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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 26, 2015 | 讬状讗 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 6

讗诇讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 拽砖讬讗

However, according to bar Padda this is difficult. Why doesn鈥檛 he shave his hair on the thirtieth day of each term of naziriteship?

讗诪专 诇讱 讘专 驻讚讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讙诇讞 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诇讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讘讗讜诪专 砖诇讬诪讬诐

The Gemara answers: Bar Padda could have said to you: Say the latter clause of the mishna: And if he shaved his hair for the first term on the thirtieth day, he shaves his hair for the second term on the sixtieth day. This demonstrates that the periods of naziriteship really last only twenty-nine days. Rather, the latter clause of the mishna supports his opinion, whereas the earlier clause of the mishna, which teaches that he shaves his hair on the thirty-first and sixty-first days, is referring to one who says that his naziriteship will be for thirty complete days.

讜诇专讘 诪转谞讗 拽砖讬讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诪转谞讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉

The Gemara now asks: And according to Rav Mattana, the latter clause of the mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers that Rav Mattana could have said to you that it is as the latter clause teaches: The thirtieth day counts for both this and that, i.e., it is considered both the last day of the first term of naziriteship, as well as the first day of the second term.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讛讗 讗诪专讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讞讚讗 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘诇 诇砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of the latter clause of the mishna? Is it that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day? But didn鈥檛 he already say this once in an earlier clause in that mishna, as explained above? The Gemara answers: The latter clause was necessary; lest you say that this principle applies only with regard to one term of naziriteship, but with regard to two terms of naziriteship, no, this principle does not apply, the tanna therefore teaches us that part of the day is like that of an entire day, even to allow counting the beginning of the day as the last day of one term of naziriteship and the end of the day as the first day of another term of naziriteship.

转谞谉 讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讞住专 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 砖讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诪转谞讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讞住专 讗讞讚

The Gemara raises another question. We learned in the mishna (16a): If he shaved his hair on day sixty less one, i.e., on the fifty-ninth day after he vowed to observe two consecutive terms of naziriteship, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the thirtieth day counts as part of his tally. Granted, according to Rav Mattana this works out well, since the mishna is stating that the thirtieth day can be counted for both terms of naziriteship due to the principle that part of a day is like an entire day. However, according to bar Padda, why do I need the mishna to state that the thirtieth day counts in his tally? Didn鈥檛 he say that an unspecified term of naziriteship is for thirty days less one? It is obvious that the thirtieth day counts for the second term of naziriteship.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 讗讛讗 住诪讻讬

The Gemara answers: Bar Padda could have said to you: I too rely on this. This is my proof for the principle that an unspecified naziriteship lasts for twenty-nine days.

转谞谉 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诪转谞讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara continues to ask: We learned in the mishna (16a): In the case of one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, if he became ritually impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally, and he must start his naziriteship afresh. Granted, according to Rav Mattana it works out well, since he became impure before the conclusion of his naziriteship. However, according to bar Padda it is difficult, as the term of naziriteship ended at the conclusion of the twenty-ninth day, and one who becomes impure after completing his term does not have to observe a new term of naziriteship.

讗诪专 诇讱 讘专 驻讚讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖讘注讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 谞住转讜专 讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: Bar Padda could have said to you: Say the latter clause of that mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven days. If it enters your mind that we require thirty days for a term of naziriteship, the nazirite should negate all of them, since he is still in the middle of his naziriteship. This proves that an unspecified naziriteship is only twenty-nine days long.

拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜

The Gemara responds that Rav Mattana can explain Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion as follows: This does not prove that an unspecified term of naziriteship is less than thirty days, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and it is viewed as though the nazirite has completed his term of naziriteship at the start of the thirtieth day.

转谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 诪讗讛 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 谞住转讜专 砖讘注讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 住讘专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 诇讬住转讜专 讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion. We learned in the mishna (16a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, if he became impure on the one hundredth day, it negates the entire tally. He must bring offerings for having become impure, and he then begins his term of naziriteship anew. Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only thirty days. The Gemara comments: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, the nazirite should negate seven days because it is considered as though he became impure after completing his term of naziriteship. And if he does not hold that part of the day is like an entire day, he should negate all of the days, since he became impure during his naziriteship.

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬住转讜专 讻讜诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 讬诪讬 谞讝专讜 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 转谉 诇讜 转讜专转 谞讝讬专

The Gemara answers: Actually, we do not say that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then let him negate all of the days. Reish Lakish said that this is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer: The verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite, on the day when the days of his consecration are complete鈥 (Numbers 6:13). The Torah stated: If he became impure on the day of the completion of his term of naziriteship, give him the halakha of an unspecified nazirite, and he must recount an unspecified term of naziriteship, which is thirty days.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 注讚 诪诇讗转 讛讬诪诐

搂 Until this point the Gemara has been attempting to prove whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Mattana or bar Padda. The Gemara now suggests: Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淯ntil the days are complete, in which he consecrated himself to the Lord, he shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long鈥 (Numbers 6:5).

