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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 20, 2015 | 讝壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Nazir 59

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注讘讬专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讜讘讬转 讛注专讜讛 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛注讘专转 砖讬注专 讗讬谞讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪注讘讬专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讜讘讬转 讛注专讜讛 讛专讬 讝讛 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛

Some say a different version of this statement: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged, due to the prohibition: 鈥淎 man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The removal of hair is not prohibited by Torah law but by rabbinic law. How then does Rabbi Yo岣nan say that he is flogged, which by definition is a punishment for individuals who have transgressed a Torah law? The Gemara answers: It was he who said this halakha in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair violates the prohibition of: 鈥淎 man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment.鈥

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讻诇讬 讙讘专 注诇 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 砖诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讗讬砖 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 砖诪诇转 讗讬砖 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 转讜注讘讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 讻讗谉 转讜注讘讛

The Gemara asks: And what does the first tanna, who holds that the prohibition is by rabbinic law, learn from this verse: 鈥淎 man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in the baraita, where it states: 鈥淎 woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5). What is the meaning when the verse states this? If it teaches only that a man may not put on a woman鈥檚 garment, and a woman may not wear a man鈥檚 garment, it is already stated in explanation of this prohibition that 鈥渋t is an abomination to the Lord your God,鈥 and there is no abomination here in the mere act of wearing a garment.

讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讗讬砖 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛 讜讬砖讘 讘讬谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讗砖讛 砖诪诇转 讗讬砖 讜转砖讘 讘讬谉 讛讗谞砖讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 诇诪诇讞诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讻诇讬 讙讘专 注诇 讗砖讛 讜诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛 砖诇讗 讬转拽谉 讗讬砖 讘转讬拽讜谞讬 讗砖讛

Rather, it means that a man may not wear a woman鈥檚 garment and thereby go and sit among the women; and a woman may not wear a man鈥檚 garment and sit among the men. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: From where is it derived that a woman may not go out with weapons to war? The verse states: 鈥淎 woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment,鈥 which indicates that a man may not adorn himself with the cosmetics and ornaments of a woman, and similarly a woman may not go out with weapons to war, as those are for the use of males. Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling follows this opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘谞讝讬专 诪讜转专 讜诇讬转 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 诪讞诪转 讝拽谞讛 谞砖专讜

Rav Na岣an said: For a nazirite, it is permitted to shave armpit hair. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara reports that the Sages said to Rabbi Shimon bar Abba: We have observed that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not have armpit hairs, despite his own ruling that it is prohibited to shave them. He said to them: They fell out due to old age.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗讬转讞讬讬讘 谞讙讬讚讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗讬讙诇讗讬 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讞讝讬讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讙诇讞 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 专讘讬 讗诪讬 砖讬讘拽讜讛 讚讬谉 诪谉 讞讘专讬讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who committed a transgression and was found liable to receive lashes before Rabbi Ami. When they removed his clothes to flog him, his armpit was exposed, and Rabbi Ami saw that he had not shaved his armpit hair. Rabbi Ami said to his attendants: Leave him; this is one of those who are meticulous in observance of mitzvot. We can see this is so, as he is particular about prohibitions that ordinary people do not observe.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讛讜 诇讙诇讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 讙讚诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 驻讞转讬 讝诪谉 讬砖 诇讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讙讚诇 谞讜砖专

Rav raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya: What is the halakha with regard to shaving armpit hair? He said to him: It is prohibited. Rav said to him: But it grows and is uncomfortable. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Son of nobles [bar pa岣ei], this hair has a limited time. Whenever a hair grows too long it falls out, and therefore there is no concern that one鈥檚 armpit hair will become too long.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讛讜 诇讞讜讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讘讘讙讚讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘转驻诇讛 讘讘讙讚讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讜诇讬转 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rav raised another dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya: What is the halakha with regard to rubbing armpit hair and thereby removing it manually? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: It is prohibited. Rav continued to ask: What is the halakha with regard to rubbing armpit hair indirectly with one鈥檚 garment? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: It is permitted. Some say that this was not Rav鈥檚 question; rather, he raised the following dilemma before him: What is the halakha with regard to rubbing the armpit with one鈥檚 garment during prayer? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: It is prohibited. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion in this case.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讬讘拽砖 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 砖讬讚讜专 讻谞讙讚讜 讘谞讝讬专

MISHNA: The previous mishna described how two nazirites sacrifice offerings of impurity and purity, in a situation in which one of them has become impure but they do not know which one. This mishna discusses what must be done if one of them dies before bringing his offerings. Rabbi Yehoshua said: The surviving nazirite asks someone in the marketplace, a non-nazirite, to vow to be a nazirite corresponding to him, i.e., under the same conditions as his own naziriteship, so that he can bring offerings together with him.

讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讟诪讗 讛讬讬转讬 讛专讬 讗转讛 谞讝讬专 诪讬讚 讜讗诐 讟讛讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讛专讬 讗转讛 谞讝讬专 讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜住讜驻专讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟诪讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讱 讜讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟讛讜专 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘住驻拽

And he says to him as follows: If I was impure, you are hereby a nazirite immediately; and if I was pure, you are hereby a nazirite after thirty days. And they both proceed to count thirty days and bring an offering of impurity and an offering of purity. And the nazirite who was defined as having uncertain impurity says: If I am the impure one, the offering of impurity is mine and the offering of purity is yours; and if I am the pure one, the offering of purity is mine and the offering of impurity we brought shall be of uncertain status.

讜住讜驻专讬诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讟诪讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讱 讜讝讛 拽专讘谉 讟讛专转讬 讜讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟讛讜专 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘住驻拽 讜讝讛讜 拽专讘谉 讟讛专转讱

And they subsequently count another thirty days and bring an offering of purity, and the first nazirite says: If I was the impure one, the offering of impurity that we sacrificed at the end of the first thirty days was mine, and the offering of purity we brought then was yours; and this offering I am bringing now is my offering of purity. And if I was the pure one, and the deceased nazirite was impure, the offering of purity we brought thirty days ago was mine, and the offering of impurity we brought earlier was of uncertain status, and this is your offering of purity.

讗诪专 诇讜 讘谉 讝讜诪讗 讜诪讬 砖讜诪注 诇讜 砖讬讚讜专 讻谞讙讚讜 讘谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讟诪讗 讛讬讬转讬 讛讞讟讗转 诪讞讜讘转讬 讜讛注讜诇讛 谞讚讘讛 讜讗诐 讟讛讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讛注讜诇讛 诪讞讜讘转讬 讜讛讞讟讗转 诪住驻拽

Ben Zoma said to Rabbi Yehoshua: And who will listen to him to vow to be a nazirite corresponding to him? How can one design a halakha on the assumption that a non-nazirite will agree to be a nazirite for a lengthy term? Rather, a different procedure is available: After thirty days of naziriteship he brings a bird sin-offering and an animal burnt-offering, and says: If I was impure, the sin-offering is for my obligation as an impure nazirite, and the burnt-offering is a regular gift offering. And if I was pure, the burnt-offering is for my obligation as a pure nazirite, and the sin-offering is of uncertain status.

讜住讜驻专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讟诪讗 讛讬讬转讬 讛注讜诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 谞讚讘讛 讜讝讜 讞讜讘讛 讜讗诐 讟讛讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讛注讜诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讞讜讘讛 讜讝讜 谞讚讘讛 讜讝讜 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讬

And he counts another thirty days, and brings an offering of purity, and says: If I was impure, the first burnt-offering I brought should be considered a gift offering, and this one I am bringing now is for my obligation. And if I was pure, the first burnt-offering I brought is for my obligation as a pure nazirite, and this one I am bringing now is a gift offering. And these, i.e., the sin-offering and peace-offering I am sacrificing now, comprises the rest of my offerings that I was obligated to bring earlier.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪爪讗 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诇讞爪讗讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讘谉 讝讜诪讗

Rabbi Yehoshua said: According to your opinion, it turns out that this nazirite brings his offerings in halves, i.e., in stages. If he was pure, he brings his burnt-offering thirty days before the rest of his offerings. However, the Rabbis agreed with ben Zoma, and disregarded the concern about splitting up the offerings.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬讬转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诇讗 诇讞讚讚 讘讛 讗转 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehoshua countered ben Zoma鈥檚 opinion by pointing out that his solution would cause the nazirite to bring his offerings in stages. The Gemara asks: What is wrong with that? And let him bring the offerings in stages. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehoshua said this comment only to sharpen the minds of the students. He did not really maintain that it is prohibited to act in this manner; rather, he wanted to test his disciples to see if they were aware of the halakha.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讚拽讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬住专讜

