נזיר יד

נזיר יד

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר נְזִירוּת מוּעֶטֶת, כֵּיוָן דְּעַשְׂרָה יוֹמִין הוּא דְּיַתִּרִין — לָא סָלֵיק לֵיהּ הָלֵין עֲשָׂרָה, וַדַּאי נְזִיר מֵאָה יוֹם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּמָנִין יוֹמִין לְבַסּוֹף, סָלְקִין לֵיהּ, אוֹ לָא?

If you say that when he accepts naziriteship upon himself after twenty days, and then vows a short term of naziriteship of thirty days starting now, then since, if he pauses from his first term of naziriteship after twenty days, it is only ten days that are left over to complete after the second term of naziriteship, those ten should not be reckoned for him to complete a full term of naziriteship. Ten days are insufficient for hair growth. Therefore, he must observe a full thirty-day term of naziriteship after the second term of naziriteship, which means he is not a nazirite for the first twenty days. With that assumption in mind, the question arose: Certainly if he vows to be a nazirite for one hundred days, since he has a further eighty days at the end, which is sufficient time for his hair to grow, do the first twenty days count for him as part of the one hundred days or not?

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר חָיְילִי: אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם וּמֵעַכְשָׁיו נְזִיר עוֹלָם״, מַהוּ? מִי חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ, אוֹ לָא?

This inquiry leads to yet another question: And if you say that the first days of naziriteship take effect, and his term of naziriteship will be completed in the eighty days after the second term of naziriteship, then if he said: I am hereby a nazirite after twenty days, and from now I am a permanent nazirite, what is the halakha? Does the permanent naziriteship take effect for him during those twenty days or not? Since permanent naziriteship is unlimited, he could not have intended to complete its days after the second term of naziriteship, and it is reasonable to assume that he intended for the permanent naziriteship to begin after the second term of naziriteship has been completed.

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר: הָכָא כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי חָיְילָא: אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם וּמֵעַכְשָׁיו נָזִיר סְתָם״, מַהוּ? הָכָא לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי, מִי חָיְילָא, אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר ״כְּמֹשֶׁה בְּשִׁבְעָה בַּאֲדָר״, מַאי?

If you say: Here, with regard to cases of a standard permanent naziriteship after twenty days, since it is possible to request of a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow, which would result in the first term of naziriteship taking full effect, it therefore takes effect during those twenty days, then the following question arises: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite like Samson after twenty days, and from now I am hereby a nazirite without specification, what is the halakha? Since here it is not possible to request of a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow of naziriteship like Samson, and there is no way of completing the first term of naziriteship, does the first naziriteship take effect or not? The Gemara adds another question: If one said: I am hereby like Moses on the seventh day of Adar, what is the halakha? Is this considered an expression of naziriteship in that just as Moses passed away on that date and drank no more wine, so too, the speaker vows to be a nazirite? Alternatively, perhaps this phrase does not indicate the acceptance of naziriteship.

פְּשׁוֹט מִינַּיְיהוּ קַדְמָיְיתָא: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם וּמֵעַכְשָׁיו מֵאָה יוֹם״ — מוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרִים, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹנֶה שְׁלֹשִׁים, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹנֶה שְׁמוֹנִים כְּדֵי לְהַשְׁלִים נְזִירוּת רִאשׁוֹנָה.

The Gemara comments: At least resolve the first of these questions, the one raised at the beginning of the discussion, as it is stated explicitly in the Tosefta (2:5): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite after twenty days, and I am hereby a nazirite from now for one hundred days, he counts twenty days of his term of naziriteship immediately, after which he counts thirty days for the subsequent term of naziriteship, and afterward he counts eighty days in order to complete his first term of naziriteship.

נִטְמָא בִּימֵי בְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: סוֹתֵר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר.