砖讜诪注谞讬 诪讬注讜讟 讬诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽讚讜砖 讬讛讬讛 讙讚诇 驻专注 讗讬谉 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

I hear from this: The least amount of days that the plural 鈥渄ays鈥 can indicate is two, implying that one can become a nazirite for a term of two days. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long,鈥 and there is no significant growth of hair in less than thirty days. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注讚 诪诇讗转 讛讬诪诐 讗讬 讗诇讜 讛谉 讬诪讬诐 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐

Rabbi Yonatan says: This proof is not needed, as the verse says: 鈥淯ntil the days are complete.鈥 What are the days that require completion? You must say this is referring to the days of a month. Since a lunar cycle lasts for approximately twenty-nine and a half days, some months are twenty-nine days, whereas full months are thirty days. This demonstrates that a term of naziriteship must be at least one month.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘 诪转谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜讘专 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

The Gemara suggests: What, is it not the case that Rav Mattana said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who derives the minimum length of a term of naziriteship from the phrase 鈥渉e shall be holy, he shall let his hair grow long,鈥 and therefore a term of naziriteship lasts thirty days, and bar Padda said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, who derives this halakha from the length of a month, and since a month can be twenty-nine days, the minimum length of a term of naziriteship is also twenty-nine days?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诪转谞讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 住讘专 注讚 讜诇讗 注讚 讘讻诇诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

The Gemara responds: Rav Mattana could have said to you: Everyone agrees that we require a term of naziriteship to last at least thirty days, and here they disagree with regard to whether 鈥渦ntil鈥 means until and including. Rabbi Yoshiya holds that 鈥渦ntil the days are complete鈥 indicates that a term of naziriteship must last until, but not necessarily including, the thirtieth day of a full month. Consequently, he derives the minimum length of a term of naziriteship from the phrase 鈥渉e shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long.鈥 And Rabbi Yonatan holds that the term 鈥渦ntil鈥 means until and including the thirtieth day of a full month, and he derives the minimum length of a term of naziriteship from the phrase 鈥渦ntil the days are complete.鈥

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬 讗诇讜 讛谉 讬诪讬诐 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 砖讘转 砖讘转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讞住讬专讜转讗

The Gemara now analyzes the baraita that cites the opinions of Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan. The Master, Rabbi Yonatan, said: What are the days that require completion? You must say this is referring to the thirty days of a full month. The Gemara asks: But say it is referring to the seven days of a week. The Gemara responds: In the case of a week, is there ever a week that is lacking? All weeks are seven days. Conversely, since some months are twenty-nine days and others are thirty days, it can be said that the thirtieth day completes that which was lacking.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 6

讗诇讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 拽砖讬讗

However, according to bar Padda this is difficult. Why doesn鈥檛 he shave his hair on the thirtieth day of each term of naziriteship?

讗诪专 诇讱 讘专 驻讚讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讙诇讞 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诇讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讘讗讜诪专 砖诇讬诪讬诐

The Gemara answers: Bar Padda could have said to you: Say the latter clause of the mishna: And if he shaved his hair for the first term on the thirtieth day, he shaves his hair for the second term on the sixtieth day. This demonstrates that the periods of naziriteship really last only twenty-nine days. Rather, the latter clause of the mishna supports his opinion, whereas the earlier clause of the mishna, which teaches that he shaves his hair on the thirty-first and sixty-first days, is referring to one who says that his naziriteship will be for thirty complete days.

讜诇专讘 诪转谞讗 拽砖讬讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诪转谞讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉

The Gemara now asks: And according to Rav Mattana, the latter clause of the mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers that Rav Mattana could have said to you that it is as the latter clause teaches: The thirtieth day counts for both this and that, i.e., it is considered both the last day of the first term of naziriteship, as well as the first day of the second term.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讛讗 讗诪专讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讞讚讗 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘诇 诇砖转讬 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of the latter clause of the mishna? Is it that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day? But didn鈥檛 he already say this once in an earlier clause in that mishna, as explained above? The Gemara answers: The latter clause was necessary; lest you say that this principle applies only with regard to one term of naziriteship, but with regard to two terms of naziriteship, no, this principle does not apply, the tanna therefore teaches us that part of the day is like that of an entire day, even to allow counting the beginning of the day as the last day of one term of naziriteship and the end of the day as the first day of another term of naziriteship.

转谞谉 讗诐 讙讬诇讞 讬讜诐 砖砖讬诐 讞住专 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 砖讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诪转谞讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讞住专 讗讞讚

The Gemara raises another question. We learned in the mishna (16a): If he shaved his hair on day sixty less one, i.e., on the fifty-ninth day after he vowed to observe two consecutive terms of naziriteship, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the thirtieth day counts as part of his tally. Granted, according to Rav Mattana this works out well, since the mishna is stating that the thirtieth day can be counted for both terms of naziriteship due to the principle that part of a day is like an entire day. However, according to bar Padda, why do I need the mishna to state that the thirtieth day counts in his tally? Didn鈥檛 he say that an unspecified term of naziriteship is for thirty days less one? It is obvious that the thirtieth day counts for the second term of naziriteship.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 讗讛讗 住诪讻讬

The Gemara answers: Bar Padda could have said to you: I too rely on this. This is my proof for the principle that an unspecified naziriteship lasts for twenty-nine days.

