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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 22, 2015 | 讟壮 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 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 61

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝讛 诇驻谞讬 讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 (讞讬讬诐) 讜讝讛 诇讗讞专 讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 讝讛 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讝讛 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐

Rabbi 岣yya teaches the same halakha: The shaving of a leper does not count for the shaving of naziriteship, as this one, a leper, shaves before immersion in water, and that one, an impure nazirite, shaves after immersion water. This one, the leper, shaves before the blood is sprinkled, and that one, the pure nazirite, shaves after the blood is sprinkled.

砖转讙诇讞转 讛谞讙注 讜讻讜壮 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛谞讬 讗专讘注 转讙诇讞讬讜转 讚拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讗注讘讜专讬 砖讬注专 讟讜诪讗讛

搂 The mishna taught that the shaving of leprosy overrides the shaving of a nazirite only when he is a confirmed leper. Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: Those four shavings about which the tanna spoke, the four that a nazirite performs for his leprosy and impurity, are they all due to the mitzva of shaving, or are some of them not performed for the sake of a mitzva, but for the sake of removing hair that grew in impurity, so that other hair can grow?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇注讘讜专讬 讘谞砖讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 诇注讘讜专讬 讘谞砖讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讗注讘讜专讬 砖讬注专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 住讻讬讛 谞砖讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: What is the difference whether he shaves for one reason or another? The Gemara explains: It is relevant with regard to removing hair with a depilatory. If you say that the reason is due to a mitzva, removing with a depilatory is not an option, as the mitzva is specifically to shave. But if you say the reason is due to the removal of hair of impurity, even if he rubs it with a depilatory that is also effective.

诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜诪讙诇讞 讗专讘注 转讙诇讞讬讜转 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讜诐 注讘讜专讬 砖讬注专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖诇砖 谞诪讬 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

What then is the halakha? Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita (Tosefta 6:1): And he shaves with four acts of shaving. Now if it should enter your mind that the reason is for the sake of removing hair of impurity, even three shavings should be enough for him, two for his leprosy, and the last one for his naziriteship of purity. Since the third shaving is performed only to remove his hair of impurity so that he can start his pure naziriteship afresh, why is it included? Conclude from the baraita that all four shavings are due to the mitzva of shaving. The Gemara says: Conclude from the baraita that this is the case.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖谞讬 谞讝讬专讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讝讬专讜转 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讞讜诪专 讘谞砖讬诐 诪讘注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜讗 讻讜驻讛 讗转 注讘讚讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讻讜驻讛 讗转 讗砖转讜

MISHNA: Gentiles do not have naziriteship, i.e., the halakhot of naziriteship do not apply to gentiles. They are not subject to the prohibitions of a nazirite, nor does one accept their offerings at the end of naziriteship. However, women and Canaanite slaves do have naziriteship. The mishna adds: There is a greater stringency in the case of women than in the case of slaves, as a master may force his slave to drink wine, shave his hair, or become ritually impure from a corpse, despite the slave鈥檚 vow of naziriteship, but a husband cannot force his wife to transgress her naziriteship.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 讛讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讝讬专讜转 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讬讛诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讛讗诪专转 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讛 注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讘讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that gentiles do not have naziriteship, whereas women and slaves can be nazirites. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught, that the beginning of the passage about naziriteship, which states: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 6:2), serves to emphasize that these halakhot apply to Jews, but not to the gentiles. Furthermore, the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎nd say to them, when a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow,鈥 serves to include slaves. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include slaves? Haven鈥檛 you said the following principle: Any mitzva that a woman is obligated in its performance, a slave is also obligated in its performance? Since the halakhot of naziriteship apply to a woman, they should likewise apply to slaves.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗住专 讗住专 注诇 谞驻砖讜 讘诪讬 砖谞驻砖讜 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讜 讬爪讗 注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 谞驻砖讜 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 谞驻砖讜 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讜 讗讬诪讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava said: Here it is different, as with regard to vows the verse states: 鈥淭o bind his soul with a bond鈥 (Numbers 30:3), and the Sages expounded that this is referring only to one whose soul is in his possession, i.e., who is under his own jurisdiction. This excludes a slave, whose soul is not in his possession, but who is under his master鈥檚 control. The verse from Leviticus is necessary, lest you say that since a slave鈥檚 soul is not in his possession, one should say that with regard to the halakhot of a nazirite as well, he cannot undertake this vow notwithstanding the principle that slaves have similar halakhot to women with regard to obligations, who can become nazirites. The aforementioned verse teaches us that a slave can in fact take a vow of naziriteship.

