Nazir 45

מכדי שערי ניקנור היכא קיימין בשערי לוייה

Abaye continues: Now consider the Gate of Nicanor, where all those lacking atonement stand to bring their offerings; where is it located? In the gates of the Levites. Three camps are detailed in the verses, each having its own restrictions as to who may or may not enter them (see Numbers, chapter 5). The verses speak of the camps of the Jewish people in the wilderness, and the Sages taught that the statuses of certain areas of Jerusalem corresponded to those camps. The camps in the wilderness were the Israelite camp, the Levite camp, and the camp of the Divine Presence. They correspond to Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Temple itself. The Gate of Nicanor had the status of the Levite camp.

והתניא טמא מת מותר ליכנס במחנה לוייה ולא טמא מת בלבד אלא אפילו מת עצמו שנאמר ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו מאי עמו עמו במחיצתו עמו במחנה לוייה

Abaye continues: But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kelim 1:8) that one who is impure due to contact with a corpse is permitted to enter the Levite camp; and not only one impure from a corpse, but even a corpse itself may be brought inside the Levite camp, as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19). The baraita explains: What is the meaning of “with him”? The phrase “with him” indicates that Joseph’s bones were taken within Moses’s boundary, with him in the Levite camp. This demonstrates that even a corpse may be brought into the Levite camp. If so, certainly a nazirite who was impure from contact with a corpse and who has been sprinkled and immersed may enter there. Consequently, the halakha that a nazirite must wait until the eighth day to sacrifice his offerings cannot be due to a prohibition against entering the Gate of Nicanor. One can similarly infer that the halakha that a zav who has immersed may not bring his offerings before the eighth day is not because he is prohibited from entering the Gate of Nicanor.

אלא (אמר אביי) טבול יום של זב כזב דמי ואפילו הכי כיון דמחוסר כפרה לא עייל

Rather, Abaye says: The baraita should be understood slightly differently than suggested by the assembly of Rav Natan bar Hoshaya: One who immersed himself that day to release himself from the status of a zav, i.e., a full-fledged zav, who experienced three emissions, not merely two, is considered like a zav with regard to the prohibition against entering the Levite camp. But the reason for this prohibition is not that a zav who immersed himself that day may not enter the Levite camp. Rather, granted that he is permitted to enter the Levite camp in terms of his impurity, even so, since he is lacking atonement, as he has yet to sacrifice his offerings, he may not enter the Levite camp.

ואי במחנה לוייה קאי אמאי קא קרי ליה אהל מועד למימרא מה התם מחוסר כפרה לא עייל אף למחנה לוייה נמי מחוסר כפרה לא עייל

Abaye elaborates: The reason he may not enter is that the Torah states with regard to a zav: “And he shall come before the Lord to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 15:14), and if he is standing in the Levite camp, at the Gate of Nicanor, when he brings his offerings, why does the Torah call it “the Tent of Meeting”? Rather, this verse must be coming to say: Just as there, with regard to the Tent of Meeting itself, i.e., the camp of the Divine Presence, one who is lacking atonement may not enter there, so too, with regard to the Levite camp as well, one who is lacking atonement may not enter there.

והתם מנלן דתניא טמא יהיה לרבות טבול יום עוד טומאתו בו לרבות מחוסר כפרה

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one who lacks atonement may not enter there, i.e., the camp of the Divine Presence? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to the prohibition against an impure person entering the Tabernacle: “He shall be impure; his impurity is yet upon him” (Numbers 19:13). The phrase “he shall be impure” serves to include one who immersed himself that day in the prohibition against entering the Temple. “His impurity is yet upon him” serves to include one who lacks atonement, who is prohibited from entering the camp of the Divine Presence until he has sacrificed his offerings of purity.

