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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 7, 2015 | 讻状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 46

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讝专拽 注诇讬讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讛讜转专 讛谞讝讬专 诇砖转讜转 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讛讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says: Once the blood of one of the offerings has been sprinkled on the nazirite鈥檚 behalf, the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to contract ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The rest of the ritual is not indispensable for his purification.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗讞专 讬砖转讛 讛谞讝讬专 讬讬谉 讗讞专 讛诪注砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞专 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It states at the end of the passage dealing with naziriteship: 鈥淎nd after that the nazirite may drink wine鈥 (Numbers 6:20), which means after all the actions, i.e., after he has sacrificed all the offerings and shaved, thereby completing the entire ritual of a nazirite. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: After a single action. He may drink wine after sacrificing one offering, even if he has yet to shave, as shaving is not indispensable for being permitted to drink wine.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讗讞专 讬砖转讛 讛谞讝讬专 讬讬谉 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讗讞专 讛转讙诇讞讜 讗转 谞讝专讜 诪讛 讛转诐 讗讞专 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讞专 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of the Rabbis? It is written here: 鈥淎nd after that the nazirite may drink wine,鈥 and it is written there, in the previous verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the cooked foreleg鈥nd place it on the palms of the nazirite after he has shaven his naziriteship鈥 (Numbers 6:19). It is derived by verbal analogy: Just as there the term 鈥渁fter鈥 means after a single action, i.e., shaving, here too, the term 鈥渁fter鈥 means after a single action, sacrificing one offering.

讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Perhaps one can say that a nazirite is not permitted to drink wine until there are both actions, i.e., sacrificing an offering and shaving, as implied by a straightforward reading of the verse. The Gemara answers: If so, why do I need this verbal analogy? It must be teaching that a nazirite can drink wine after the performance of a single action.

讗诪专 专讘 转谞讜驻讛 讘谞讝讬专 诪注讻讘转 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 转讙诇讞转 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 转谞讜驻讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav said: The priest鈥檚 lack of waving of the offering of a nazirite precludes the release of the prohibitions of his naziriteship. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion did Rav state this halakha? If we say that he spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, this is difficult, as the Rabbis say that even lack of shaving does not preclude the completion of his naziriteship. Is it necessary, then, to state that waving, which is not indispensable in the case of other offerings, is not essential for the ritual of a nazirite?

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讞专 诪注砖讬诐 讻讜诇诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注谞讬谉 讻驻专讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 转注讻讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, will you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits a nazirite to drink wine only after he has completed the entire ritual? This is obvious; didn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say that he is permitted to drink wine only after all the actions are completed? The Gemara answers that the statement is necessary, lest you say: Since with regard to the atonement effected by all other offerings, waving is considered a peripheral aspect of the mitzva, i.e., one achieves atonement even if he did not perform the ritual of waving, here too its lack does not preclude the release of a nazirite鈥檚 prohibitions. Rav therefore teaches us that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer waving is essential in the case of a nazirite.

讜诪讬 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻驻讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讻驻讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion: And does a lack of waving preclude the performance of the purification ritual of a nazirite? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:5): The inclusive phrase: 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite,鈥 (Numbers 6:21) teaches that all nazirites are bound by the same halakha, whether he has palms, or whether he does not have palms. Since one who is lacking palms certainly cannot wave, this indicates that waving is not essential.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖注专 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 砖注专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讝讬专 诪诪讜专讟 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注讘讬专 转注专 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛注讘讬专 转注专 注诇 专讗砖讜

The Gemara refutes this proof: But what about that which is taught in a similar baraita (Tosefta 1:5): 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite鈥 whether he has hair or whether he does not have hair; so too, will you explain that lack of shaving does not preclude the ritual in the case of one who has no hair? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:6): With regard to an entirely bald nazirite, who cannot shave his hair with a razor as required, Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: He must pass a razor over his head.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讛讗 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讬砖 诇讜 转拽谞讛

