Nazir 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

necessarily

this is what he is saying:

one who undertook to shave a nazirite:

If I find that he is a nazirite, I will shave him,

that is: If I find any nazirite at the time I come to fulfill my undertaking, I will shave him, even though he has not yet taken a nazirite vow.

And if so,

here too—

with regard to the sender who sends his agent to betroth a woman for him—

also

we should say that the sender’s intention is not specifically regarding women who are already fit for betrothal at present, but rather

this is what he is saying to him,

the sender to the agent:

If you find that she has been divorced, betroth her for me,

if you find a woman who is divorced at the time you come to betroth her for me, betroth her for me.

And if so, the difficulty returns to its original place: Why is the sender permitted to marry a woman whose sister was married at the time the agency was appointed, even though she was subsequently divorced!?

Rather,

the members of the academy said

that it should be explained as follows: Indeed, the agent cannot betroth a woman who was married to a man at the time the agency was appointed. However, the reason is not an assessment of the sender’s intention; rather, it is a legal rule. Even if the sender explicitly told the agent to betroth for him a woman who is currently married once she becomes divorced, the agent cannot betroth her.

And because

not

is able

a person to appoint an agent except

for a matter that he himself is able to perform

the sender

now [in a matter that the sender could perform now, at the time the agency is appointed], namely, to betroth an unmarried woman, since the sender himself could betroth her now.

But

However,

for a matter that he himself is unable to perform

the sender

now,

namely, a married woman, who is not fit for betrothal—and she is not fit even to be betrothed at a later time, since a person cannot betroth something that does not yet exist—

not

is he able

to appoint

the sender

an agent

to betroth her, even to betroth her once she becomes divorced.

A. If a woman vows a vow that constitutes an affliction for her, or vows a vow concerning matters between her and her husband, the husband can annul her vow.

B. If the husband wishes, he can “uphold” his wife’s vows, and thereafter he cannot annul those vows.

The Gemara questions the foundation we stated concerning the appointment of agency:

Is that so!?

Is it indeed impossible for a person to appoint an agent for a matter that he himself is unable to perform at the time the agency is appointed? But

come and hear

that this is not so:

As it was taught in a beraita: A husband who is about to leave his home for an overseas country and appointed a guardian over his property to provide for his wife and children —

one who says to his guardian: “

All vows that my wife vows from now

from the time I leave here and

until I return from a certain place

to which I am going,

annul them”!

And

indeed,

the guardian annulled

the vows

for her,

her vows,

can they be annulled?

The verse states: “

Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it,”

and for this reason the verse says “her husband” twice to teach: “Her husband,” and not the agent,

the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Rabbi Yonatan says:

We

find everywhere that “

a person’s agent is equivalent to him,”

and here too the guardian can annul the vows as the husband’s agent.

Now Rabbi Yoshiya’s words present a difficulty to the foundation that was established, since

the reason the Merciful One said: “

Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it”

is to exclude an agent; therefore the guardian cannot annul.

Had it not been

so—that the Torah excluded an agent—

even a

guardian

would be able

to annul.

But with regard to the husband himself,

the husband,

it was taught [whereas concerning the husband himself we learned] that he cannot annul today the vows that his wife will vow, and nevertheless he can appoint an agent!?

that concerning the husband himself we learned that he cannot nullify today the vows that his wife will make, and nevertheless he can appoint an agent!?

For this is what we learned in tractate Nedarim 75a:

One who says to his wife

when he is leaving his home: “

All vows that you vow from now

from the time I leave

until I return from a certain place shall be upheld”

has said nothing.

And if he said: “All vows that you vow from now until I return from a certain place

are annulled,”

the tannaim disagreed concerning the matter:

Rabbi Eliezer says: They are annulled,

and the reason is explained in the Mishna there: It is based on a kal va-chomer: If he can annul vows that have entered into the state of prohibition, shall he not annul vows that have not entered into the state of prohibition?