Rav Na岣an said, in a light-hearted vein: What will Rabbi Yehoshua do with the intestines of his animals so that they will not spoil? If he insists that the offerings of purity must all be brought at the same time, the only way to do so is to wait thirty days after slaughtering the burnt-offering before burning its intestines, which is certainly impractical.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讘住驻拽 讜诪讜讞诇讟 讘住驻拽 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗讞专 砖砖讬诐 讬讜诐

MISHNA: In the case of a nazirite who, on the first day of his naziriteship, was impure from a corpse as a matter of uncertainty and was also a confirmed leper as a matter of uncertainty, i.e., it was uncertain whether or not he had leprosy, how can he fulfill the shaving obligations of a pure nazirite and an impure leper? The problem facing this nazirite is that a leper must shave both when he begins his purification process and at the close of it, one week later. However, a nazirite is prohibited from shaving. Additionally, a leper may not partake of sacrificial food, but a nazirite may. Therefore, he may partake of sacrificial food sixty days after he may have become impure, when the uncertainty with regard to leprosy will have been clarified. He shaves for the first time for his leprosy after thirty days, and for the second time thirty days later, the shaving of the end of the purification process; at which point he brings the offerings of a purified leper and may partake of sacrificial food.

讜砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讗讞专 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讬讜诐

But he may drink wine and become impure from the dead, effectively ending his naziriteship, only after 120 days. This is because he might have been a full-fledged leper, which means that his shavings count toward his leprosy, not his naziriteship. Consequently, after the first sixty days he must observe another thirty days of naziriteship and shave again. Even then he has yet to fulfill all his obligations, as he might have been impure from a corpse, which means his shaving after ninety days was for his impurity. He must therefore remain a nazirite for another thirty days, before shaving one final time at the end of 120 days to fulfill his naziriteship obligation.

砖转讙诇讞转 讛谞讙注 讚讜讞讛 转讙诇讞转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛

The mishna notes: The reason that he cannot shave for his leprosy after seven days and perform the second shaving of a leper seven days later is because the shaving of leprosy overrides the prohibition of the shaving of a nazirite only when his status as a leper is definite. However, when his status as a leper is uncertain, the shaving does not override his naziriteship, and therefore he must wait thirty days before each of his shavings for leprosy.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 59

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注讘讬专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讜讘讬转 讛注专讜讛 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛注讘专转 砖讬注专 讗讬谞讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪注讘讬专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讜讘讬转 讛注专讜讛 讛专讬 讝讛 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛

Some say a different version of this statement: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged, due to the prohibition: 鈥淎 man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The removal of hair is not prohibited by Torah law but by rabbinic law. How then does Rabbi Yo岣nan say that he is flogged, which by definition is a punishment for individuals who have transgressed a Torah law? The Gemara answers: It was he who said this halakha in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair violates the prohibition of: 鈥淎 man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment.鈥

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讻诇讬 讙讘专 注诇 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 砖诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讗讬砖 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 砖诪诇转 讗讬砖 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 转讜注讘讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 讻讗谉 转讜注讘讛

The Gemara asks: And what does the first tanna, who holds that the prohibition is by rabbinic law, learn from this verse: 鈥淎 man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in the baraita, where it states: 鈥淎 woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5). What is the meaning when the verse states this? If it teaches only that a man may not put on a woman鈥檚 garment, and a woman may not wear a man鈥檚 garment, it is already stated in explanation of this prohibition that 鈥渋t is an abomination to the Lord your God,鈥 and there is no abomination here in the mere act of wearing a garment.

讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讗讬砖 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛 讜讬砖讘 讘讬谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讗砖讛 砖诪诇转 讗讬砖 讜转砖讘 讘讬谉 讛讗谞砖讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 诇诪诇讞诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讻诇讬 讙讘专 注诇 讗砖讛 讜诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛 砖诇讗 讬转拽谉 讗讬砖 讘转讬拽讜谞讬 讗砖讛

Rather, it means that a man may not wear a woman鈥檚 garment and thereby go and sit among the women; and a woman may not wear a man鈥檚 garment and sit among the men. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: From where is it derived that a woman may not go out with weapons to war? The verse states: 鈥淎 woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman鈥檚 garment,鈥 which indicates that a man may not adorn himself with the cosmetics and ornaments of a woman, and similarly a woman may not go out with weapons to war, as those are for the use of males. Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling follows this opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘谞讝讬专 诪讜转专 讜诇讬转 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 诪讞诪转 讝拽谞讛 谞砖专讜