And Ravina said: What is the meaning of the term: Need not, stated by Beit Shammai? It means that he need not shave, and he has no remedy, and he has no way to complete his naziriteship. This indicates that according to Beit Hillel he does have a remedy, i.e., he can pass a razor over his head and thereby fulfill the mitzva, despite the fact that he does not have any hair. Similarly, one can say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that waving is indispensable, and when the baraita states: Whether he has palms or whether he does not have palms, could mean that waving is indispensable.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 驻讚转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚

The Gemara adds: And this interpretation, that Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer maintain one who is unable to perform the action mandated by the Torah has no remedy and cannot complete his naziriteship, is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Pedat. As Rabbi Pedat said: Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing, i.e., they follow the same principle.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛谉 讬讚 讜专讙诇 讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讛专讛 注讜诇诪讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬谞讬讞谞讜 注诇 诪拽讜诪讜 讜讬爪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬谞讬讞 注诇 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 讜讬爪讗

To what statement of Rabbi Eliezer is Rabbi Pedat referring? As it is taught in a baraita: A leper who does not have a thumb or big toe, upon both of which he must place the blood and oil of his purification ritual (Leviticus 14:14) can never attain ritual purity. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest puts it on the spot of the missing thumb, and the leper thereby fulfills his obligation. The Rabbis say: Let him put it on the left thumb and thereby fulfill his obligation. According to Rabbi Pedat, Rabbi Eliezer and Beit Shammai both maintain that if the ritual cannot be performed in the precise manner delineated, one cannot fulfill his obligation and has no remedy. This is one version of the discussion.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 转谞讜驻讛 讘谞讝讬专 诪注讻讘转 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讞专 诪注砖讬诐 讻讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 转讙诇讞转 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 转谞讜驻讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara cites another version of this discussion. Some say that Rav said: The priest鈥檚 lack of waving of the offering of a nazirite precludes the release of the prohibitions of his naziriteship. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion did he state this halakha? If we say that he spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this is obvious; didn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say that he is permitted to drink wine only after all his actions, including waving? Rather, you will say that Rav spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, this too is puzzling: Now that one can say that with regard to shaving, a central part of the naziriteship ritual, the Rabbis say that its omission does not preclude the fulfillment of his ritual, is it necessary to state that waving is not essential?

讜诪讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻驻讬诐 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讻驻讬诐 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖注专 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 砖注专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪注讻讘讗

The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 the lack of waving preclude a nazirite鈥檚 ritual? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:5): The inclusive phrase: 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite,鈥 teaches that whether he has palms or whether he does not have palms waving is always required, and a nazirite is not exempted by a lack of palms. The Gemara questions this interpretation of the baraita. But what about that which is taught in the same baraita (Tosefta 1:5): 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite,鈥 whether he has hair or whether he does not have hair; so too, will you say that the lack of shaving precludes his ritual?

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讝讬专 诪诪讜专讟 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注讘讬专 转注专 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 爪专讬讱 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 爪专讬讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:6): With regard to an entirely bald nazirite, Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: He must pass a razor over his head. This baraita indicates that even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel a nazirite does not have to actually shave. Rabbi Avina said: What is the meaning of: He must, as stated by Beit Hillel? It means that he must shave, and if he fails to do so he has no remedy, and can never drink wine.

诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讬砖 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 驻讚转

Conversely, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai he has a remedy, as he does not have to use a razor at all. And this interpretation disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat. Rabbi Pedat claims that both Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer maintain that if the ritual cannot be performed in the precise manner delineated, one cannot fulfill his obligation and has no remedy. By contrast, Rabbi Avina contends that Beit Shammai exempt the nazirite from this obligation, while Beit Hillel say that he has no remedy.

诪转谞讬壮 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讛讝讘讞 讜谞诪爪讗 驻住讜诇 转讙诇讞转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讝讘讞讬讜 诇讗 注诇讜 诇讜 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讛讞讟讗转 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诇砖诪谉 转讙诇讞转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讝讘讞讬讜 诇讗 注诇讜 诇讜 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讛注讜诇讛 讗讜 注诇 讛砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诇砖诪谉 转讙诇讞转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讝讘讞讬讜 诇讗 注诇讜 诇讜

