נזיר יח

נזיר יח

דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ תִּגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה, יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ מִי לָא בָּעֵי תִּגְלַחַת? לָא, תִּגְלַחַת דִּנְזִירוּת קָתָנֵי.

as if it enters your mind to say that the baraita is discussing the shaving done as a result of the nazirite’s impurity, and contrasts a nazirite with a leper, do the end of a leper’s days of confirmed leprosy not require shaving? A leper must shave when he is purified from his condition, so how can he be described as unfit for shaving? Rather, the baraita must be referring to the nazirite’s shaving of purity, as suggested above (17b). The Gemara rejects this: No, it could be that the baraita is discussing the shaving done as a result of the nazirite’s impurity, and when it states that a leper is unfit for shaving, the baraita is teaching about the shaving of naziriteship, and the baraita is stating that a leper is unfit for any shaving of a nazirite, since he must first shave for his leprosy.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְטִמֵּא רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ״, בְּטָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין. וְלִפְטוֹר אֶת הַנָּזִיר בְּקֶבֶר — שֶׁאֵין טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין.

The Gemara suggests another proof to answer the question of whether one who vows naziriteship while in a cemetery must shave upon undergoing purification. Come and hear a baraita: The verse states: “And he defiles his consecrated head, he shall shave his head on the day of his purification, on the seventh day shall he shave it” (Numbers 6:9). The baraita explains: The verse is speaking of a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, who requires hair removal and the bringing of birds as offerings. And this verse comes to exempt a nazirite who vowed while in the grave, i.e., a cemetery, that he does not require hair removal and the bringing of birds.

וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין, מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא מִתְּחִלָּה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין?

The baraita continues its analysis of this halakha. For one might have explained differently: And are these matters, the ruling that such a nazirite is exempt, not inferred with an a fortiori inference to reach the opposite conclusion: Just as a nazirite who was pure from the outset and who subsequently became impure requires hair removal and the bringing of birds, if one was impure from the outset, as he took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, is it not logical that he should require hair removal and the bringing of birds?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְטִמֵּא רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ״, בְּמִי שֶׁהָיָה טָהוֹר וְנִטְמָא הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁיְּהֵא טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין, וְלִפְטוֹר אֶת הַנָּזִיר בְּקֶבֶר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Therefore the verse states: “And he defiles his consecrated head,” indicating that the verse speaks only of one who was a pure nazirite and later became impure, and that only he requires hair removal and the bringing of birds. And the verse serves to exempt the nazirite who vowed while in a place of a grave, who was ritually impure from the outset. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that a nazirite who was ritually impure from the outset does not have to shave; this answers the question of Rav Ashi.

מַאן תְּנָא הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין בֵּין טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר לְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, אֶלָּא שֶׁטָּמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר — שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — אֵין שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן?

§ After resolving the question, the Gemara discusses additional halakhot involving a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship. Who is the tanna who taught this baraita that the Sages taught in the previous discussion: The difference between an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a pure nazirite who became ritually impure is only the following halakha: That with regard to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of the term of naziriteship. But with regard to a pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: אֵין נְזִירוּת טׇהֳרָה חָלָה אֶלָּא עַד שְׁמִינִי. דְּאִי תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, הָאָמַר נְזִירוּת דְּטׇהֳרָה מִשְּׁבִיעִי הוּא דְּחָיְילָא.

Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Naziriteship of purity takes effect only from the eighth day. When a nazirite becomes impure during his term, he begins to count his term of observing naziriteship in purity only on the day following his purification. For if you say it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that the naziriteship of purity takes effect from the seventh day of his purification process?

מַאי רַבִּי וּמַאי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא״ — בְּיוֹם הֲבָאַת קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּיוֹם תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that Rav Ḥisda referred to? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a ritually impure nazirite who underwent the purification rite: “And he shall sanctify his head on that day” (Numbers 6:11). This means that he renews the sanctity of his hair growth, i.e., begins observing his naziriteship in purity, on the day of the bringing of his offerings, the eighth day of his purification. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This means that he renews the sanctity of his hair growth on the day of his shaving, the seventh day of his purification.

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: נָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא טוּמְאוֹת הַרְבֵּה — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד, מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: נְזִירוּת טׇהֳרָה מִשְּׁבִיעִי חָיְילָא. וּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי. (וּמַנִּי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא) כֵּיוָן דְּלֹא יָצָא שָׁעָה הָרְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא קׇרְבָּן — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד.