And the Sages say: They are not annulled,

for the Torah said: “Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it.” The verse juxtaposed annulment with upholding, to teach: That which can come into the state of being upheld can come into the state of being annulled; that which cannot come into the state of being upheld cannot come into the state of being annulled, as this reason is explained in the Mishna there.

And the Gemara concludes the question from Rabbi Yoshiya’s words against the foundation that was established:

It might have entered the questioner’s mind

that

when Rabbi Yoshiya said

that it is only because of the exclusion in the verse that the guardian cannot annul,

he was speaking according to the opinion of the Rabbis,

that is what he said,

for the Rabbis say:

the Rabbis:

the husband is unable

the husband

to annul

today the vows of his wife that she has not yet vowed.

And

in any event, Rabbi Yoshiya holds that

had the Merciful One not said: “

Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it,”

the guardian would have been able to annul.

We have therefore learned: Although the husband himself cannot annul at the time the agency is appointed, he can appoint an agent who will annul at a later time.

And we answer:

Perhaps

Rabbi Yoshiya

was speaking according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer—

he was the one who said that, because of the verse “Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it,” the guardian cannot annul—

for he says:

even the husband himself

is able to annul

today what his wife will vow in the future.

And we challenge this: It is demonstrated from the matter itself that the husband cannot annul today, for

if so,

if, as you say, the husband himself can annul today what his wife will vow, then

why does the husband need

the husband

to appoint an agent? Let him annul it himself

[let the husband himself annul it] when he sets out on his journey!?

And we answer: In fact, the husband can annul today, and therefore he can also appoint the guardian for this purpose. The reason that the husband himself does not annul—when he sets out on his journey—what his wife will vow is that

he holds

the husband:

perhaps I will forget or become angry

or be preoccupied

[perhaps I will forget, become angry, or be preoccupied].

That is: He does not wish to rely on his annulment when he sets out on his journey, lest he forget at that time or be preoccupied.

Mishna:

One who says: “

It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite,”

and his fellow heard and said: “

And I, and it is incumbent upon me

to shave half a nazirite.”

Behold,

Thus

this one,

the first,

shaves a complete nazirite, and this one

the second

shaves a complete nazirite; these are the words of Rabbi Meir,

and the Gemara will explain this.

And the Sages say: This one shaves half a nazirite, and this one shaves half a nazirite.

The same dispute applies when one says, “It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite.”

Gemara:

Rava said

to explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

Everyone

Rabbi Meir and the Sages

agrees:

That

wherever one says: “

The offerings of a half-nazirite are incumbent upon me,”

he

brings only half an offering,

for it is only a half-offering that he

brings

[he brings]. Since he placed the word “half” far from “nazirite,” the implication is that “half” refers not to the nazirite but to the offerings. Therefore, he becomes obligated to bring half the offerings, as he said.

And everyone agrees that if he said, “

The offerings of half a nazirite are incumbent upon me”—meaning, “I undertake the offerings of ‘half a nazirite,’” since he juxtaposed the word “half” with “nazirite”—

then

he must bring the entire offering

[he brings all the offerings of a nazirite].

And

what is the reason

that if he obligates himself to bring the offerings of “half a nazirite,” he is obligated to bring a complete offering?

Because

we find no nazirite status for half

[there is no obligation involving half a nazirite anywhere]. Therefore, it is as though he undertook to bring the offerings of a complete nazirite.

And when do they disagree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages?

In a case where he said

in the wording of the Mishna

[in the wording taught in our Mishna], namely, when he said, “It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite”; this is when they

disagree.

Since in this wording the word “half” refers to “incumbent upon me,” it is as though he said, “Half the offerings of a nazirite are incumbent upon me,” and according to all opinions he should have become obligated only for half the offerings of a nazirite. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree concerning this, because we divide his statement into two parts:

A. “It is incumbent upon me to shave,” which implies a complete shaving.

B. “Half a nazirite,” which implies that he became obligated only for half the offerings of a nazirite.

And

Rabbi Meir holds:

Since he said

the first statement: “

It is incumbent upon me

to shave”—he has already

become obligated for the entire nazirite offering,

for “we follow the first expression.”