Rav Na岣an said: For a nazirite, it is permitted to shave armpit hair. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara reports that the Sages said to Rabbi Shimon bar Abba: We have observed that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not have armpit hairs, despite his own ruling that it is prohibited to shave them. He said to them: They fell out due to old age.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗讬转讞讬讬讘 谞讙讬讚讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗讬讙诇讗讬 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬 讞讝讬讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讙诇讞 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 专讘讬 讗诪讬 砖讬讘拽讜讛 讚讬谉 诪谉 讞讘专讬讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who committed a transgression and was found liable to receive lashes before Rabbi Ami. When they removed his clothes to flog him, his armpit was exposed, and Rabbi Ami saw that he had not shaved his armpit hair. Rabbi Ami said to his attendants: Leave him; this is one of those who are meticulous in observance of mitzvot. We can see this is so, as he is particular about prohibitions that ordinary people do not observe.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讛讜 诇讙诇讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 讙讚诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 驻讞转讬 讝诪谉 讬砖 诇讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讙讚诇 谞讜砖专

Rav raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya: What is the halakha with regard to shaving armpit hair? He said to him: It is prohibited. Rav said to him: But it grows and is uncomfortable. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Son of nobles [bar pa岣ei], this hair has a limited time. Whenever a hair grows too long it falls out, and therefore there is no concern that one鈥檚 armpit hair will become too long.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讛讜 诇讞讜讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讘讘讙讚讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘转驻诇讛 讘讘讙讚讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讜诇讬转 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rav raised another dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya: What is the halakha with regard to rubbing armpit hair and thereby removing it manually? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: It is prohibited. Rav continued to ask: What is the halakha with regard to rubbing armpit hair indirectly with one鈥檚 garment? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: It is permitted. Some say that this was not Rav鈥檚 question; rather, he raised the following dilemma before him: What is the halakha with regard to rubbing the armpit with one鈥檚 garment during prayer? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: It is prohibited. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion in this case.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讬讘拽砖 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 砖讬讚讜专 讻谞讙讚讜 讘谞讝讬专

MISHNA: The previous mishna described how two nazirites sacrifice offerings of impurity and purity, in a situation in which one of them has become impure but they do not know which one. This mishna discusses what must be done if one of them dies before bringing his offerings. Rabbi Yehoshua said: The surviving nazirite asks someone in the marketplace, a non-nazirite, to vow to be a nazirite corresponding to him, i.e., under the same conditions as his own naziriteship, so that he can bring offerings together with him.

讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讟诪讗 讛讬讬转讬 讛专讬 讗转讛 谞讝讬专 诪讬讚 讜讗诐 讟讛讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讛专讬 讗转讛 谞讝讬专 讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜住讜驻专讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟诪讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讱 讜讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟讛讜专 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘住驻拽

And he says to him as follows: If I was impure, you are hereby a nazirite immediately; and if I was pure, you are hereby a nazirite after thirty days. And they both proceed to count thirty days and bring an offering of impurity and an offering of purity. And the nazirite who was defined as having uncertain impurity says: If I am the impure one, the offering of impurity is mine and the offering of purity is yours; and if I am the pure one, the offering of purity is mine and the offering of impurity we brought shall be of uncertain status.

讜住讜驻专讬诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讟诪讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讱 讜讝讛 拽专讘谉 讟讛专转讬 讜讗诐 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 讛讟讛讜专 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 砖诇讬 讜拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘住驻拽 讜讝讛讜 拽专讘谉 讟讛专转讱

And they subsequently count another thirty days and bring an offering of purity, and the first nazirite says: If I was the impure one, the offering of impurity that we sacrificed at the end of the first thirty days was mine, and the offering of purity we brought then was yours; and this offering I am bringing now is my offering of purity. And if I was the pure one, and the deceased nazirite was impure, the offering of purity we brought thirty days ago was mine, and the offering of impurity we brought earlier was of uncertain status, and this is your offering of purity.