§ The Gemara cites a related halakha: And that which we learned in a mishna (Karetot 9a): If a nazirite became impure by contracting many consecutive impurities, he brings only one set of offerings. Who taught that? Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said the naziriteship of purity takes effect from the seventh day of his purification process. And you find this, that he contracts ritual impurity several times consecutively, in a case where he became ritually impure on the seventh day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day. And whose opinion is it? It is that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Since the appropriate time to bring an offering had not yet arrived, as all agree that his offerings are only brought on the eighth day, if he became ritually impure a second time he is obligated to bring only one set of offerings.

דְּאִי תֵּימָא רַבִּי הִיא, אִי דְּנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי (וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי) — כּוּלְּהוּ טוּמְאָה אֲרִיכְתָּא הִיא. וְאִי דְּנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי — הֲרֵי יָצְתָה שָׁעָה שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא קׇרְבָּן.

For if you say it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how can this mishna be explained? If it deals with a nazirite who became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that all these impurities are in fact one long ritual impurity, because he never reached the eighth day, which would renew his observance of naziriteship in ritual purity, so the mishna would not refer to this as a case of multiple impurities. And if the mishna is referring to a nazirite who became ritually impure on the eighth day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the eighth day, the appropriate time to bring an offering had already arrived, and if he becomes ritually impure at that stage, it is not viewed as a continuation of the previous ritual impurity, and he is obligated to bring another set of offerings.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״, וַהֲדַר ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִם כֵּן — לֵימָא קְרָא: ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ״.

The Gemara clarifies the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling that he begins counting only from the eighth day? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And the priest shall prepare one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul” (Numbers 6:11), and the same verse again states immediately afterward: “And he shall sanctify his head.” This shows that the naziriteship of purity commences only after he has brought his offerings. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says in response: If so, if the verse intended to teach us that his naziriteship starts only on the eighth day, let the verse merely state: “And he shall sanctify his head,” since that phrase addresses the bringing of his offerings, which is on the eighth.

״בְּיוֹם הַהוּא״ לְמָה לִי? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִשְׁמִינִי, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִשְׁבִיעִי. וְרַבִּי נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא״? אָמַר לְךָ רַבִּי: הָהוּא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא — לוֹמַר לָךְ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו.

Why do I need the extra phrase “on that day” (Numbers 6:11)? This teaches that if it does not apply to the matter of the eighth day, since the verse is speaking of that day anyway, apply it to the matter of the seventh day, so that “on that day” means the day when he becomes ritually purified, even before he brings his offerings. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written “on that day”? What halakha does he derive from these additional words? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: That verse comes for this purpose, to tell you that even though he did not yet bring his offerings, he starts counting his naziriteship of purity from the eighth day. This is derived from the verse’s emphasis of: “And he shall sanctify his head on that day,” indicating that it depends on the day itself, rather than the bringing of the offerings.

וְרַב חִסְדָּא, מַאי דּוּחְקֵיהּ לְאוֹקֹמַיהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? לוֹקְמַהּ כְּגוֹן דְּנִטְמָא דְּחַזְיָא בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי, וְרַבִּי הִיא!

The Gemara asks: And what forced Rav Ḥisda to establish this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Let him establish it as referring to a case where one became impure by seeing, i.e., contracting, impurity on the night preceding the eighth day each time. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the naziriteship of purity begins at the start of, presumably the night preceding, the eighth day. Therefore, this case will be one of a nazirite contracting ritual impurity many times. Nevertheless, the nazirite will be obligated to bring only one set of offerings for all of them, because each case of ritual impurity occurred at night, when he is unable to bring the offerings for his previous ritual impurity, as offerings can be brought only during the day. And therefore it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

מִדְּלָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבִּי, לֵימָא קָסָבַר לֵילְיָא לָאו מְחוּסַּר זְמַן הוּא?

The Gemara suggests: Since he did not establish it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in this way, shall we say that Rav Ḥisda holds that night is not considered premature? In other words, although he cannot in practice bring his offerings until the morning, as the Temple service was performed only in the daytime, the night is not considered a premature time, but rather it is viewed as part of the day in which it is appropriate to bring his offerings. Consequently, the halakha of one who becomes ritually impure on the night preceding the eighth day is the same as that of one who contracted ritual impurity on the eighth day itself, and they are both required to bring an additional set of offerings.