§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the statement of the mishna with regard to one who vowed to be a nazirite upon the birth of a son in addition to a standard term of naziriteship. The mishna ruled that he begins his term of naziriteship, and if he has a son during that term, he pauses from that term of naziriteship and starts the term for his son, after which he completes the first term. The Torah states that a nazirite who becomes impure while observing his term of naziriteship must start counting afresh, which leads to the following question: What happens if he became impure during the days of his term of naziriteship for his son? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This negates all of it, even the days he has counted for his own term of naziriteship, and he must observe two full terms of naziriteship. Reish Lakish says: This does not negate the days he observed for his own term of naziriteship, only those of the term of naziriteship for his son.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר סוֹתֵר — חֲדָא נְזִירוּת אֲרִיכְתָּא הִיא, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר — נְזִירוּת דִּידֵיהּ לְחוּד, וְדִבְרֵיהּ לְחוּד.

The Gemara clarifies the two approaches: Rabbi Yoḥanan says it negates all of it, since he holds that it is one long term of naziriteship. Reish Lakish says it does not negate the days he observed for his own term of naziriteship because his term of naziriteship is a discrete naziriteship, and that for his son is a discrete naziriteship.

נִטְמָא בִּימֵי צָרַעְתּוֹ — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: סוֹתֵר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר.

These two amora’im have a similar dispute in the case of one who contracted leprosy during his naziriteship and became impure by coming into contact with corpse during the days of his leprosy. Although the days of his leprosy do not negate the previous days of his naziriteship, they are not counted as part of his naziriteship either. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Contraction of impurity from a corpse negates the days of naziriteship observed before his leprosy, which means he must start counting afresh once he is purified of leprosy. Reish Lakish says: It does not negate the days he has observed, and he need observe only the remaining days of his naziriteship after his purification.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר סוֹתֵר, דְּהָא בִּנְזִירוּת קָאֵי. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר — צָרַעַת לְחוּד וּנְזִירוּת לְחוּד.

The Gemara clarifies their respective approaches. Rabbi Yoḥanan says the impurity from a corpse negates the days he already observed, since he remains in a period of naziriteship even when he is a leper, as his leprosy does not negate his naziriteship. Reish Lakish says it does not negate the days he observed, since he maintains that leprosy is discrete and naziriteship is discrete. One’s time as a leper is not considered part of his naziriteship.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהַהִיא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סוֹתֵר — שֵׁם נְזִירוּת אַחַת הִיא. אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּנָזִיר לְחוּד וְצָרַעַת לְחוּד.

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to teach this dispute in both cases. As, if it were stated in this first one, with regard to one who became impure during his term of naziriteship for the birth of his son, one might say that it is specifically in that case that Rabbi Yoḥanan said it also negates the days of his standard naziriteship because there is one label of naziriteship that applies to both vows, but in this case, where the leper became impure from a corpse, one might say he concedes to Reish Lakish that it does not negate the days of his naziriteship that he has counted, since a nazirite is discrete and leprosy is discrete.

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֲבָל בְּהָךְ — אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, צְרִיכָא.

And conversely, if it were stated only in this case, that of the leper who contracted impurity from a corpse, one might say that it is only in this case that Reish Lakish said it does not negate his days of naziriteship, but in that case, where one became impure while observing the term of naziriteship for his son, one might say he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥanan that it negates the entire period, since they are all days of naziriteship. Therefore, it is necessary for the dispute to be taught in both cases.

נִטְמָא בְּיוֹם גִּידּוּל שֵׂעָר. רַב אָמַר: אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר סוֹתֵר — הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָאֵי בִּנְזִירוּת, גִּידּוּל שֵׂעָר מִישְׁלַם נְזִירוּת הוּא.

In connection with the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, the Gemara discusses the case of a nazirite who became impure on the day of his hair growth. The case is that of one who contracted leprosy during his naziriteship and then was purified from his condition and shaved, as required of him. At this point he must wait another thirty days so that his hair can grow enough for him to shave it for the end of his naziriteship. If he became impure during this additional period, Rav said: It does not negate the days he previously counted for his naziriteship. The Gemara explains: Even according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that if one became impure during the days of the term of naziriteship for his son it negates the entire period, this statement applies only where he still remains in a period of naziriteship, but the time of hair growth is an addition to his period of naziriteship and is not considered part of the term itself.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: סוֹתֵר. אֲפִילּוּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמַר אֵין סוֹתֵר — הָתָם שְׁתֵּי נְזִירוּת, הָכָא חֲדָא נְזִירוּתָא.