讗诪专 诪专 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖专讗诇 讙讜讬诐 诇讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜转谞讬讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 诪注专讬讻讬谉

The Gemara returns to the earlier exposition of the verse. The Master said in the baraita that the verse specifies: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel,鈥 but not to the gentiles. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that 鈥淚srael鈥 is written, are gentiles not included in that verse? But there is a counterexample in the verse written with regard to the halakhot of valuations, as it is written: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), and it was taught in a baraita: The children of Israel can take a valuation vow but gentiles cannot take a valuation vow. If a gentile declares: I undertake to donate the value of so-and-so, his vow does not take effect.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞注专讻讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖

The baraita continues: One might have thought that this means that gentiles cannot be the subject of a valuation either, i.e., if a Jew says: I am obligated to give the value of so-and-so the gentile, his vow would not take effect. Therefore, the verse states the inclusive expression: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), to teach that in this regard, every 鈥渕an,鈥 even a gentile, is included in halakhot of valuations. Inasmuch as the Torah also states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite鈥 (Numbers 6:2), perhaps one should include gentiles in the halakhot of naziriteship as well.

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讘 讬爪讗 讙讜讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讘 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讬专讜砖讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜讬 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讚讘专 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬专砖讛 诇注砖讜 谞转转讬 讗转 讛专 砖注讬专

The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of naziriteship, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淔or his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself鈥 (Numbers 6:7). From here it is derived that this mitzva applies only to one who has a father. This excludes a gentile, who does not have a father. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does a gentile lack a father? If we say it is with regard to inheritance, but didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A gentile inherits the estate of his father by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause I have given Mount Seir to Esau as an inheritance鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:5)?

讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖诪讜讝讛专 注诇 讻讬讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讘讚 讗讘讬讱 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛

Rather, this mitzva of naziriteship applies to one who is warned concerning the honor of his father, and as the mitzva to honor one鈥檚 father does not apply to a gentile, it is as though he has no father. The Gemara asks: Is it written: Honor your father, in the context of a nazirite? What is the connection between these two issues? Rather, the verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淔or his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself鈥 (Numbers 6:7), and it should be understood as referring to one who has the potential to become ritually impure,

讬爪讗 讙讜讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谞诇谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗 讬转讞讟讗 讜谞讻专转讛 讛谞驻砖 讛讛讬讗 诪转讜讱 讛拽讛诇 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽讛诇 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽讛诇

which excludes a gentile, who has no potential to become ritually impure. A gentile is not rendered impure even if he touches a corpse. An individual of this kind cannot become a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that gentiles do not have the ability to become ritually impure? It is as the verse states with regard to one who enters the Temple in a state of impurity: 鈥淏ut the man who shall be impure and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly鈥 (Numbers 19:20). This indicates that the halakhot of ritual impurity apply only to one who has membership in the assembly of the Jewish people and excludes this gentile, who has no membership in the assembly, i.e., he is not part of the Jewish people.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讻专转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 讗讬讟诪讜讬讬 诪讬讟诪讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛讜专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讟讛专讛 讬砖 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讛专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this verse teaches that ritual impurity does not apply to a gentile at all? Perhaps the verse is referring merely to excision from the World-to-Come [karet], i.e., it is teaching that he is not liable to receive karet for entering the Temple when impure, but that perhaps a gentile does become impure. The Gemara answers that the previous verse states: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure鈥; this indicates that anyone who has the possibility of attaining ritual purity by means of the waters of purification also has the potential for ritual impurity, and anyone who does not have the possibility of attaining purity by means of the waters of purification does not have the potential for impurity either.

讜讗讬诪讗 讟讛专讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗 讬转讞讟讗

The Gemara asks: But one can say that it is only purity by means of the waters of purification that he does not have, but he does have the potential for impurity. The Gemara answers: It is for this reason that the verse states: 鈥淏ut the man who shall be impure and shall not purify himself鈥 (Numbers 19:20), to teach that these two statuses are interdependent. One who cannot be purified by the waters of purification cannot become impure in the first place.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said a different reason why a gentile cannot become a nazirite, despite the fact that the term 鈥渕an鈥 does include gentiles in the case of valuations. Here, with regard to naziriteship, it is different, as the verse prohibits a nazirite from becoming impure for his father and mother. This prohibition is not relevant for gentiles because the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you鈥 (Leviticus 25:46). This verse establishes a child as one to whom a person can bequeath his slaves, the subject of this verse.

讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 谞讞诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 谞讞诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 注讘讚讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov explains: This verse teaches that anyone who has inheritance, i.e., he has the ability to bequeath his slaves to his children, also has the status of a father with regard to impurity, and the verse prohibiting a nazirite from becoming impure to bury his father can be addressing him. But anyone who does not have inheritance does not have the status of a father with regard to impurity. Since a gentile cannot bequeath slaves to his child (see Gittin 38a), the status of a father with regard to impurity also does not apply to him. Consequently, the verse prohibiting a nazirite from becoming impure to bury his father cannot be addressing him. The Gemara asks: If so, slaves should also not be included in the halakhot of ritual impurity or naziriteship, as they too cannot bequeath slaves to their children.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞注专讻讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖

Rather, Rava said a different reason why a gentile cannot become a nazirite, even though he is included in the halakhot of valuations, and despite the fact that the term 鈥渕an鈥 appears in both passages. Granted, with regard to valuations, as it is stated: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), one can derive that the children of Israel can take a valuation vow but gentiles cannot take a valuation vow. One might have thought that gentiles cannot be valuated either. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淢an鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), so as to include a gentile in only one aspect of the halakhot of valuations, i.e., that a gentile can be the subject of a valuation. This does not negate the derivation from 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 that gentiles are generally excluded.

讛讻讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 谞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞讝讬专讬谉 讻诇诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖

Rava continues his explanation: However, here, in the case of naziriteship, there is no possibility of interpreting the word 鈥渕an鈥 to include a gentile in only one aspect of the halakhot of naziriteship. Rava explains: If one would suggest the following derivation: From the phrase 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 6:2) derive that the children of Israel can both take a vow of naziriteship and bring the nazirite offering, but gentiles cannot both take a vow of naziriteship and bring the nazirite offering, one might have thought that gentiles cannot be nazirites at all; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淢an,鈥 which includes gentiles in one aspect of the halakhot of naziriteship, i.e., that they can become nazirites.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 拽专讘谉 诇讗讜 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讛转诐 诇注讜诇讛 驻专讟 诇谞讝讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

Rava continues his explanation: However, the Sages would say in response to this suggestion: If the phrase 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 is written due to the need to exclude a gentile from bringing a nazirite offering, one does not need to derive this halakha from here, and this is because it is already derived from there, as a baraita teaches that the verse: 鈥淎ny man from the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, who sacrifices his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which are sacrificed to the Lord as a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 22:18), excludes a gentile from the offering of naziriteship; this is聽the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 must exclude gentiles from the entire passage of naziriteship, and not just from bringing the offerings.

讗讬诪讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜讝专讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 谞讜讝专讬诐 谞讝讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: But it can still be argued that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can say that this phrase teaches that the children of Israel can take a vow of permanent naziriteship, but gentiles cannot take a vow of permanent naziriteship, and one might have thought that gentiles cannot be nazirites at all. The verse therefore states: 鈥淢an,鈥 to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Is it written: A permanent nazirite? Since the verse does not specify a particular type of naziriteship, it excludes gentiles from all types.

讗讬诪讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讚讬专讬谉 讘谞讬讛诐 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 诪讚讬专讬谉 讘谞讬讛诐 讘谞讝讬专 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专

The Gemara offers another suggestion: But it can still be argued that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can say that this phrase teaches that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 can vow that their minor sons be nazirites, but gentiles cannot vow that their minor sons be nazirites; and one might have thought that gentiles cannot be nazirites at all. The verse therefore states: 鈥淢an,鈥 to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the fact that a father can take a vow that his minor son will be a nazirite is a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai with regard to a nazirite? Since this halakha is not stated in the Torah, it cannot be excluded by a verse.

讗讬诪讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙诇讞讬谉 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 诪讙诇讞讬谉 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛谉

The Gemara offers another suggestion: But it can still be argued that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can say that this phrase teaches that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 can shave and cut their hair by means of the offerings of their fathers鈥 naziriteships, but gentiles cannot shave and cut their hair by means of their fathers鈥 naziriteships. In other words, if the father of a nazirite, who was himself a nazirite, died after having separated his nazirite offerings, the son is able to bring those offerings at the close of his own naziriteship.