And when he says “

half a nazirite,”

he has no power to alter it.

When he said “half a nazirite,” implying that he became obligated for only half the offerings of a nazirite, he cannot contradict his initial statement.

And

whereas

the Sages hold: It is a vow accompanied by an opening

[explained on page 9a].

Mishna:

One who says: “

I am hereby a nazirite

for

when I will have a son,”

But if

and a son is born to him, he is a nazirite.

But if

a daughter is born to him

or

a tumtum

[whose genitalia are concealed]

or an androgynos

[or an androgynos, who has both male and female genitalia],

he is not a nazirite,

because these are not considered [a son]. He accepted naziriteship upon himself as praise and thanksgiving for the fact that God had graced him and granted him a son, and he intended only to count [a son].

And

if he said: “

I am a nazirite

when I see

a child of mine,”

then

even

if

a daughter is born to him

or

a tumtum or an androgynos, he is a nazirite.

He said: “I will be a nazirite when I have a son,”

We learned in the Mishna:

And he sprinkles on the third and seventh days, and it cancels the earlier days,

and he begins counting only after he becomes pure:

The tannaim disagreed: From what point does a nazirite who became impure begin counting his period of pure naziriteship? There are four opinions concerning this matter [as explained above, on page 18]:

Rabbi’s opinion: From the time when he is fit to bring his offerings, even if he has not yet brought them—that is, on the eighth day [and it was explained there: If “night is not considered a lacking of time,” he begins counting from the night of the eighth day; and if “night is considered a lacking of time,” he begins counting from the morning of the eighth day].

The opinion of the Sages: After he has brought his sin-offering, even if he has not yet brought his guilt-offering and burnt-offering.

The opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer: From the seventh day of his impurity, after the shaving, the second sprinkling, and the immersion, even before sunset.

The opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka: After he has brought his sin-offering and guilt-offering, even though he has not brought his burnt-offering.

They raised a dilemma:

The statement that it teaches

in our Mishna, “And he does not begin counting—his pure naziriteship—

until he becomes pure,”

to which purity did the tanna refer? Is he

standing on the

day

of the seventh—

that is, the tanna is speaking of the nazirite on the seventh day, on which the nazirite shaves, receives the second sprinkling from the waters of the red heifer, and immerses himself, and he says that he should not begin counting until he becomes pure on that day, namely, through immersion?

And whose opinion is it,

who is the tanna of our Mishna?

It is Rabbi Eliezer,

who said above, on 18b, “He begins counting immediately,” that is, on the seventh day after he immerses.

Or perhaps: He is standing on the eighth day,

meaning that the tanna is speaking of the nazirite on his eighth day and is telling him not to begin counting immediately.

And

if so,

what does “until he becomes pure” mean? Until he brings his offerings,

which he must bring on the eighth day.

And whose opinion is it,

our Mishna?

It is the opinion of the Sages,

who hold above, on 18b, that the nazirite does not begin counting his pure naziriteship until he brings his sin-offering on the eighth day.

The Gemara resolves the dilemma:

Come and hear: Since the latter clause teaches

in the next Mishna—which principally explains the distinctions between the impurities stated in our Mishna and other impurities stated there—“But for branches and protrusions, he does not cancel the earlier days, and he

begins counting immediately” [

on the seventh day, because for those impurities he does not bring an impurity offering at all], and it does not say, “until he becomes pure”—

if so, one must necessarily infer:

The first clause,

in which the tanna taught using the wording, “And he does not begin counting until he becomes pure,” rather than the wording used in the latter clause, “and he begins counting immediately”—

what does “

until he becomes pure” mean?