And Shmuel said: It negates the earlier days. The Gemara explains: Even according to Reish Lakish, who says that becoming impure during the naziriteship for his son does not negate the days of his naziriteship, there it is referring to a case of two distinct terms of naziriteship, a standard one for himself and another for his son. But here it is one naziriteship, since the days he observes for the growth of his hair complete his naziriteship.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאִם קִדֵּשׁ שֵׂעָר בַּדָּם — אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה.

§ Rav Ḥisda said: All concede that if the hair was consecrated during the sprinkling of the blood, he has no means of remedy. That is, if the nazirite had completed his term and brought his offerings, and the blood of the offerings was sprinkled, and he then became impure before shaving, he has no way to shave or to render wine permitted to himself. It has not been permitted through the offerings he brought because he has become impure, and he cannot bring other offerings for this purpose since one may not bring two sets of offerings for the same term of naziriteship.

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר תִּגְלַחַת מְעַכֶּבֶת, תּוֹךְ מְלֹאת הִיא? וְלִסְתּוֹר! אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן — הָאָמְרִי תִּגְלַחַת לֹא מְעַכֶּבֶת! לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, וּמַאי ״אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה״ — אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה לְמִצְוַת גִּילּוּחַ.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Ḥisda state this halakha? If one says that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this cannot be, since Rabbi Eliezer said that shaving is indispensable to the completion of naziriteship. The impurity is therefore contracted within the full term of his naziriteship, in which case it would not make sense that he has no remedy; but let it instead negate his days of naziriteship, and he will observe them again, after which he will shave. Rather, perhaps Rav Ḥisda spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; didn’t they say that shaving is not indispensable to the completion of naziriteship, which means his impurity occurred when he was no longer a nazirite? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Ḥisda ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and what is the meaning of: He has no means of remedy? It means: He has no means of remedy for the mitzva of shaving, i.e., he cannot fulfill the mitzva of shaving in purity as required.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: נָזִיר שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ יָמָיו — לוֹקֶה עַל הַטּוּמְאָה, וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל הַתִּגְלַחַת וְלֹא עַל הַיַּיִן. מַאי שְׁנָא טוּמְאָה דְּלָקֵי — דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל יְמֵי הַזִּירוֹ לַה׳״, לְרַבּוֹת יָמִים שֶׁלְּאַחַר מְלֹאת כְּיָמִים שֶׁלִּפְנֵי מְלֹאת.

§ Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: A nazirite whose days of naziriteship are completed but who has yet to bring his offerings is flogged for the contracting of impurity if he becomes impure from a corpse, like any nazirite who becomes impure, but he is not flogged for the act of shaving, nor for the drinking of wine. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to impurity that he is flogged for it? It is as the verse states: “All the days that he has consecrated himself unto the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body” (Numbers 6:6). The additional word “all” comes to include the days after the completion of his naziriteship and teaches that they are like the days before its completion with regard to the prohibition against contracting impurity from the dead. Therefore, he is liable to receive lashes.

אִי הָכִי, אַתִּגְלַחַת נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב, דְּהָא אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל יְמֵי נֶדֶר נִזְרוֹ תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״, לַעֲשׂוֹת יָמִים שֶׁלְּאַחַר מְלֹאת כַּיָּמִים שֶׁלִּפְנֵי מְלֹאת! וְתוּ, ״כֹּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן״, לַעֲשׂוֹת יָמִים שֶׁלְּאַחַר מְלֹאת כְּיָמִים שֶׁלִּפְנֵי מְלֹאת?

The Gemara asks: If so, let him also be liable to receive lashes for shaving, since the Merciful One states in the Torah: “All the days of his vow of naziriteship there shall no razor come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5). Here too, the word “all” should render the days after the completion of his naziriteship like the days before its completion. And furthermore, with regard to wine as well, the verse states: “All the days of his naziriteship, from anything that is made of the grapevine, from the pressed grapes even to the grapestone, he shall not eat” (Numbers 6:4). Once again, the word “all” should render the days after the completion of his naziriteship like the days before its completion with regard to drinking wine. What is the reason for the difference in halakha between contracting impurity on the one hand, and shaving and drinking wine on the other?