  • 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 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 61

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝讛 诇驻谞讬 讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 (讞讬讬诐) 讜讝讛 诇讗讞专 讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 讝讛 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讝讛 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐

Rabbi 岣yya teaches the same halakha: The shaving of a leper does not count for the shaving of naziriteship, as this one, a leper, shaves before immersion in water, and that one, an impure nazirite, shaves after immersion water. This one, the leper, shaves before the blood is sprinkled, and that one, the pure nazirite, shaves after the blood is sprinkled.

砖转讙诇讞转 讛谞讙注 讜讻讜壮 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛谞讬 讗专讘注 转讙诇讞讬讜转 讚拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讗注讘讜专讬 砖讬注专 讟讜诪讗讛

搂 The mishna taught that the shaving of leprosy overrides the shaving of a nazirite only when he is a confirmed leper. Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: Those four shavings about which the tanna spoke, the four that a nazirite performs for his leprosy and impurity, are they all due to the mitzva of shaving, or are some of them not performed for the sake of a mitzva, but for the sake of removing hair that grew in impurity, so that other hair can grow?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇注讘讜专讬 讘谞砖讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 诇注讘讜专讬 讘谞砖讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讗注讘讜专讬 砖讬注专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 住讻讬讛 谞砖讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: What is the difference whether he shaves for one reason or another? The Gemara explains: It is relevant with regard to removing hair with a depilatory. If you say that the reason is due to a mitzva, removing with a depilatory is not an option, as the mitzva is specifically to shave. But if you say the reason is due to the removal of hair of impurity, even if he rubs it with a depilatory that is also effective.

诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜诪讙诇讞 讗专讘注 转讙诇讞讬讜转 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讜诐 注讘讜专讬 砖讬注专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖诇砖 谞诪讬 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

What then is the halakha? Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita (Tosefta 6:1): And he shaves with four acts of shaving. Now if it should enter your mind that the reason is for the sake of removing hair of impurity, even three shavings should be enough for him, two for his leprosy, and the last one for his naziriteship of purity. Since the third shaving is performed only to remove his hair of impurity so that he can start his pure naziriteship afresh, why is it included? Conclude from the baraita that all four shavings are due to the mitzva of shaving. The Gemara says: Conclude from the baraita that this is the case.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖谞讬 谞讝讬专讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讝讬专讜转 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讞讜诪专 讘谞砖讬诐 诪讘注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜讗 讻讜驻讛 讗转 注讘讚讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讻讜驻讛 讗转 讗砖转讜

MISHNA: Gentiles do not have naziriteship, i.e., the halakhot of naziriteship do not apply to gentiles. They are not subject to the prohibitions of a nazirite, nor does one accept their offerings at the end of naziriteship. However, women and Canaanite slaves do have naziriteship. The mishna adds: There is a greater stringency in the case of women than in the case of slaves, as a master may force his slave to drink wine, shave his hair, or become ritually impure from a corpse, despite the slave鈥檚 vow of naziriteship, but a husband cannot force his wife to transgress her naziriteship.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 讛讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 谞讝讬专讜转 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讬讛诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讛讗诪专转 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讛 注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讘讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that gentiles do not have naziriteship, whereas women and slaves can be nazirites. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught, that the beginning of the passage about naziriteship, which states: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 6:2), serves to emphasize that these halakhot apply to Jews, but not to the gentiles. Furthermore, the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎nd say to them, when a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow,鈥 serves to include slaves. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include slaves? Haven鈥檛 you said the following principle: Any mitzva that a woman is obligated in its performance, a slave is also obligated in its performance? Since the halakhot of naziriteship apply to a woman, they should likewise apply to slaves.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗住专 讗住专 注诇 谞驻砖讜 讘诪讬 砖谞驻砖讜 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讜 讬爪讗 注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 谞驻砖讜 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 谞驻砖讜 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讜 讗讬诪讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava said: Here it is different, as with regard to vows the verse states: 鈥淭o bind his soul with a bond鈥 (Numbers 30:3), and the Sages expounded that this is referring only to one whose soul is in his possession, i.e., who is under his own jurisdiction. This excludes a slave, whose soul is not in his possession, but who is under his master鈥檚 control. The verse from Leviticus is necessary, lest you say that since a slave鈥檚 soul is not in his possession, one should say that with regard to the halakhot of a nazirite as well, he cannot undertake this vow notwithstanding the principle that slaves have similar halakhot to women with regard to obligations, who can become nazirites. The aforementioned verse teaches us that a slave can in fact take a vow of naziriteship.