MISHNA: As taught earlier (45a) the nazirite shaves after having brought one, or all, of his offerings. This mishna discusses what the halakha is if the offering was found to be invalid after the nazirite had shaved. If a nazirite shaved based upon the requisite offering, and afterward the offering was found to be invalid for any reason, his shaving is invalid and his offerings do not count toward the fulfillment of his obligation. If he shaved based upon the sin-offering, that was found to have been sacrificed not for its own sake, which invalidates the offering, and afterward he brought his other offerings for their own sake, his shaving is invalid and his other offerings do not count toward the fulfillment of his obligation. If he shaved based upon the requisite burnt-offering or having brought the requisite peace-offering, and these were offered not for their own sake, and afterward he brought his remaining offerings for their own sake, his shaving is invalid and his offerings do not count toward the fulfillment of his obligation.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讛讝讘讞 诇讗 注诇讛 诇讜 讗讘诇 砖讗专 讝讘讞讬诐 注诇讜 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 注诇 砖诇砖转谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讻砖专 转讙诇讞转讜 讻砖专讛 讜讬讘讬讗 砖讗专 讝讘讞讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who shaved based upon a burnt-offering or a peace-offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake, that offering, which was performed incorrectly, does not count toward the fulfillment of his obligation; however, his other offerings do count. And everyone agrees that if he shaved based upon all three of them, i.e., he brought all three offerings, without specifying which offering he is basing his shaving upon, and even one of them was found valid, his shaving is valid, but he must bring the other offerings in order to fulfill his obligation.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 拽住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞讝讬专 砖讙讬诇讞 注诇 砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转谉 注诇 讛讗砖 讗砖专 转讞转 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 注诇 砖诇诪讬讜

GEMARA: Rav Adda bar Ahava said: That is to say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that a nazirite who shaved based upon voluntary peace-offerings has fulfilled his obligation. A peace-offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake does not count toward the fulfillment of one鈥檚 obligation but is considered a voluntary gift-offering. It is clear from the mishna that Rabbi Shimon maintains that shaving based upon any valid offering, even a peace-offering of this type, is effective. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering鈥 (Numbers 6:18), and it is not written: On his peace-offering. This indicates that he fulfills his obligation with any type of peace-offering.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 46

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讝专拽 注诇讬讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讛讜转专 讛谞讝讬专 诇砖转讜转 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讛讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says: Once the blood of one of the offerings has been sprinkled on the nazirite鈥檚 behalf, the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to contract ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The rest of the ritual is not indispensable for his purification.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗讞专 讬砖转讛 讛谞讝讬专 讬讬谉 讗讞专 讛诪注砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞专 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It states at the end of the passage dealing with naziriteship: 鈥淎nd after that the nazirite may drink wine鈥 (Numbers 6:20), which means after all the actions, i.e., after he has sacrificed all the offerings and shaved, thereby completing the entire ritual of a nazirite. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: After a single action. He may drink wine after sacrificing one offering, even if he has yet to shave, as shaving is not indispensable for being permitted to drink wine.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讗讞专 讬砖转讛 讛谞讝讬专 讬讬谉 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讗讞专 讛转讙诇讞讜 讗转 谞讝专讜 诪讛 讛转诐 讗讞专 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讞专 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of the Rabbis? It is written here: 鈥淎nd after that the nazirite may drink wine,鈥 and it is written there, in the previous verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the cooked foreleg鈥nd place it on the palms of the nazirite after he has shaven his naziriteship鈥 (Numbers 6:19). It is derived by verbal analogy: Just as there the term 鈥渁fter鈥 means after a single action, i.e., shaving, here too, the term 鈥渁fter鈥 means after a single action, sacrificing one offering.

讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Perhaps one can say that a nazirite is not permitted to drink wine until there are both actions, i.e., sacrificing an offering and shaving, as implied by a straightforward reading of the verse. The Gemara answers: If so, why do I need this verbal analogy? It must be teaching that a nazirite can drink wine after the performance of a single action.

讗诪专 专讘 转谞讜驻讛 讘谞讝讬专 诪注讻讘转 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 转讙诇讞转 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 转谞讜驻讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav said: The priest鈥檚 lack of waving of the offering of a nazirite precludes the release of the prohibitions of his naziriteship. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion did Rav state this halakha? If we say that he spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, this is difficult, as the Rabbis say that even lack of shaving does not preclude the completion of his naziriteship. Is it necessary, then, to state that waving, which is not indispensable in the case of other offerings, is not essential for the ritual of a nazirite?

