Nazir 17 · Talmud Bavli – Davidson & Talmud · Verses Across
Judaism · Talmud · Nashim (Women)
Nazir 17
18
Judaism · Talmud · Nashim (Women)
Nazir 17
TalmudHebrew
DavidsonEnglish
(17a:1)הכא במאי עסקינן ביוצא ונכנס
(17a:1)Reish Lakish responded: With what are we dealing here in this baraita? With one who left and entered, meaning that after having left the cemetery and purifying himself, he then vowed again to be a nazirite and subsequently reentered the cemetery.
(17a:2)איתיביה אין בין טמא שנזר לנזיר טהור שנטמא אלא טמא שנזר שביעי שלו עולה לו למנין ונזיר טהור שנטמא אין שביעי שלו עולה לו למנין ואי ס"ד לא חיילא אמאי עולה לו מן המנין
(17a:2)Rabbi Yoḥanan raised another objection to Reish Lakish’s opinion from a different source: The difference between a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a ritually pure nazirite who became impure is only the following halakha: If a ritually impure person took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship, since he starts counting his term of naziriteship as soon as he becomes pure. But with regard to a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally. Rather, he starts counting his days of naziriteship from the following day, which is the day on which he brings his offerings. And if it enters your mind that a vow of naziriteship stated while ritually impure does not take effect, why does the baraita state that the seventh day counts as part of his tally, indicating that the naziriteship takes effect without a need for him to restate his vow?
(17a:3)אמר מר בר רב אשי מיחל כ"ע לא פליגי דחיילא אלא כי פליגי למלקי רבי יוחנן סבר כיון דחיילא לקי ור"ל סבר לא לקי וחיילא
(17a:3)As a result of this question, the Gemara offers a different interpretation of their dispute. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: The dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish is not as stated above. With regard to the question of the vow of naziriteship taking effect, everyone agrees that it takes effect from the moment of his acceptance of naziriteship, even if he was in the cemetery. Rather, when they disagree it is with regard to being flogged, as follows: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that since the vow takes effect, he is therefore flogged for becoming impure, and Reish Lakish holds that he is not flogged for becoming impure, but the vow does take effect with regard to the prohibitions of naziriteship.
(17a:4)איתיביה ר' יוחנן לר"ל מי שנזר והוא בבית הקברות אפילו היה שם שלשים יום אין עולין לו מן המנין ואינו מביא קרבן טומאה קרבן טומאה הוא דלא מייתי הא מילקי לקי עליה
(17a:4)According to this version of the dispute as well, Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from the mishna, which states: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity, despite having been in a cemetery. Rabbi Yoḥanan infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but he is flogged for contracting impurity, which is not in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish.
(17a:5)בדין הוא דליתני אינו לוקה אלא משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא יצא ונכנס עולה לו מן המנין ומביא קרבן טומאה תנא רישא אינו מביא קרבן טומאה
(17a:5)The Gemara answers: This inference is not correct, as by right the mishna should teach: He is not flogged, but due to the fact that the tanna wants to teach the latter clause of the mishna, which states: If he left the cemetery and entered it again, those days do count as part of his tally, meaning the naziriteship takes effect, and he does bring the offerings of impurity for reentering the cemetery, the tanna therefore taught a similar phrasing in the first clause of the mishna: He does not bring the offerings of impurity, so this should not be seen as an indication that he is not flogged.
(17a:6)ת"ש אין בין טמא שנזר לנזיר טהור שנטמא אלא שטמא שנזר שביעי שלו עולה לו מן המנין ונזיר טהור שנטמא אין שביעי שלו עולה לו מן המנין הא למלקות זה וזה שוין א"ל לא לתגלחת זה וזה שוין
(17a:6)The Gemara suggests another proof in support of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion. Come and hear a proof from another baraita: The difference between an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a pure nazirite who became impure is only the following halakha: That in the case of 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 in the case of a pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally. The Gemara infers: But with regard to flogging, this nazirite and that nazirite are equal. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: This is not a correct inference; rather, it is with regard to shaving on the seventh day of purification that this nazirite and that nazirite are equal, since even a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship must shave on that day.