Until he brings his offerings,

because if in our Mishna too the reference is to the seventh day after immersion, then that is the same time as in the latter clause, so why did the tanna change his wording?

And it necessarily follows that

whose opinion is it

our Mishna?

It is the opinion of the Sages, who say: Pure naziriteship does not take effect until the eighth day,

that is, until he brings his offerings on the eighth day.

that is, until he brings his offerings on the eighth day.

The Mishna before us is a continuation of the preceding Mishna, in which the impurities were explained that, if the nazirite becomes impure through them, he must invalidate the count of his naziriteship, shave, bring the impurity offering, and begin counting again after bringing the offering.

Our Mishna comes to explain that the law is not the same with regard to other impurities. Rather, even though the days of impurity do not count toward his naziriteship, nevertheless he does not invalidate the preceding days, nor is he obligated to shave or bring an impurity offering.

Mishna:

But:

the overhanging branches and projecting stones

[what these are will be explained in the Gemara,] one who enters beneath them is impure by rabbinic decree.

And a field over which a grave was plowed,

a field in which a grave was plowed, and one who enters there becomes impure by rabbinic decree, lest the plow loosened bones and scattered them throughout the field, and a barley-grain-sized bone remained there, imparting impurity through contact and carrying.

And the land of the nations,

for the Sages decreed impurity upon lands outside Eretz Yisrael: if one touched or carried their soil.

The Gemara will explain in what manner the land of the nations imparts impurity when one enters it without touching or carrying its clod of earth.

And the golel

the stone slab lying over the grave.

And the dofek

the stones against which the grave slab rests; they impart seven-day impurity to one who touches them or provides shade over them.

For this is how the Sages expounded the verse: “And whoever touches the surface of the open field—inclusive of the golel and dofek—shall be impure for seven days.”

And a quarter-log of blood

from a corpse, which imparts impurity through contact, carrying, and a tent, but he shaves only for a half-log of blood, as explained in the preceding Mishna.

And a tent over a quarter-

kab

of bones

of a corpse, meaning, that he became impure through a quarter-kab of bones by the impurity of a tent alone.

And wooden vessels

of wood

that come into contact with a corpse,

which become a primary source of impurity, and one who touches them becomes impure with “impurity lasting until evening.”

a. “When a person has a mark of leprosy, he shall be brought to the priest.”

The priest examines the mark, and if it has signs of impurity, the priest immediately declares him impure, and he is a confirmed leper.

At times the priest confines him for seven days, once or twice, to see whether signs of impurity will appear in him; after that, the priest either declares him a confirmed leper or declares him pure.

Those days during which he is confined are called “the days of his confinement.”

b. The days from the time the priest declared him impure and confirmed him as a leper until the leprosy has healed from the leper are called “the days of his confirmed status” [or “the days of his being confirmed.”]

c. Once the mark has healed, the leper brings two birds. One is slaughtered over living water.

The priest dips the live bird, together with cedar wood, crimson wool, and hyssop, into the water mixed with the blood of the slaughtered bird.

And he sprinkles some of the water upon the leper.

And the live bird is sent away over the open field.

The leper shaves off all his hair and then immerses in a ritual bath, and counts seven days during which he sits outside his tent; these are called “the days of his counting.”

On the seventh day he shaves a second time, and then immerses.

On the eighth day he brings his offerings.

And

a leper

during the days of his counting

during the seven days that he counts after the mark has healed,

and during the days of his confirmed status

during the days after the priest confirmed him as impure and until the mark has healed.

With regard to

all

these

that were mentioned, if the nazirite becomes impure through them:

the nazirite does not shave

the shaving for impurity.

And

the nazirite

is sprinkled on the third and seventh days

of his impurity with the water of the ashes of the red heifer, like other impure persons.

The Gemara will explain with regard to which impurities—from among those taught in our Mishna—the Mishna says that he requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days.