מתני׳ תגלחת הטהרה כיצד היה מביא שלש בהמות חטאת עולה ושלמים ושוחט את השלמים ומגלח עליהם דברי רבי יהודה רבי אלעזר אומר לא היה מגלח אלא על החטאת שהחטאת קודמת בכל מקום ואם גלח על אחת משלשתן יצא

MISHNA: With regard to a nazirite’s shaving of purity after the completion of his term of naziriteship, how is it performed? He would bring three animals: One for a sin-offering, one for a burnt-offering, and one for a peace-offering. And he slaughters the peace-offering and shaves his hair after he slaughters them. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar says: He would shave only after he slaughtered the sin-offering, as the sin-offering precedes the other offerings in all places, and therefore he sacrifices the sin-offering first. He shaves his hair after he slaughters this offering. And if he shaved after the sacrifice of any one of the three of them, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר הביא שלש בהמות ולא פירש הראויה לחטאת תקרב חטאת לעולה תקרב עולה לשלמים תקרב שלמים

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If a nazirite brought three animals without specifying which of them was for which offering, the one that is fit for a sin-offering, i.e., a female sheep in its first year, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; that which is fit for a burnt-offering, a male sheep in its first year, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and that which is fit for a peace-offering, a ram, i.e., a male sheep over the age of one year, is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן וגלח הנזיר פתח אהל מועד וגו׳ בשלמים הכתוב מדבר שנאמר ושחטו פתח אהל מועד

GEMARA: The Gemara first addresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whose reasoning was not stated in the mishna. The Sages taught that when the Torah states: “And the nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 6:18), the verse is speaking of the peace-offering, as the phrase “the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” alludes to a peace-offering, as it is stated: “And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offering…and he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:1–2).

אתה אומר בשלמים הכתוב מדבר או אינו אלא פתח אהל מועד ממש אמרת אם כן דרך בזיון הוא

Do you say the verse is speaking of the peace-offering, i.e., that the nazirite shaves after bringing his peace-offering? Or perhaps it is only teaching that he shaves at the actual entrance to the Tent of Meeting, at the gate to the Sanctuary, as indicated by a literal reading of the verse? You can say in response: If so, that is a degrading manner of service, to shave at the entrance to the Sanctuary.

רבי יאשיה אומר אינו צריך הרי אמרה תורה לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי קל וחומר לדרך בזיון

Rabbi Yoshiya says: This proof is not necessary, as the Torah states: “And you shall not ascend by steps to My altar, so that you should not reveal your nakedness upon it” (Exodus 20:23). If the Torah is concerned about the disrespect to the altar presented by normal human behavior, then by an a fortiori inference the Torah prohibits acting in a degrading manner by shaving at the entrance to the Sanctuary.

[נא במדרש בפרשה נשא (דף מאתים ארבעים ושנים) וגלח הנזיר רבי יאשיה אומר בשלמים הכתוב מדבר או אינו וכו׳ אם כך אמרה תורה לא תעלה וכו׳ קל וחומר לדבר שלא יגלח פתח אהל מועד אלא בשלמים הכתוב מדבר]

A different version of this derivation is stated in the midrash to the Torah portion of Naso. The Torah states: “And the nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and shall take the hair of his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering” (Numbers 6:18). Rabbi Yoshiya says: The verse is speaking of the peace-offering. Or perhaps it is only teaching that he shaves at the actual entrance to the Tent of Meeting? If so, the Torah said: “And you shall not ascend by steps to My altar” (Exodus 20:23). By an a fortiori inference with regard to this matter it is derived that he should not shave at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Rather, the verse is speaking of the peace-offering.

רבי יצחק אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר ולקח את שער ראש נזרו ונתן על האש וגו׳ מי שאינו מחוסר אלא לקיחה ונתינה יצא זה שהוא מחוסר לקיחה הבאה ונתינה

Rabbi Yitzḥak says: It is not necessary to cite an indirect proof that a nazirite may not shave at the entrance to the Sanctuary, as the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And he shall take the hair of his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering” (Numbers 6:18). The verse is referring to one who has not yet performed only the stages of taking and placing his shaven hair under the pot of the peace-offering, which is outside the Sanctuary. These two stages are the only ones he lacks; he does not have to do any other action. That excludes this one, a nazirite who shaved at the entrance to the Sanctuary, as he has not yet performed three actions, taking, bringing the hair from one sanctified area to another, and placing his shaven hair under the pot of the peace-offering.