(17a:7)אבל לענין מלקות מאי זה לוקה וזה אינו לוקה ליתנייה בתקנתיה קא מיירי בקלקוליה לא קא מיירי
(17a:7)The Gemara asks: But in that case, according to Reish Lakish, what is the halakha with regard to flogging? This nazirite is flogged, and that nazirite, who was ritually impure when he vowed, is not flogged? If so, let him teach this difference as well; why does the baraita state that there is only one difference between them? The Gemara answers: This baraita is speaking of his remedy; it is not speaking of a matter that is detrimental to him. Consequently the baraita does not discuss a nazirite’s punishments and discusses only the means by which he can resume his observance of naziriteship.
(17a:8)תא שמע מי שהיה טמא ונזר אסור לגלח ולשתות יין ואם גילח ושתה יין ונטמא למתים הרי זה סופג את הארבעים תיובתא
(17a:8)The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:14): One who was ritually impure and took a vow of naziriteship must still observe the halakhot of a nazirite. He is prohibited from shaving and from drinking wine. And if he shaved, or if he drank wine, or if he became ritually impure from a corpse, he incurs the forty lashes administered to one who actively transgresses a negative Torah prohibition. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as explained by Mar bar Rav Ashi.
(17a:9)בעי רבא נזיר והוא בבית הקברות מהו בעי שהייה למלקות או לא
(17a:9)§ After concluding that one who takes a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery is liable to receive lashes, Rava asks: What is the halakha if one took a vow to be a nazirite while standing in a cemetery: Is it necessary that his exit from the cemetery be delayed for a specific period of time for him to become liable to receive lashes, just as one who becomes ritually impure while in the Temple receives lashes only if he remains there for a specific period of time, or is it not necessary?
(17a:10)היכי דמי אילימא דאמרי ליה לא תינזור למה לי שהייה נזיר מאי טעמא לא בעי שהייה דקא מתרי ביה ה"נ קא מתרי ביה
(17a:10)The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances in which this question is relevant? If we say that they said to him in warning: Do not take a vow of naziriteship in the cemetery, and he ignored their warning and took a vow of naziriteship, why do I need him to delay his exit? What is the reason that one who was already a nazirite when he entered a cemetery does not need to delay his exit in order to be liable to receive lashes? Because they warn him not to enter, and if he enters he has transgressed a prohibition and is flogged. Here too, they warn him not to take the vow, and he should therefore be liable to receive lashes if he does take the vow.
(17b:1)Rather, Rava’s question should be understood to refer to a case where one entered the cemetery in a chest, box, or cabinet, i.e., in large wooden containers that do not contract ritual impurity. One can enter a cemetery in such a container without becoming impure. If one was carried into a cemetery inside one of these containers, then took a vow of naziriteship, and another came and removed the top [ma’aziva] from above him, he would become ritually impure by virtue of being in the cemetery.
(17b:2)כי גמירין שהייה בבית המקדש אבל אבראי לא או דלמא לא שנא תיקו
(17b:2)If he was then warned to leave the cemetery, the question is as follows: When we learned by tradition that one is liable to receive lashes for delaying his exit, does that apply only to the Temple, but outside the Temple, such as when a nazirite is in a cemetery, does the halakha not apply, so that he is liable to receive lashes even if he did not delay his exit? Or perhaps it is not different, and a nazirite in a cemetery is flogged only if he remains there for a specific period of time. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
(17b:3)בעי רב אשי נזר והוא בבית הקברות טעון גילוח או לא כי בעי תגלחת טהור שנטמא דקא מטמא לנזירותיה אבל טמא שנזר לא או דלמא לא שנא
(17b:3)§ Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If one took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, is he required to shave upon becoming ritually pure, before starting his term of naziriteship, or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: When a ritually impure nazirite is required to shave before starting his tally, does that refer only to a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, who has defiled his naziriteship? But a ritually impure person who only took a vow of naziriteship, and whose naziriteship has not yet begun, is he not obligated to shave? Or perhaps it is not different.
(17b:4)ת"ש מי שנזר והוא בבית הקברות אפילו היה שם שלשים יום אינו עולה לו מן המנין ואינו מביא קרבן טומאה קרבן טומאה הוא דלא מייתי אבל גלוחי בעי מה טעם קאמר מה טעם אינו מביא קרבן טומאה משום דלא בעי גלוחי
(17b:4)The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect, and he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity. The Gemara infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but he is required to shave. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that the mishna is saying: What is the reason, as follows: What is the reason that he does not bring the offerings of impurity? Because he does not require shaving. This indicates that the naziriteship has not yet begun, therefore, he does not bring the offerings either.