转谞谉 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诪转谞讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara continues to ask: We learned in the mishna (16a): In the case of one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, if he became ritually impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally, and he must start his naziriteship afresh. Granted, according to Rav Mattana it works out well, since he became impure before the conclusion of his naziriteship. However, according to bar Padda it is difficult, as the term of naziriteship ended at the conclusion of the twenty-ninth day, and one who becomes impure after completing his term does not have to observe a new term of naziriteship.

讗诪专 诇讱 讘专 驻讚讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖讘注讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 谞住转讜专 讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: Bar Padda could have said to you: Say the latter clause of that mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven days. If it enters your mind that we require thirty days for a term of naziriteship, the nazirite should negate all of them, since he is still in the middle of his naziriteship. This proves that an unspecified naziriteship is only twenty-nine days long.

拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜

The Gemara responds that Rav Mattana can explain Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion as follows: This does not prove that an unspecified term of naziriteship is less than thirty days, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and it is viewed as though the nazirite has completed his term of naziriteship at the start of the thirtieth day.

转谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗 讬讜诐 诪讗讛 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 谞住转讜专 砖讘注讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 住讘专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 诇讬住转讜专 讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion. We learned in the mishna (16a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, if he became impure on the one hundredth day, it negates the entire tally. He must bring offerings for having become impure, and he then begins his term of naziriteship anew. Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only thirty days. The Gemara comments: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, the nazirite should negate seven days because it is considered as though he became impure after completing his term of naziriteship. And if he does not hold that part of the day is like an entire day, he should negate all of the days, since he became impure during his naziriteship.

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬住转讜专 讻讜诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讘讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 讬诪讬 谞讝专讜 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 转谉 诇讜 转讜专转 谞讝讬专

The Gemara answers: Actually, we do not say that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then let him negate all of the days. Reish Lakish said that this is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer: The verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite, on the day when the days of his consecration are complete鈥 (Numbers 6:13). The Torah stated: If he became impure on the day of the completion of his term of naziriteship, give him the halakha of an unspecified nazirite, and he must recount an unspecified term of naziriteship, which is thirty days.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 注讚 诪诇讗转 讛讬诪诐

搂 Until this point the Gemara has been attempting to prove whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Mattana or bar Padda. The Gemara now suggests: Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淯ntil the days are complete, in which he consecrated himself to the Lord, he shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long鈥 (Numbers 6:5).

砖讜诪注谞讬 诪讬注讜讟 讬诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽讚讜砖 讬讛讬讛 讙讚诇 驻专注 讗讬谉 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

I hear from this: The least amount of days that the plural 鈥渄ays鈥 can indicate is two, implying that one can become a nazirite for a term of two days. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long,鈥 and there is no significant growth of hair in less than thirty days. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注讚 诪诇讗转 讛讬诪诐 讗讬 讗诇讜 讛谉 讬诪讬诐 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐

Rabbi Yonatan says: This proof is not needed, as the verse says: 鈥淯ntil the days are complete.鈥 What are the days that require completion? You must say this is referring to the days of a month. Since a lunar cycle lasts for approximately twenty-nine and a half days, some months are twenty-nine days, whereas full months are thirty days. This demonstrates that a term of naziriteship must be at least one month.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘 诪转谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜讘专 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

The Gemara suggests: What, is it not the case that Rav Mattana said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who derives the minimum length of a term of naziriteship from the phrase 鈥渉e shall be holy, he shall let his hair grow long,鈥 and therefore a term of naziriteship lasts thirty days, and bar Padda said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, who derives this halakha from the length of a month, and since a month can be twenty-nine days, the minimum length of a term of naziriteship is also twenty-nine days?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诪转谞讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 住讘专 注讚 讜诇讗 注讚 讘讻诇诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

The Gemara responds: Rav Mattana could have said to you: Everyone agrees that we require a term of naziriteship to last at least thirty days, and here they disagree with regard to whether 鈥渦ntil鈥 means until and including. Rabbi Yoshiya holds that 鈥渦ntil the days are complete鈥 indicates that a term of naziriteship must last until, but not necessarily including, the thirtieth day of a full month. Consequently, he derives the minimum length of a term of naziriteship from the phrase 鈥渉e shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long.鈥 And Rabbi Yonatan holds that the term 鈥渦ntil鈥 means until and including the thirtieth day of a full month, and he derives the minimum length of a term of naziriteship from the phrase 鈥渦ntil the days are complete.鈥

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬 讗诇讜 讛谉 讬诪讬诐 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 砖讘转 砖讘转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讞住讬专讜转讗

The Gemara now analyzes the baraita that cites the opinions of Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan. The Master, Rabbi Yonatan, said: What are the days that require completion? You must say this is referring to the thirty days of a full month. The Gemara asks: But say it is referring to the seven days of a week. The Gemara responds: In the case of a week, is there ever a week that is lacking? All weeks are seven days. Conversely, since some months are twenty-nine days and others are thirty days, it can be said that the thirtieth day completes that which was lacking.

Scroll To Top