איכא דאמרי רבי יצחק אומר בשלמים הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בשלמים הכתוב מדבר או אינו אלא פתח אהל מועד ממש תלמוד לומר ולקח את שער ראש נזרו מקום שהיה מבשל שם היה מגלח

Some say a different version of this statement. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The verse is referring to the peace-offering. He clarifies his assertion: Do you say the verse is speaking of the peace-offering, or is it teaching only that he shaves at the actual entrance to the Tent of Meeting? The verse states: “And he shall take the hair of his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering” (Numbers 6:18). This indicates that in the same place where he would cook the peace-offering, outside the courtyard, there he would shave.

אבא חנן אומר משום רבי אליעזר וגלח הנזיר פתח אהל מועד כל זמן שאין פתח אהל מועד פתוח אינו מגלח

Abba Ḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that the verse “And the nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 6:18) is referring to the time rather than the place of his shaving, i.e., this verse teaches that as long as the entrance to the Tent of Meeting is not open, he may not shave. He may shave only during those hours when the entrance to the Sanctuary is open.

רבי שמעון שזורי אומר וגלח הנזיר פתח אהל מועד ולא נזירה

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: The phrase “And the nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” does not refer to the place of his shaving. Rather, the masculine form of the word nazirite serves to emphasize that this applies to a male nazirite and not a female nazirite. A woman does not shave her head in the Sanctuary,

שמא יתגרו בה פרחי כהונה אמר לו לדבריך סוטה תוכיח דכתיב בה והעמידה לפני ה׳ ולא חיישינן שמא יתגרו בה פרחי כהונה

lest the young priests [pirḥei khehuna] present will become aroused by her when she uncovers her hair in their presence. One of the other Sages said to Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: According to your statement, the case of a sota will prove that this is not a concern, as it is written with regard to her: “And he shall set her before the Lord” (Numbers 5:16), and yet we are not concerned that perhaps the young priests will become aroused by her when her hair is uncovered.

אמר להן זו כוחלת ופוקסת זו אינה כוחלת ופוקסת

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said to them: There is a difference between a female nazirite and a sota. This one, the nazirite, paints her eyes blue [koḥelet] and applies blush [fokeset] to her face, and therefore there is a concern that young priests might be aroused by her appearance. By contrast, that one, the sota, does not apply blue eye shadow and does not apply blush. Since a sota is not beautified, but is made to appear wretched and looks disheveled, there is no concern that she might arouse the men.

מתני׳ היה נוטל שער ראש נזרו ומשלח תחת הדוד ואם גילח במדינה לא היה משלח תחת הדוד במה דברים אמורים בתגלחת הטהרה אבל בתגלחת הטומאה לא היה משלח תחת הדוד

MISHNA: After the nazirite shaved off his hair, he would take the hair of his consecrated head and throw it under the pot in which the peace-offering was cooked, where it would burn. And if the nazirite shaved in the rest of the country, i.e., outside the Temple, he would not throw the hair under the pot. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the shaving of purity. However, with regard to the shaving of impurity, i.e., shaving that accompanied his guilt-offering and sin-offering of birds after his term of naziriteship was interrupted by impurity, he would not throw his hair under the pot in which his offerings were cooked, as the Torah stated this requirement only for a pure nazirite.

רבי מאיר אומר הכל משלחין תחת הדוד חוץ מן הטמא שבמדינה בלבד

Rabbi Meir says: Everyone throws his hair under the pot, including a pure nazirite who shaved outside the Temple and an impure nazirite, except for an impure nazirite who shaved in the rest of the country. In that case alone he refrains from throwing his hair to be burned beneath his offering.

