies to him on the day of his immersion, as he must wait until after sunset, when he is entirely pure.

讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜谉 讗谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 (讜讛讘讬讗 讗讜转诐) 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬诪转讬 讛讜讗 [讘讗] 讘讝诪谉 砖讟讘诇 讜注砖讛 讛注专讘 砖诪砖

Abaye adds: Upon hearing this, I said to those Sages: If that is so, with regard to an impure nazirite too, as it is written: And he shall bring them, referring to the verse 鈥淎nd on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Numbers 6:10), this can be explained in a similar manner: When does he come to the courtyard to sacrifice his offerings? When he has immersed himself and performed the requirement to wait until sunset.

Scroll To Top