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הָא בְּהָא תַּלְיָא. אִי אָמְרַתְּ לֵילְיָא מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, אֵימַת מִיחְזֵי לְקׇרְבָּן — לְצַפְרָא, נְזִירוּת נָמֵי לָא חָיְילָא עַד צַפְרָא. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לֵילְיָא אֵינוֹ מְחוּסַּר זְמַן — נְזִירוּת טׇהֳרָה חָיְילָא מֵאוּרְתָּא.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: This conclusion is incorrect, as even if Rav Ḥisda holds that the night is considered to be premature, he could not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the offerings and his new term of naziriteship depend on each other: If you say night is considered premature, when is he fit to bring his offerings? Only in the morning. Accordingly, naziriteship also does not take effect until the morning. And if you say night is not considered premature, and he is already obligated in his offerings at night, in that case naziriteship of purity takes effect from the evening, which means that the ritual impurity he suffered at night renders him obligated to bring an additional set of offerings. Consequently, the mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whether night is considered premature or not, and nothing can be inferred from here with regard to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion in that matter.

גּוּפָא: נִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד. נִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי — מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. מַתְחִיל וּמוֹנֶה מִיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

§ The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta 4:8) concerning the matter of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity many times itself: If a nazirite became impure, and then became impure on the seventh day of his purification process, and again became impure on the following seventh day of his purification process, he brings only one set of offerings. If he became impure on the eighth day, and again became impure on the following eighth day, he brings a set of offerings for each and every time he became impure. Nevertheless, he begins counting his ritually pure naziriteship immediately on the eighth day, even if he has not yet brought his offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל, עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ. הֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ וְנִטְמָא, וְהֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ וְנִטְמָא — מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. הֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ וְלֹא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ — מוֹנֶה.

And the Rabbis say: If he had not yet brought his offerings on the eighth day when he became impure, it is considered one long period of ritual impurity, and he brings one set of offerings for all the times he became impure, until he has brought his sin-offering at the end of his period of ritual impurity. It is only then that he can begin counting his next term of naziriteship. Therefore, if he brought his sin-offering and then became impure, and again brought his sin-offering and then again became impure, he brings a set of offerings for each and every one. If he brought his sin-offering and did not yet bring his guilt-offering, he begins to count his term of naziriteship in ritual purity.

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ עִיכְּבַתּוּ, כֵּן אֲשָׁמוֹ מְעַכְּבוֹ.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Just as not bringing his sin-offering precludes him from starting his naziriteship in ritual purity, so too, not bringing his guilt-offering precludes him from starting his naziriteship in ritual purity, and if he became impure again before he brought his guilt-offering, he only brings one set of offerings for all his impurities.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אָמַר קְרָא ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו. וְרַבָּנַן: ״הַהוּא״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ.

After having quoted the baraita, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the three opinions: Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer, his reason is that the verse states: “And he shall sanctify his head on that day” (Numbers 6:11), which indicates: Even though he has not brought his offerings, the eighth day determines the start of his ritually pure naziriteship. And the Rabbis agree that the phrase “on that day” is extra, and it teaches that he begins counting from that day even though he has not brought his guilt-offering, but he does not begin counting until after bringing his sin-offering.

אֶלָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, ״הָהוּא״ לְמָה לִי? אָמַר לָךְ: ״הַהוּא״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא עוֹלָתוֹ. וְרַבָּנַן: עוֹלָה לָא בָּעֵי מִיעוּטָא — דּוֹרוֹן בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

But according to Rabbi Yishmael, why do I need the phrase “on that day”? According to his opinion the issue depends on the offerings, not the day. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael could have said to you: The phrase “on that day” teaches that he can begin counting even though he has not brought his burnt-offering, as he agrees that not bringing the burnt-offering does not preclude him from counting his naziriteship. And the Rabbis respond to this: A burnt-offering does not require a limitation in the text to teach that its omission does not preclude the start of his naziriteship in ritual purity, since it is merely a gift and not part of his atonement process.

מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִזִּיר לַה׳ אֶת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ וְהֵבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ לְאָשָׁם״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁכׇּל אֲשָׁמוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֵן מְעַכְּבִין, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה מְעַכְּבוֹ —

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of the Rabbis for ruling that only refraining from bringing his sin-offering precludes the start of his new count of naziriteship? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a nazirite who became ritually impure: “And he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring a lamb in its first year for a guilt-offering” (Numbers 6:12). What does this teach? Doesn’t he wait to begin the days of his naziriteship until after he has brought all of his offerings? Rather, since we have found that all guilt-offerings that are mentioned in the Torah are indispensable for atonement, and before he has brought his guilt-offering he is forbidden from partaking of any sacred offerings, one might have thought that not having brought this guilt-offering also precludes him from counting his ritually pure naziriteship,