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讞专 诪注砖讬诐 讻讜诇诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注谞讬谉 讻驻专讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 转注讻讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, will you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits a nazirite to drink wine only after he has completed the entire ritual? This is obvious; didn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say that he is permitted to drink wine only after all the actions are completed? The Gemara answers that the statement is necessary, lest you say: Since with regard to the atonement effected by all other offerings, waving is considered a peripheral aspect of the mitzva, i.e., one achieves atonement even if he did not perform the ritual of waving, here too its lack does not preclude the release of a nazirite鈥檚 prohibitions. Rav therefore teaches us that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer waving is essential in the case of a nazirite.

讜诪讬 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻驻讬诐 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讻驻讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion: And does a lack of waving preclude the performance of the purification ritual of a nazirite? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:5): The inclusive phrase: 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite,鈥 (Numbers 6:21) teaches that all nazirites are bound by the same halakha, whether he has palms, or whether he does not have palms. Since one who is lacking palms certainly cannot wave, this indicates that waving is not essential.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖注专 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 砖注专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讝讬专 诪诪讜专讟 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注讘讬专 转注专 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛注讘讬专 转注专 注诇 专讗砖讜

The Gemara refutes this proof: But what about that which is taught in a similar baraita (Tosefta 1:5): 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite鈥 whether he has hair or whether he does not have hair; so too, will you explain that lack of shaving does not preclude the ritual in the case of one who has no hair? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:6): With regard to an entirely bald nazirite, who cannot shave his hair with a razor as required, Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: He must pass a razor over his head.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讛讗 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讬砖 诇讜 转拽谞讛

And Ravina said: What is the meaning of the term: Need not, stated by Beit Shammai? It means that he need not shave, and he has no remedy, and he has no way to complete his naziriteship. This indicates that according to Beit Hillel he does have a remedy, i.e., he can pass a razor over his head and thereby fulfill the mitzva, despite the fact that he does not have any hair. Similarly, one can say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that waving is indispensable, and when the baraita states: Whether he has palms or whether he does not have palms, could mean that waving is indispensable.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 驻讚转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚

The Gemara adds: And this interpretation, that Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer maintain one who is unable to perform the action mandated by the Torah has no remedy and cannot complete his naziriteship, is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Pedat. As Rabbi Pedat said: Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing, i.e., they follow the same principle.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛谉 讬讚 讜专讙诇 讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讛专讛 注讜诇诪讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬谞讬讞谞讜 注诇 诪拽讜诪讜 讜讬爪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬谞讬讞 注诇 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 讜讬爪讗

To what statement of Rabbi Eliezer is Rabbi Pedat referring? As it is taught in a baraita: A leper who does not have a thumb or big toe, upon both of which he must place the blood and oil of his purification ritual (Leviticus 14:14) can never attain ritual purity. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest puts it on the spot of the missing thumb, and the leper thereby fulfills his obligation. The Rabbis say: Let him put it on the left thumb and thereby fulfill his obligation. According to Rabbi Pedat, Rabbi Eliezer and Beit Shammai both maintain that if the ritual cannot be performed in the precise manner delineated, one cannot fulfill his obligation and has no remedy. This is one version of the discussion.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 转谞讜驻讛 讘谞讝讬专 诪注讻讘转 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讞专 诪注砖讬诐 讻讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 转讙诇讞转 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 转谞讜驻讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara cites another version of this discussion. Some say that Rav said: The priest鈥檚 lack of waving of the offering of a nazirite precludes the release of the prohibitions of his naziriteship. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion did he state this halakha? If we say that he spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this is obvious; didn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say that he is permitted to drink wine only after all his actions, including waving? Rather, you will say that Rav spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, this too is puzzling: Now that one can say that with regard to shaving, a central part of the naziriteship ritual, the Rabbis say that its omission does not preclude the fulfillment of his ritual, is it necessary to state that waving is not essential?