(17b:5)ת"ש אין בין טמא שנזר לנזיר טהור שנטמא אלא טמא שנזר שביעי שלו עולה לו מן המנין ונזיר טהור שנטמא אין שביעי שלו עולה לו מן המנין מאי לאו הא לתגלחת זה וזה שוין לא הא למלקות זה וזה שוין
(17b:5)The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear a proof from another baraita: The difference between a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a ritually pure nazirite who became impure is only the following halakha: 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. The Gemara infers: What, is it not so that with regard to shaving, this and that are equal, and he must shave in either case? The Gemara rejects this: No, there is a different inference: It is with regard to flogging that this and that are equal, but one who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery does not have to shave.
(17b:6)אבל תגלחת מאי זה מגלח וזה אינו מגלח ליתנייה תנא שביעי שלו וכל מילי
(17b:6)The Gemara questions this answer: But what is the halakha concerning shaving? Does this one, who became ritually impure, shave, and that one, who vowed while in a cemetery, not shave? If so, let him teach this difference as well. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught: His seventh day, and all matters relevant to it, including the halakha of shaving. Once it says that the seventh day is part of the tally of the ritually impure nazirite who became pure, it can be inferred that he does not bring the offerings of impurity on the eighth day, and therefore he does not shave on the seventh day.
(17b:7)ת"ש אין לי אלא ימי טומאתו שאין עולין לו מן המנין ימי חלוטו מנין ודין הוא מה ימי טומאתו מגלח ומביא קרבן אף ימי חלוטו מגלח ומביא קרבן ומה ימי טומאתו אין עולין לו מן המנין אף ימי חלוטו אין עולין לו מן המנין
(17b:7)The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: I have derived only that a nazirite’s days of ritual impurity do not count as part of his tally; from where do I derive that his days of confirmed leprosy, in a case where a nazirite became a leper during his term, do not count toward his tally of naziriteship? And it would seem that by right it should be so: Just as at the end of his days of ritual impurity the nazirite shaves and brings offerings, so too at the end of his days of confirmed leprosy the halakha is that he shaves and brings offerings for his leprosy. And this comparison can be extended: Just as the days of his ritual impurity do not count as part of his tally, so too his days of confirmed leprosy do not count as part of his tally.
(17b:8)לא אם אמרת בימי טומאתו שכן מבטל בהן את הקודמין לפיכך אין עולין לו מן המנין תאמר בימי חלוטו שאינו מבטל את הקודמין לפיכך עולין לו מן המנין
(17b:8)The baraita continues: No, if you say so with regard to his days of ritual impurity, in that case it is because with them, the previous days of his naziriteship observed in ritual purity are negated. Therefore, those days do not count as part of his tally. But will you say the same with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, which do not negate the previous days? If thirty days, enough time for his hair to regrow, remain in his term of naziriteship after becoming purified from his leprosy, the days before he contracted leprosy are not negated. It is therefore possible to argue that they do count as part of his tally.
(17b:9)אמרת ומה נזיר בקבר ששערו ראוי לתגלחת אין עולין לו מן המנין ימי חלוטו שאין ראוי לתגלחת לא כ"ש שאין עולין לו מן המנין
(17b:9)The baraita continues: But you can say that just as with regard to a nazirite who was in the grave, i.e., a cemetery, whose hair is fit for shaving, those days spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, his days of confirmed leprosy, which are not fit for counting as part of the tally required for the shaving, since he must first shave as part of the purification process for his leprosy, is it not all the more so that they do not count as part of his tally? This concludes the baraita.
(17b:10)מאי לאו תגלחת טומאה לא תגלחת טהרה הכי נמי מסתברא
(17b:10)The Gemara now attempts to prove from the baraita that one who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery must shave at the close of his process of purification: What, is it not so that when the baraita mentions shaving, it is referring to the shaving of impurity, and it is teaching that one who took a vow of naziriteship in a cemetery must shave at the end of his purification process? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the shaving of purity, meaning the shaving done after one completes his term of naziriteship. He then will shave all of his hair, including that which grew during the time he was ritually impure due to his presence in the cemetery. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable to say that this is the correct interpretation,
