נזיר סא

נזיר סא

תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: זֶה לִפְנֵי בִּיאַת מַיִם (חַיִּים) וְזֶה לְאַחַר בִּיאַת מַיִם, זֶה לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים וְזֶה לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים.

Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

שֶׁתִּגְלַחַת הַנֶּגַע וְכוּ׳. בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הָנֵי אַרְבַּע תִּגְלָחִיּוֹת דְּקָאָמַר, מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה, אוֹ מִשּׁוּם אַעְבּוֹרֵי שְׂעַר טוּמְאָה?

§ The mishna taught that the shaving of leprosy overrides the shaving of a nazirite only when he is a confirmed leper. Rami bar Ḥama 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?

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְעַבּוֹרֵי בְּנָשָׁא. אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה — לְעַבּוֹרֵי בְּנָשָׁא לָא, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם אַעְבּוֹרֵי שְׂעַר טוּמְאָה — אֲפִילּוּ סַכְיֵהּ נָשָׁא נָמֵי.

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.

מַאי? אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: וּמְגַלֵּחַ אַרְבַּע תִּגְלָחִיּוֹת. אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם עַבּוֹרֵי שְׂעַר טוּמְאָה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ נָמֵי סַגְיָא לֵיהּ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ שְׁנֵי נְזִירִים

הַגּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶם נְזִירוּת. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן נְזִירוּת. חוֹמֶר בַּנָּשִׁים מִבָּעֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּא כּוֹפֶה אֶת עַבְדּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ כּוֹפֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.

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’s vow of naziriteship, but a husband cannot force his wife to transgress her naziriteship.

גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי: הַגּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶם נְזִירוּת. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ — וְלֹא לַגּוֹיִם. ״וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֲבָדִים. לְמָה לִי קְרָא? הָאָמְרַתְּ: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה חַיֶּיבֶת בָּהּ — עֶבֶד חַיָּיב בָּהּ!

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: “Speak to the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:2), serves to emphasize that these halakhot apply to Jews, but not to the gentiles. Furthermore, the continuation of the verse: “And say to them, when a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow,” serves to include slaves. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include slaves? Haven’t 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.

אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ״, בְּמִי שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ קְנוּיָה לוֹ. יָצָא עֶבֶד, שֶׁאֵין נַפְשׁוֹ קְנוּיָה לוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין נַפְשׁוֹ קְנוּיָה לוֹ, אֵימָא גַּבֵּי נָזִיר נָמֵי לָא. קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rava said: Here it is different, as with regard to vows the verse states: “To bind his soul with a bond” (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’s control. The verse from Leviticus is necessary, lest you say that since a slave’s 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.

אָמַר מָר: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְלֹא לַגּוֹיִם. וְכׇל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״יִשְׂרָאֵל״, גּוֹיִם לָא? וְהָא גַּבֵּי עֲרָכִין, דִּכְתִיב ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְתַנְיָא: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעֲרִיכִין, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מַעֲרִיכִין.

The Gemara returns to the earlier exposition of the verse. The Master said in the baraita that the verse specifies: “Speak to the children of Israel,” but not to the gentiles. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that “Israel” 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: “Speak to the children of Israel” (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.

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ נֶעֱרָכִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ״.

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: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2), to teach that in this regard, every “man,” even a gentile, is included in halakhot of valuations. Inasmuch as the Torah also states with regard to a nazirite: “When a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite” (Numbers 6:2), perhaps one should include gentiles in the halakhot of naziriteship as well.

שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא״, בְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָב, יָצָא גּוֹי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אָב. לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְעִנְיַן יְרוּשָּׁה, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גּוֹי יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יְרֻשָּׁה לְעֵשָׂו נָתַתִּי אֶת הַר שֵׂעִיר״!

The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of naziriteship, it is different, as the verse states: “For his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself” (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’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A gentile inherits the estate of his father by Torah law, as it is stated: “Because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 2:5)?

אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁמּוּזְהָר עַל כִּיבּוּד אָבִיו. מִי כְּתִיב ״כַּבֵּד אָבִיךָ״ גַּבֵּי נָזִיר? אֶלָּא: אָמַר קְרָא ״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא״ — בְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ טוּמְאָה,

Rather, this mitzva of naziriteship applies to one who is warned concerning the honor of his father, and as the mitzva to honor one’s 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: “For his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself” (Numbers 6:7), and it should be understood as referring to one who has the potential to become ritually impure,

יָצָא גּוֹי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ טוּמְאָה. מְנָלַן דְּלֵית לְהוּ טוּמְאָה? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הָהִיא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל״, בְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קָהָל, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קָהָל.

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: “But the man who shall be impure and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly” (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.

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא כָּרֵת הוּא דְּלָא מִיחַיַּיב, אֲבָל אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי מִיטַמּוּ? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהִזָּה הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא״, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ טׇהֳרָה — יֵשׁ לוֹ טוּמְאָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ טׇהֳרָה — אֵין לוֹ טוּמְאָה.

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: “And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure”; 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.

וְאֵימָא: טׇהֳרָה הוּא דְּלָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ, טוּמְאָה הָוְיָא לֵיהּ! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא״.

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: “But the man who shall be impure and shall not purify himself” (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.

רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם״.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said a different reason why a gentile cannot become a nazirite, despite the fact that the term “man” 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: “And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you” (Leviticus 25:46). This verse establishes a child as one to whom a person can bequeath his slaves, the subject of this verse.

כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נַחֲלָה — יֵשׁ לוֹ טוּמְאָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ נַחֲלָה — אֵין לוֹ טוּמְאָה. אִי הָכִי עֲבָדִים נָמֵי לָא!

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov 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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא גַּבֵּי עֲרָכִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ — בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעֲרִיכִין, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מַעֲרִיכִין. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ נֶעֱרָכִין, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ״.

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 “man” appears in both passages. Granted, with regard to valuations, as it is stated: “Speak to the children of Israel” (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: “Man” (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 “the children of Israel” that gentiles are generally excluded.

הָכָא, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹזְרִין וּמְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נוֹזְרִין וּמְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן. יָכוֹל אַף לֹא יְהוּ נְזִירִין כְּלָל — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ״?

Rava continues his explanation: However, here, in the case of naziriteship, there is no possibility of interpreting the word “man” 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 “the children of Israel” (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: “Man,” which includes gentiles in one aspect of the halakhot of naziriteship, i.e., that they can become nazirites.

אָמְרִי: אִי מִשּׁוּם קׇרְבָּן לָאו מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא מֵהָתָם: ״לְעוֹלָה״ — פְּרָט לִנְזִירוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי!

Rava continues his explanation: However, the Sages would say in response to this suggestion: If the phrase “the children of Israel” 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: “Any 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” (Leviticus 22:18), excludes a gentile from the offering of naziriteship; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Therefore, the phrase “the children of Israel” must exclude gentiles from the entire passage of naziriteship, and not just from bringing the offerings.

אֵימָא: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹזְרִין נְזִירוּת עוֹלָם, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נוֹזְרִים נְזִירוּת עוֹלָם. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ נְזִירִים — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ״! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי כְּתִיב ״נְזִיר עוֹלָם״?

The Gemara asks: But it can still be argued that “the children of Israel” 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: “Man,” to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Is it written: A permanent nazirite? Since the verse does not specify a particular type of naziriteship, it excludes gentiles from all types.

אֵימָא: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַדִּירִין בְּנֵיהֶם בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מַדִּירִין בְּנֵיהֶם בְּנָזִיר. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ נְזִירִים — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ״! הָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר.

The Gemara offers another suggestion: But it can still be argued that “the children of Israel” is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can say that this phrase teaches that “the children of Israel” 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: “Man,” to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אֵימָא: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְגַלְּחִין עַל נְזִירוּת אֲבִיהֶן, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְגַלְּחִין עַל נְזִירוּת אֲבִיהֶן.

The Gemara offers another suggestion: But it can still be argued that “the children of Israel” is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can say that this phrase teaches that “the children of Israel” can shave and cut their hair by means of the offerings of their fathers’ naziriteships, but gentiles cannot shave and cut their hair by means of their fathers’ 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.