讗诪专 诪专 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖专讗诇 讙讜讬诐 诇讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜转谞讬讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 诪注专讬讻讬谉

The Gemara returns to the earlier exposition of the verse. The Master said in the baraita that the verse specifies: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel,鈥 but not to the gentiles. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that 鈥淚srael鈥 is written, are gentiles not included in that verse? But there is a counterexample in the verse written with regard to the halakhot of valuations, as it is written: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), and it was taught in a baraita: The children of Israel can take a valuation vow but gentiles cannot take a valuation vow. If a gentile declares: I undertake to donate the value of so-and-so, his vow does not take effect.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞注专讻讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖

The baraita continues: One might have thought that this means that gentiles cannot be the subject of a valuation either, i.e., if a Jew says: I am obligated to give the value of so-and-so the gentile, his vow would not take effect. Therefore, the verse states the inclusive expression: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), to teach that in this regard, every 鈥渕an,鈥 even a gentile, is included in halakhot of valuations. Inasmuch as the Torah also states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite鈥 (Numbers 6:2), perhaps one should include gentiles in the halakhot of naziriteship as well.

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讘 讬爪讗 讙讜讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讘 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讬专讜砖讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜讬 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讚讘专 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬专砖讛 诇注砖讜 谞转转讬 讗转 讛专 砖注讬专

The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of naziriteship, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淔or his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself鈥 (Numbers 6:7). From here it is derived that this mitzva applies only to one who has a father. This excludes a gentile, who does not have a father. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does a gentile lack a father? If we say it is with regard to inheritance, but didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A gentile inherits the estate of his father by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause I have given Mount Seir to Esau as an inheritance鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:5)?

讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖诪讜讝讛专 注诇 讻讬讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讘讚 讗讘讬讱 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛

Rather, this mitzva of naziriteship applies to one who is warned concerning the honor of his father, and as the mitzva to honor one鈥檚 father does not apply to a gentile, it is as though he has no father. The Gemara asks: Is it written: Honor your father, in the context of a nazirite? What is the connection between these two issues? Rather, the verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淔or his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself鈥 (Numbers 6:7), and it should be understood as referring to one who has the potential to become ritually impure,

讬爪讗 讙讜讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谞诇谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗 讬转讞讟讗 讜谞讻专转讛 讛谞驻砖 讛讛讬讗 诪转讜讱 讛拽讛诇 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽讛诇 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽讛诇

which excludes a gentile, who has no potential to become ritually impure. A gentile is not rendered impure even if he touches a corpse. An individual of this kind cannot become a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that gentiles do not have the ability to become ritually impure? It is as the verse states with regard to one who enters the Temple in a state of impurity: 鈥淏ut the man who shall be impure and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly鈥 (Numbers 19:20). This indicates that the halakhot of ritual impurity apply only to one who has membership in the assembly of the Jewish people and excludes this gentile, who has no membership in the assembly, i.e., he is not part of the Jewish people.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讻专转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讘诇 讗讬讟诪讜讬讬 诪讬讟诪讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛讜专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讟讛专讛 讬砖 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讛专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this verse teaches that ritual impurity does not apply to a gentile at all? Perhaps the verse is referring merely to excision from the World-to-Come [karet], i.e., it is teaching that he is not liable to receive karet for entering the Temple when impure, but that perhaps a gentile does become impure. The Gemara answers that the previous verse states: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure鈥; this indicates that anyone who has the possibility of attaining ritual purity by means of the waters of purification also has the potential for ritual impurity, and anyone who does not have the possibility of attaining purity by means of the waters of purification does not have the potential for impurity either.

讜讗讬诪讗 讟讛专讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗 讬转讞讟讗

The Gemara asks: But one can say that it is only purity by means of the waters of purification that he does not have, but he does have the potential for impurity. The Gemara answers: It is for this reason that the verse states: 鈥淏ut the man who shall be impure and shall not purify himself鈥 (Numbers 19:20), to teach that these two statuses are interdependent. One who cannot be purified by the waters of purification cannot become impure in the first place.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said a different reason why a gentile cannot become a nazirite, despite the fact that the term 鈥渕an鈥 does include gentiles in the case of valuations. Here, with regard to naziriteship, it is different, as the verse prohibits a nazirite from becoming impure for his father and mother. This prohibition is not relevant for gentiles because the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you鈥 (Leviticus 25:46). This verse establishes a child as one to whom a person can bequeath his slaves, the subject of this verse.

讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 谞讞诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 谞讞诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 注讘讚讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov explains: This verse teaches that anyone who has inheritance, i.e., he has the ability to bequeath his slaves to his children, also has the status of a father with regard to impurity, and the verse prohibiting a nazirite from becoming impure to bury his father can be addressing him. But anyone who does not have inheritance does not have the status of a father with regard to impurity. Since a gentile cannot bequeath slaves to his child (see Gittin 38a), the status of a father with regard to impurity also does not apply to him. Consequently, the verse prohibiting a nazirite from becoming impure to bury his father cannot be addressing him. The Gemara asks: If so, slaves should also not be included in the halakhot of ritual impurity or naziriteship, as they too cannot bequeath slaves to their children.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞注专讻讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖

Rather, Rava said a different reason why a gentile cannot become a nazirite, even though he is included in the halakhot of valuations, and despite the fact that the term 鈥渕an鈥 appears in both passages. Granted, with regard to valuations, as it is stated: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), one can derive that the children of Israel can take a valuation vow but gentiles cannot take a valuation vow. One might have thought that gentiles cannot be valuated either. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淢an鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), so as to include a gentile in only one aspect of the halakhot of valuations, i.e., that a gentile can be the subject of a valuation. This does not negate the derivation from 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 that gentiles are generally excluded.

讛讻讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 谞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞讝讬专讬谉 讻诇诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖

Rava continues his explanation: However, here, in the case of naziriteship, there is no possibility of interpreting the word 鈥渕an鈥 to include a gentile in only one aspect of the halakhot of naziriteship. Rava explains: If one would suggest the following derivation: From the phrase 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 6:2) derive that the children of Israel can both take a vow of naziriteship and bring the nazirite offering, but gentiles cannot both take a vow of naziriteship and bring the nazirite offering, one might have thought that gentiles cannot be nazirites at all; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淢an,鈥 which includes gentiles in one aspect of the halakhot of naziriteship, i.e., that they can become nazirites.

讗诪专讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 拽专讘谉 诇讗讜 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讛转诐 诇注讜诇讛 驻专讟 诇谞讝讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

Rava continues his explanation: However, the Sages would say in response to this suggestion: If the phrase 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 is written due to the need to exclude a gentile from bringing a nazirite offering, one does not need to derive this halakha from here, and this is because it is already derived from there, as a baraita teaches that the verse: 鈥淎ny man from the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, who sacrifices his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which are sacrificed to the Lord as a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 22:18), excludes a gentile from the offering of naziriteship; this is聽the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 must exclude gentiles from the entire passage of naziriteship, and not just from bringing the offerings.

讗讬诪讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜讝专讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 谞讜讝专讬诐 谞讝讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: But it can still be argued that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can say that this phrase teaches that the children of Israel can take a vow of permanent naziriteship, but gentiles cannot take a vow of permanent naziriteship, and one might have thought that gentiles cannot be nazirites at all. The verse therefore states: 鈥淢an,鈥 to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Is it written: A permanent nazirite? Since the verse does not specify a particular type of naziriteship, it excludes gentiles from all types.

讗讬诪讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讚讬专讬谉 讘谞讬讛诐 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 诪讚讬专讬谉 讘谞讬讛诐 讘谞讝讬专 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专

The Gemara offers another suggestion: But it can still be argued that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can say that this phrase teaches that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 can vow that their minor sons be nazirites, but gentiles cannot vow that their minor sons be nazirites; and one might have thought that gentiles cannot be nazirites at all. The verse therefore states: 鈥淢an,鈥 to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the fact that a father can take a vow that his minor son will be a nazirite is a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai with regard to a nazirite? Since this halakha is not stated in the Torah, it cannot be excluded by a verse.

讗讬诪讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙诇讞讬谉 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 诪讙诇讞讬谉 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛谉

The Gemara offers another suggestion: But it can still be argued that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can say that this phrase teaches that 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 can shave and cut their hair by means of the offerings of their fathers鈥 naziriteships, but gentiles cannot shave and cut their hair by means of their fathers鈥 naziriteships. In other words, if the father of a nazirite, who was himself a nazirite, died after having separated his nazirite offerings, the son is able to bring those offerings at the close of his own naziriteship.

Scroll To Top