גמ׳ נוטל שער ראש נזרו תנו רבנן ואחר כך נוטל את הרוטב ונותן על שער ראש נזרו ומשלח תחת הדוד של שלמים ואם שילח תחת הדוד של חטאת ואשם יצא אשם בנזיר [טהור] מי איכא אמר רבא הכי קאמר ואם נזיר טמא משלח תחת הדוד של אשם יצא

GEMARA: The mishna states that he would take the hair of his consecrated head. The Sages taught: And afterward, after cooking the peace-offering, he takes the gravy [rotev] in which the offering had been cooked, places it on the shaven hair of his consecrated head, and throws the hair under the pot of his peace-offering. And if he threw his hair under the pot of the sin-offering or the guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is there a guilt-offering brought by a pure nazirite? Only an impure nazirite brings a guilt-offering. Rava said that this is what the tanna said, i.e., meant: And if an impure nazirite threw his hair under the pot of the guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation.

מנא הני מילי אמר רבא אמר קרא אשר תחת זבח השלמים מזבחו יהא תחתיו

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that he must pour gravy from the offering over his hair? Rava said that as the verse states: “And he shall take the hair of his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering” (Numbers 6:18), this indicates that part of his sacrifice must be under the hair.

ואם שילח תחת הדוד של חטאת יצא מאי טעמא אמר קרא זבח לרבות את החטאת ואשם והא אפיקתיה להאי זבח מרוטב אם כן לימא קרא מרוטב השלמים מאי זבח שמע מינה לרבות חטאת ואשם

With regard to the statement of the baraita: And if he threw his hair under the pot of the sin-offering he has fulfilled his obligation, the Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “The sacrifice of the peace-offering,” when it could simply have stated: The peace-offering. This serves to include the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, which are also sacrifices. The Gemara asks: But you have already derived from this term “sacrifice” that he must pour part of the gravy of the peace-offering over his hair. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say explicitly: From the gravy of the peace-offering. Why does it state: “Sacrifice”? Learn from here that it serves to include the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.

ואימא כולה לחטאת ואשם הוא דאתא אם כן לימא שלמים וזבח מאי זבח השלמים שמע מינה תרתי

The Gemara questions this statement from a different perspective: And one can say that this verse comes entirely to teach about the sin-offering and guilt-offering, and it does not refer to the gravy at all. The Gemara answers: If so, let it state: Peace-offering and a sacrifice; for what reason does it write: “The sacrifice of the peace-offering”? Conclude two conclusions from the verse.

תנו רבנן הכל היו משלחין תחת הדוד חוץ מטמא שגילח במדינה מפני ששערו נקבר דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר טהורים כאן וכאן היו משלחין טמאים כאן וכאן לא היו משלחין וחכמים אומרים הכל לא היו משלחין תחת הדוד חוץ מן טהור שבמקדש מפני שנעשה כמצותו

§ The Sages taught (Tosefta 4:6): All nazirites would throw their hair under the pot, except for an impure nazirite who shaved in the rest of the country, because that one’s hair is buried. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Pure nazirites, whether they are here or there, inside or outside the Temple, would throw their hair under the pot; impure nazirites, whether here or there, would not throw it. And the Rabbis say: None would throw their hair under the pot, except for a pure nazirite in the Temple, because only in that case is the mitzva performed properly, as commanded by the Torah.

מתני׳ היה מבשל את השלמים או שולקן הכהן נוטל את הזרוע בשלה מן האיל וחלה מצה אחת מן הסל ורקיק מצה אחת ונותן על כפי הנזיר ומניפן ואחר כך הותר הנזיר לשתות יין ולהטמא למתים

MISHNA: The nazirite would cook the peace-offering or overcook it, i.e., cook it thoroughly. The priest takes the cooked foreleg from the ram, and one unleavened loaf from the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and places them on the palms of the nazirite and waves them, as described in the Torah (Numbers 6:19–20). And afterward the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to contract ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.