讜诪讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻驻讬诐 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讻驻讬诐 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖注专 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 砖注专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪注讻讘讗

The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 the lack of waving preclude a nazirite鈥檚 ritual? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:5): The inclusive phrase: 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite,鈥 teaches that whether he has palms or whether he does not have palms waving is always required, and a nazirite is not exempted by a lack of palms. The Gemara questions this interpretation of the baraita. But what about that which is taught in the same baraita (Tosefta 1:5): 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite,鈥 whether he has hair or whether he does not have hair; so too, will you say that the lack of shaving precludes his ritual?

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讝讬专 诪诪讜专讟 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注讘讬专 转注专 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 爪专讬讱 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 爪专讬讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:6): With regard to an entirely bald nazirite, Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: He must pass a razor over his head. This baraita indicates that even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel a nazirite does not have to actually shave. Rabbi Avina said: What is the meaning of: He must, as stated by Beit Hillel? It means that he must shave, and if he fails to do so he has no remedy, and can never drink wine.

诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讬砖 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 驻讚转

Conversely, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai he has a remedy, as he does not have to use a razor at all. And this interpretation disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat. Rabbi Pedat claims that both Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer maintain that if the ritual cannot be performed in the precise manner delineated, one cannot fulfill his obligation and has no remedy. By contrast, Rabbi Avina contends that Beit Shammai exempt the nazirite from this obligation, while Beit Hillel say that he has no remedy.

诪转谞讬壮 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讛讝讘讞 讜谞诪爪讗 驻住讜诇 转讙诇讞转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讝讘讞讬讜 诇讗 注诇讜 诇讜 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讛讞讟讗转 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诇砖诪谉 转讙诇讞转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讝讘讞讬讜 诇讗 注诇讜 诇讜 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讛注讜诇讛 讗讜 注诇 讛砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诇砖诪谉 转讙诇讞转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讝讘讞讬讜 诇讗 注诇讜 诇讜

MISHNA: As taught earlier (45a) the nazirite shaves after having brought one, or all, of his offerings. This mishna discusses what the halakha is if the offering was found to be invalid after the nazirite had shaved. If a nazirite shaved based upon the requisite offering, and afterward the offering was found to be invalid for any reason, his shaving is invalid and his offerings do not count toward the fulfillment of his obligation. If he shaved based upon the sin-offering, that was found to have been sacrificed not for its own sake, which invalidates the offering, and afterward he brought his other offerings for their own sake, his shaving is invalid and his other offerings do not count toward the fulfillment of his obligation. If he shaved based upon the requisite burnt-offering or having brought the requisite peace-offering, and these were offered not for their own sake, and afterward he brought his remaining offerings for their own sake, his shaving is invalid and his offerings do not count toward the fulfillment of his obligation.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讛讝讘讞 诇讗 注诇讛 诇讜 讗讘诇 砖讗专 讝讘讞讬诐 注诇讜 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 注诇 砖诇砖转谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讻砖专 转讙诇讞转讜 讻砖专讛 讜讬讘讬讗 砖讗专 讝讘讞讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who shaved based upon a burnt-offering or a peace-offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake, that offering, which was performed incorrectly, does not count toward the fulfillment of his obligation; however, his other offerings do count. And everyone agrees that if he shaved based upon all three of them, i.e., he brought all three offerings, without specifying which offering he is basing his shaving upon, and even one of them was found valid, his shaving is valid, but he must bring the other offerings in order to fulfill his obligation.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 拽住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞讝讬专 砖讙讬诇讞 注诇 砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转谉 注诇 讛讗砖 讗砖专 转讞转 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 注诇 砖诇诪讬讜

GEMARA: Rav Adda bar Ahava said: That is to say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that a nazirite who shaved based upon voluntary peace-offerings has fulfilled his obligation. A peace-offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake does not count toward the fulfillment of one鈥檚 obligation but is considered a voluntary gift-offering. It is clear from the mishna that Rabbi Shimon maintains that shaving based upon any valid offering, even a peace-offering of this type, is effective. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering鈥 (Numbers 6:18), and it is not written: On his peace-offering. This indicates that he fulfills his obligation with any type of peace-offering.

Scroll To Top