讗诪专 诇讜 讘谉 讝讜诪讗 讜诪讬 砖讜诪注 诇讜 砖讬讚讜专 讻谞讙讚讜 讘谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讟诪讗 讛讬讬转讬 讛讞讟讗转 诪讞讜讘转讬 讜讛注讜诇讛 谞讚讘讛 讜讗诐 讟讛讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讛注讜诇讛 诪讞讜讘转讬 讜讛讞讟讗转 诪住驻拽

Ben Zoma said to Rabbi Yehoshua: And who will listen to him to vow to be a nazirite corresponding to him? How can one design a halakha on the assumption that a non-nazirite will agree to be a nazirite for a lengthy term? Rather, a different procedure is available: After thirty days of naziriteship he brings a bird sin-offering and an animal burnt-offering, and says: If I was impure, the sin-offering is for my obligation as an impure nazirite, and the burnt-offering is a regular gift offering. And if I was pure, the burnt-offering is for my obligation as a pure nazirite, and the sin-offering is of uncertain status.

讜住讜驻专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讛专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讟诪讗 讛讬讬转讬 讛注讜诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 谞讚讘讛 讜讝讜 讞讜讘讛 讜讗诐 讟讛讜专 讛讬讬转讬 讛注讜诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讞讜讘讛 讜讝讜 谞讚讘讛 讜讝讜 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讬

And he counts another thirty days, and brings an offering of purity, and says: If I was impure, the first burnt-offering I brought should be considered a gift offering, and this one I am bringing now is for my obligation. And if I was pure, the first burnt-offering I brought is for my obligation as a pure nazirite, and this one I am bringing now is a gift offering. And these, i.e., the sin-offering and peace-offering I am sacrificing now, comprises the rest of my offerings that I was obligated to bring earlier.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪爪讗 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诇讞爪讗讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讘谉 讝讜诪讗

Rabbi Yehoshua said: According to your opinion, it turns out that this nazirite brings his offerings in halves, i.e., in stages. If he was pure, he brings his burnt-offering thirty days before the rest of his offerings. However, the Rabbis agreed with ben Zoma, and disregarded the concern about splitting up the offerings.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬讬转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诇讗 诇讞讚讚 讘讛 讗转 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehoshua countered ben Zoma鈥檚 opinion by pointing out that his solution would cause the nazirite to bring his offerings in stages. The Gemara asks: What is wrong with that? And let him bring the offerings in stages. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehoshua said this comment only to sharpen the minds of the students. He did not really maintain that it is prohibited to act in this manner; rather, he wanted to test his disciples to see if they were aware of the halakha.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讚拽讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬住专讜

Rav Na岣an said, in a light-hearted vein: What will Rabbi Yehoshua do with the intestines of his animals so that they will not spoil? If he insists that the offerings of purity must all be brought at the same time, the only way to do so is to wait thirty days after slaughtering the burnt-offering before burning its intestines, which is certainly impractical.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讘住驻拽 讜诪讜讞诇讟 讘住驻拽 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗讞专 砖砖讬诐 讬讜诐

MISHNA: In the case of a nazirite who, on the first day of his naziriteship, was impure from a corpse as a matter of uncertainty and was also a confirmed leper as a matter of uncertainty, i.e., it was uncertain whether or not he had leprosy, how can he fulfill the shaving obligations of a pure nazirite and an impure leper? The problem facing this nazirite is that a leper must shave both when he begins his purification process and at the close of it, one week later. However, a nazirite is prohibited from shaving. Additionally, a leper may not partake of sacrificial food, but a nazirite may. Therefore, he may partake of sacrificial food sixty days after he may have become impure, when the uncertainty with regard to leprosy will have been clarified. He shaves for the first time for his leprosy after thirty days, and for the second time thirty days later, the shaving of the end of the purification process; at which point he brings the offerings of a purified leper and may partake of sacrificial food.

讜砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讗讞专 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讬讜诐

But he may drink wine and become impure from the dead, effectively ending his naziriteship, only after 120 days. This is because he might have been a full-fledged leper, which means that his shavings count toward his leprosy, not his naziriteship. Consequently, after the first sixty days he must observe another thirty days of naziriteship and shave again. Even then he has yet to fulfill all his obligations, as he might have been impure from a corpse, which means his shaving after ninety days was for his impurity. He must therefore remain a nazirite for another thirty days, before shaving one final time at the end of 120 days to fulfill his naziriteship obligation.

砖转讙诇讞转 讛谞讙注 讚讜讞讛 转讙诇讞转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛

The mishna notes: The reason that he cannot shave for his leprosy after seven days and perform the second shaving of a leper seven days later is because the shaving of leprosy overrides the prohibition of the shaving of a nazirite only when his status as a leper is definite. However, when his status as a leper is uncertain, the shaving does not override his naziriteship, and therefore he must wait thirty days before each of his shavings for leprosy.

Scroll To Top